MIA > Archive > Foster > Syndicalism
Syndicalism is a revolutionary labor union movement and philosophy calculated to answer all the needs of the working class in its daily struggles, in the revolution, and in the organization of the new society. It rejects entirely and bitterly opposes the working class political movement — whose chief representative is the international Socialist Party — which has set the same task for itself.
Syndicalism’s rejection of political action and opposition to the Socialist movement are due to: (1) the superiority of direct action to political action; (2) that the Syndicalist and Socialist movements are rivals and cannot co-operate.
Achievements of Direct Action and Political Action.— The superiority of direct action to political action in winning concessions from capitalism is clearly seen in a comparison of the achievements to date of the direct action and political action movements.
All over the world practically all substantial concessions, such as shortening of the working day, increases of wages, protection in industry, etc., wrung by the workers from their masters, have been won through the medium of the labor unions. The political parties, on the other hand, have accomplished practically nothing for the working class. Karl Kautsky, a prominent Socialist writer, writing of what the workers have accomplished by political action in Germany — where they have by far the largest political party in the country — says:
“The period of rapid change after the fall of Bismarck brought some little progress in Germany and France. In 1891 was enacted the law which established for women — who until then were unprotected — the eleven-hour maximum workday. In 1892 this regulation was also introduced in France.”
“That was all! Since then no progress worthy of the name has been achieved. In Germany we have, in the entire seventeen years, come so far that just now the ten-hour workday for women has been established. The male workers remain fully unprotected. On the field of protection for male workers, as well as those of all other social reforms, complete stagnation reigns.”[12]
This is the proud seventeen-year record of the great German Socialist Party, which has absorbed untold efforts of German revolutionists. Its previous twenty-five years of history are even still more barren of results. Compared to the achievements of the German labor unions, which, by no means, use modern tactics, the petty conquests of the Socialist Party dwindle into insignificance. The labor unions, though considered of minor importance and neglected, and even opposed, by the political leaders of the German working class, have in all cases secured the great advances in wages, shortening the workday, and other important benefits, too numerous to mention, for their members. Had the workers composing them been without labor unions and dependent solely upon the Socialist Party to defend their interests, they would have been reduced to a condition of serfdom.
The same political stagnation that Kautsky complains of in Germany exists in every capitalist country. This is especially true of the United States, where the workers, in spite of their continual dabbling in politics, have gained practically nothing by political action. Wherever they enjoy higher standards of living, safeguards in industry, etc., these are directly traceable to their labor unions. Unorganized workers are ordinarily wretched slaves suffering the lowest standards of living, the greatest exploitation and exposure to danger in industry. They lead the mere animal existence and are a fair example of what workers of all kinds would be were they destitute of labor unions.
Reasons for Superiority of Direct Action.— The chief cause for the greater success of the labor unions than the political party is found in the superior efficacy of direct action to political action. The former is a demonstration of real power, the latter merely an expression of public sentiment. A couple of instances, taken from late labor history, will illustrate the point:
During the recent Lawrence textile strike, 24,000 workers, in the course of a couple of months, won important concessions in wages and improved working conditions, not only for themselves, but also for some 350,000 other workers in the same industry who took no part in the strike. In England, 1,000,000 coal miners, during their recent short strike, forced the British government to adopt the so-called “revolutionary” minimum wage bill. This strike shattered the long-accepted doctrine of irresponsible relations between employer and employed in England. It is now coming to be a recognized principle that the workers have a right to a living wage at least.
For either of these groups of workers to have secured the same ends by political action would have been next to impossible. Of themselves alone they never could have done so, as minorities are negligible quantities in politics. To have accomplished even then preliminary steps to such victories they would have had to secure the political support of practically the whole working class. Even then they would have had no guarantee that their efforts had not all been in vain, as the financial powers — who are only to be coerced by demonstrations of force — have time and again flagrantly disobeyed the political mandates of the working class. The many working class laws declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court and the hundreds of “dead letter” laws on the statute books of the various states are sufficient proof of the masters’ contempt for working class political action. It is to be remarked that the Supreme Court hasn’t the power to declare unconstitutional the eight-hour work day, improved working conditions, or any other concessions won by direct action, even though they have been won by the most insignificant minority of workers. This is as an eloquent testimonial to the efficacy of direct action.
Another tribute to the value of direct action — next in importance to the growth of the Syndicalist movement itself — is the growing tendency of Socialist politicians to recognize and concede functions to the labor unions. At first these politicians could see no good whatever in the labor unions and openly fought them.[13] However, little by little, they have had to, at least partially, recognize their worth and to quit their open warfare upon them, until now they have been universally forced to assign to them the task of maintaining the standard of living of the workers under capitalism. Many European Socialists even advocate winning the universal franchise by the general strike, which they have vainly tried to win by political action. The Belgian Socialist Party took this humiliating stand at its last convention.
Another cause of the inferior achievements of working class political action is that the Socialist Party does not take advantage of even the slight opportunities it has to help the workers. The Socialist Party, all over the world, unlike the labor unions, which are composed solely of workers with common economic interests, is composed of individuals of all classes — however conflicting their interests may be. It necessarily organizes on the basis of political opinion, not economic interests. The non-working class elements control it everywhere and inject themselves into whatever offices the party wins. Once in office these ambitious politicians fritter away their time with various vote-catching schemes, such as the reduction of taxes, “clean government,” “social peace,” etc., while the working class is starving. They neglect to exploit even the few opportunities political action offers to improve the conditions of the working class.
Political Action as a Revolutionary Weapon.— In addition to being superior to the political party in accomplishments to date, the labor unions are also manifestly superior as the means to bring about the revolution.
Socialists, from time to time, have endorsed several theories for the expropriation of the capitalist class. The founders of Socialism, under the influence of the French revolutions, believed that the workers would violently seize control of the government and expropriate the capitalists. This theory was almost universally held by Socialists until the military systems in Europe reached the point of development where a mere fraction of the people, in the army, could defeat the balance in open warfare.[14] It was succeeded by the ridiculous makeshift theory that the workers, after capturing the government by the ballot, will peacefully vote the capitalists’ expropriation — the latter being supposed to stand unresistingly by while their property is being “legally” taken away from them. This absurd notion is in turn being supplanted by the theory that the workers, after getting control of the government, will buy the industries from their present owners. Modern Socialists, with but few exceptions, generally endorse one or the other of these two latter theories. We will consider them in turn.
Confiscation Without Remuneration.— Forty-three years ago, [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, who believed “the social question a question of power, and, like all questions of power, to be settled on the streets and battlefields,” disposed of those dreamers who supposed the capitalists will allow their property to be voted away from them. In his pamphlet “Die politische Stellung der Socialdemokratie, etc.,” amongst other gems he has the following: “However, let it be accepted that the government makes no use of its power, and, as is the dream of some Socialistic ‘phantasy politicians,’ a Socialist majority of the Reichstag is secured — what would this majority do? Hic rhodus hic salta. This is the moment to revolutionize society and the State. The majority passes a ‘world’s historical’ law, the new era is born — alas, no; a company of soldiers chase the Socialists out of the temple. And, if the gentlemen don’t submit to this calmly, a couple of policemen will escort them to the city jail, where they will have time to think over their quixotic project.”
Since Liebknecht wrote the above the developments have all been such as to render it still more unlikely that the capitalists can be “legally” expropriated without remuneration. Not only has the Socialist Party become so conservative that it is inconceivable that it could ever rise to the revolutionary heights of Liebknecht’s supposed parliamentary majority, but even representative government itself is, as far as the workers are concerned, obsolete. The great capitalist interests have corrupted it root and branch. They buy wholesale whatever legislators, judges, etc., they need, just as they buy other commodities necessary in their industries.[15] If the puppet government, for some reason or other, does anything contrary to their wishes, they either coerce it into reasonableness again or calmly ignore it. To suppose that this lickspittle institution, and especially under the stimulus of the Socialists, can ever forcibly expropriate the capitalists, is absurd.
Confiscation With Remuneration.— The Socialist plan of buying the industries is also a dream. The capitalists will never voluntarily sell the industries that lay them their golden eggs. If they do dispose of them to the State it will only be because the new financial arrangements suit them better. The inherently weak State can never force them to make a bargain unfavorable to themselves. To do this will require power, and this power lies alone in direct action.
But it is idle to even speculate on the aroused workers cowardly stooping to try to buy back the industries stolen from them. When the psychological moment arrives, the working class, hungering for emancipation, will adopt the only method at its disposal and put an end to capitalism with the general strike, as outlined in a previous chapter.
Thus, in both achievements to date and in promise for the future, direct action is far superior to political action. The political party has accomplished almost nothing in the past and offers even less promise for the future; whereas the labor union has won practically all the conquests of the workers in the past and also offers them the only means to the revolution.
The Syndicalist movement does not co-operate with, but, on the contrary, opposes the Socialist movement, because, from long experience, it has learned that the two movements are rivals to each other and cannot co-operate together. This rivalry flows naturally from the conflicting theories upon which the two movements are built.
The Socialist “Two Wings” Theory.— According to this universal Socialist theory the many problems faced by the working class in its battle for industrial freedom are of two distinct and separate kinds, viz., political and economic. It is asserted that these questions are so fundamentally different that two distinct organizations must be built to solve them; one, the Socialist Party, to operate solely in the political “field,” and the other, the labor unions, to operate solely on the economic “field.” The two “wings” of the labor movement are thus to complement each other, each devoting itself to its peculiar problems.
According to this theory the Socialist Party is by far the most important organization of the two, as the political questions, over whose solution it has sole jurisdiction, are much more numerous and important than the economic questions under the jurisdiction of the labor unions. Indeed, according to it, the labor unions are merely auxiliaries to the political party in its great work of the emancipation of the working class. Their chief functions are to hold up the standard of living of the workers’[16] “to mitigate, as far as possible, the ravages of capitalism” by acting as benefit associations, and to serve as voting machines until the political party shall have overthrown capitalism.
The Syndicalist Theory.— The Syndicalists quarrel violently with the “two wings” theory, which gives to the labor unions functions of minor importance. They maintain that there is but one kind of industrial question — the economic — and that but one working class organization the — labor unions — is necessary. They assert that the so-called political “field” does not exist and that the Socialist Party is a usurper. They have proven time and again that they can solve the many so-called political questions by direct action. By strikes, sabotage, etc., they force governments to take swift action on old age pensions, minimum wages, militarism, international relations, child labor, sanitation of workshops, mines, etc., and many other questions supposedly under the natural jurisdiction of the Socialist Party. And, as has been pointed out, the Syndicalists have no need for the Socialist Party, neither in the accomplishment of the revolution nor in the organization of the new society — the labor unions also sufficing for these tasks. The Syndicalists insist that the labor unions alone represent the interests of the working class and that the Socialist Party is an interloper and a parasite.[17]
The result of these opposing conceptions of the functions of the labor union is a world-wide fight between political and direct actionists for the control of the labor union movement. Both are endeavoring to model it according to their theories. The Socialists are trying to subordinate it to the Socialist Party and the Syndicalists are bitterly contesting this attempt and trying to give the labor union its full development.
Causes of the War.— The fight between the Syndicalists and Socialists is inevitable. On the one hand, the Syndicalists, believing in the all-sufficiency of the labor union, naturally resist all Socialist attempts to limit its functions, while, on the other hand, the Socialists, for the sake of their party, are forced to combat the encroachments of the labor union. This latter statement admits of easy explanation. The first consideration for the success of the Socialist program is the capture of the State by the Socialist Party. To do this requires the support of practically the entire working class. Logically, any influence tending to alienate any of this support is an enemy to the Socialist Party and is treated as such. Everyday experience teaches that revolutionary labor unions, by winning great concessions for their members, by successfully operating in the so-called political “field,” and by carrying on an incessant anti-political campaign — which is inevitable if a union is to escape the political apron strings and take vigorous action — have a decided tendency to make these workers slight, or even reject entirely, the much-promising but little-accomplishing Socialist Party.
The Socialists have noted this and correctly view the Syndicalist movement — even as the Syndicalists do the Socialist movement — as a rival to their own. They recognize that every great victory it wins pulls working class support from their party and is a defeat for their movement, and that every defeat the Syndicalist movement suffers, by driving workers back to the Socialist Party, is a victory for the latter. They know that the Syndicalist and Socialist movements, both claiming jurisdiction over the whole working class, cannot exist in harmony. Hence, they logically fight the Syndicalist movement and attempt to subordinate the labor unions to the Socialist Party. In their efforts to conserve the interests of the Socialist Party they even go so far as to deliberately break strikes, and thus compromise the interests of the working class. Modern labor history is full of such instances. To cite but a few:
Socialist Treachery.— In 1904-6 the French labor unions, in the face of strong Socialist opposition, carried on a vigorous national propaganda for a universal eight-hour day, to take effect May 1, 1906. As the appointed day approached an epidemic of strikes broke out all over France and a revolution seemed imminent. At this critical juncture, the Socialist journal “Le Reveil du Nord” “discovered” that the whole movement was a conspiracy to overthrow the republic and re-establish the monarchy. The government, using the supposed conspiracy as a pretext, threw some 50,000 troops into Paris and many of the strike leaders into jail. This action, coupled with the evil effects on the workers of such a statement coming from so-called revolutionists, unquestionably did much to detract from the success of the movement.[18]
In 1910, the French railroad unions declared a national general strike on all the railroads in France. The Socialists, fearing the consequences to their political party of such a great direct-action victory as this strike promised to be, deliberately broke the strike by keeping at work the railroaders on the strategic East R. R., whose unions they dominated. This road, the most strongly organized in France, at the behest of the notorious Socialist Prime Minister Briand, hauled scabs and soldiers to break the strike. The failure of the East R. R. to strike threw confusion into the ranks of strikers and the strike was almost completely lost. It was, though a wonderful exhibition of the power of direct action, in many respects a great Syndicalist defeat, and, consequently, indirectly, a great Socialist victory.
Arnold Roller, in his pamphlet, “The Social General Strike,” cites many similar instances of Socialist betrayal of working class interests. To quote but one:
“In February, 1902, the proletariat of Barcelona rose under the call of the general strike and was able to resist the police and army for a whole week. Pablo Iglesias, the leader of the Spanish Social Democracy, requested his followers everywhere to act as strike breakers and denunciators of the general strike. In some districts the Socialists even went so far as to send, during the general strike struggle, deputations to the government to announce their loyalty and to assure them that they, as law-abiding citizens, had nothing to do with the ‘revolt.’”
The Campaign Against Direct Action.— In addition to fighting Syndicalism by breaking revolutionary strikes, Socialists universally combat it by carrying on a continual warfare upon it in all its manifestations, both in and out of the unions. Indeed, it is one of the regular functions of Socialist politicians to drug labor unions into quietude by telling the workers by word and pen what cannot be done by direct action.[19]
The Socialists are naturally inveterate enemies of the general strike — the general strike many of them favor as the means to the conquest of the universal suffrage is distinctly understood to be very different to the general strike of the Syndicalists; it is an auxiliary to political action, not a substitute for it—and they have even forbidden the discussion of it in the German labor unions. They are also rabid opponents of sabotage. Pouget, in “Le Sabotage,” says that in the C. G. T. conventions in France the number of Socialist delegates present could always be determined by the vote against sabotage as a working class weapon. At its last convention the American Socialist Party showed itself “true to name” by adopting a resolution recommending the expulsion of all party members advocating the use of sabotage.
Retaliation by Syndicalists and Some Consequences.— The Syndicalists are not tamely submitting to these attacks from the Socialists but are vigorously resisting them. Their opposition is carried on chiefly by a campaign of anti-parliamentarism, by abstainence from voting and by getting control of the labor unions and plainly showing them to be more effective organizations than the Socialist Party.
In France, where the Syndicalists have secured almost complete control of the labor unions, they have clearly shown the inherent conflict of jurisdiction between the Syndicalist and Socialist movements, and the necessity for the subjugation of the former to the latter if they are to co-operate together. A couple of years ago the Socialist Party had an old-age pension bill (popularly known as “Viviani’s old-age pensions for the dead”) enacted. The C. G. T., the French general labor organization, condemned the law and decided to resist its enforcement by all the means at its disposal. In the resultant attempt of the government to force the law upon the unwilling workers the Socialist Party openly allied itself with the government against the C. G. T.
This incident made it clear that if the labor movement is to be spared the humiliation of having one of its “wings” fighting against what the other one has fought for, either the labor unions must be subordinated to the Socialist Party and forced to unquestioningly accept whatever doubtful bargains it makes, or the Socialist Party must go out of existence.
“The Nigger in the Woodpile.”— This unseemly warfare between the two “wings” of the labor movement may seem incomprehensible to the novice. He may ask: “If the two movements are incompatible, and if the Syndicalist movement has proven itself so far superior to the Socialist movement, why isn’t the Socialist Party given up and the labor unions developed?” The explanation is simple: Though there are undoubtedly many sincere workers who honestly believe in the superiority of political action to direct action, and who are conscientiously active in the upbuilding of the Socialist Party, they are but a minor factor in the latter’s constant betrayal of the interests of the workers. This is natural, as it is incomprehensible that rebel workers would deliberately betray their own interests for the sake of an organization that wins them nothing. The real force behind the Socialist war on Syndicalism is the horde of doctors, lawyers, preachers and other non-working class elements universally infesting and controlling the Socialist Party. These elements, who have no economic interests in common with the workers, see in the working class revolt simply a fine opportunity to worm themselves into the innumerable rich places of power and affluence in the State. Consequently they defend, by sophistry and treachery to the working class, the political movement necessary to their conquest of the State.
The prosaic, but aspiring, Syndicalist movement, with its few miserable official positions — the C. G. T. of France has but three regularly paid officials at $50.00 per month each — which are, moreover, often fraught with great personal danger of imprisonment, has no attractions for the ambitious politicians. The fact that it is more effective in defending the interests of the working class than is the Socialist Party is of no moment to them. It doesn’t “pay” as good as the Socialist Party, and, as it is a competitor of the latter, it must be suppressed.
Harmonizers of Socialism and Syndicalism.— There is a group of Socialists in the United States who are attempting to harmonize the Socialist political movement and the revolutionary direct-action movement on a somewhat original theory. They would have the labor movement consist of revolutionary labor unions on the one hand, and the Socialist Party on the other. The labor unions would be the superior organization, the Socialist Party being a sort of helper to them. The functions of the Socialist Party are described by Wm. D. Haywood and Frank Bohn in their pamphlet, “Industrial Socialism,” p. 54: “The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of government and thus prevent them from being used by the capitalists against the workers. With Socialists in political offices the workers can strike and not be shot. They can picket shops and not be arrested and imprisoned. Freedom of speech and of the press, now often abolished by the tyrannical capitalists, will be secured to the working class. Then they can continue the shop organization and the education of the workers. To win the demands made on the industrial field it is absolutely necessary to control the government, as experience shows strikes to have been lost through the interference of courts and militia.”
At first glance this plan of capturing the State solely for the purpose of preventing the use of the courts and armed forces against the workers seems plausible, but experience has shown it to be impracticable. As pointed out earlier, to carry out any national political program involves the construction of a great political organization. This, as has been time and again demonstrated, the workers refuse to do unless it can win important concessions for them — which is impossible — or the workers have not yet learned the value of direct action — which condition the Industrial Socialists by no means desire. Let the workers once get this knowledge — as Haywood and Bohn would have them — and they will build up their labor unions and desert the barren Socialist Party. They will also be inevitably forced to fight the latter in defending their unions from the attacks of the designing Socialist politicians, who will strenuously resist all attempts to strip their party of power or prestige. Vague expectations of one day being able to use the armed forces in their own interests — expectations which have been sadly disappointed wherever Socialists have gotten into power — will never prove a sufficient incentive to make the direct actionists perform the huge, if not impossible, task of purging the Socialist Party of its non-working class elements and building up the political organization necessary to capture the State. An organization which, moreover, would be cursed with all the weaknesses of parliamentarism and, consequently, foredoomed to failure.
Besides the inherent and incurable jurisdictional quarrel between the Syndicalist and Socialist movements there are numerous other matters over which they are in direct conflict. A few of these will be discussed:
Society.— A fundamental point of conflict between Syndicalists and Socialists is their respective attitude towards Society. The Socialist Party announces itself as the party of Society and proposes to defend its interests even before those of the working class. Karl Kautsky, the well-known German Socialist writer, expresses the Socialist position when he says: “Social development stands higher than the interests of the proletariat, and the Socialist Party cannot protect proletariat interests which stand in the way of social development.”[20]
The chief result of this theory and the reason for its invention is that in great strikes, where the welfare of Society is alleged to be in danger, the Socialists have a good excuse for breaking these strikes. This was the excuse of the Socialists for keeping the railroaders at work during the recent great Swedish strike. Recently Emile Vandervelde, the leader of the Belgian Socialists, questioned as to his attitude to strikers in the public service, in case he became elected Minister, replied: “What would I do? Exactly what we do when there is a strike in the personnel of one of our co-operatives. I would exhaust all the means of conciliation; I would do everything to avoid the struggle. But, if in spite of my efforts, the strike broke out I would say to the personnel:‘I have exhausted all means of conciliation, I have satisfied your demands as far as possible, but I can concede nothing more without compromising the general welfare. And now, since you force me to defend this general welfare against the tyranny of your trade interest, I oppose to your incontestable right to strike, the right, not less incontestable, to replace you by workers more devoted to the interests of the community.’“[21] Thus the government employes are warned that if they strike they will be replaced by Socialist scabs.
The Syndicalist takes no cognizance of Society. He is interested only in the welfare of the working class and consistently defends it. He leaves the rag-tag mass of parasites that make up the non-working class part of Society to look after their own interests. It is immaterial to him what becomes of them so long as the working class advances. He is not afraid of “turning the wheels of progress backward,” in thus constantly confining himself to the interests of the working class, as he knows that by freeing the working class entirely he will give social development the greatest stimulus it has ever known.
The State.— The Socialist is a statist. He considers the State as the logical directing force of Society and proposes to perpetuate it in the future society by confiding to its care the ownership and management of all the industries. He is a vigorous advocate of “law and order” and preaches implicit obedience to the State’s mandates, good, bad and indifferent. He recognizes the legal rights of the capitalists to their property and proposes to change the laws that he says give them this ownership.
The Syndicalist, on the other hand, is strictly an anti-statist. He considers the State a meddling capitalist institution. He resists its tyrannical interference in his affairs as much as possible and proposes to exclude it from the future society. He is a radical opponent of “law and order,” as he knows that for his unions to be “legal” in their tactics would be for them to become impotent. He recognizes no rights of the capitalists to their property, and is going to strip them of it, law or no law.
Constant quarrels rage between the Syndicalists and the Socialists over this matter of legality; the Socialists trying to make the unions “legal” and the Syndicalists trying to make them effective. There is grave danger that in some great revolutionary crisis — which is bound to be “illegal” — the Socialists, in their zeal for “law and order,” and the preservation of the State, will ally themselves with the capitalists and proceed to extremes against the outlaw Syndicalists, and thus lead the workers to a terrible defeat. This tendency is already a marked one, as the cited instance of the old-age pension bill in France proves.
Patriotism and Militarism.— The Socialist is necessarily a patriot and a militarist. According to his theory, for the workers of a given country to emancipate themselves, they must control their government. Naturally, for this government to have any power it is necessary that it enjoy political independence. Hence the Socialist considers each nation justified in warring on other nations to secure or maintain this independence. The international Socialist Party stands committed to this patriotic policy. This, of course, involves militarism, and Socialists the world over are militarists. August Bebel, the German Socialist leader, in his book, “Nicht Stehendes Heer, sondern Volkswehr,” urged that, in order to the better defend Germany, every able-bodied male should be a soldier from earliest boyhood to old age. He says school and work boys should be drilled during their spare time, Sundays, evenings, etc. Jaures, the noted French Socialist leader, advocates that the sons of labor union officials be placed in command of the companies of boy soldiers he would organize to defend France. The militarism of various other Socialist leaders, such as Ramsey McDonald of England, and Pablo Iglesias of Spain, is notorious.
The Syndicalist is a radical anti-patriot. He is a true internationalist, knowing no country. He opposes patriotism because it creates feelings of nationalism among the workers of the various countries and prevents co-operation between them, and also, because of the militarism it inevitably breeds. He views all forms of militarism with a deadly hatred, because he knows from bitter experience that the chief function of modern armies is to break strikes, and that wars of any kind are fatal to the labor movement. He depends solely on his labor unions for protection from foreign and domestic foes alike and proposes to put an end to war between the nations by having the workers in the belligerent countries go on a general strike and thus make it impossible to conduct wars.
This Syndicalist method of combating war is looked upon with violent disfavor by the Socialists, who consider war a political question and, therefore, no concern of the labor unions. A few years ago, during a Morocco crisis, the C. G. T. sent a delegate to the Socialist labor unions of Germany to organize an anti-war demonstration to propagate the plan of meeting a declaration of war by an international general strike. He was referred to the Socialist Party as having jurisdiction, and thus action on the matter was avoided. At the international Socialist convention, in Copenhagen, 1910, the German Socialist Party delegates successfully opposed a similar proposition on the grounds that the labor unions alone had authority to declare a general strike. Thus the Socialist politicians, on one occasion, referred the question to the Socialist Party, and on the other to the labor unions, and in both cases avoided taking action on this momentous question. This is a fair example of Socialist perfidy when the interests of the working class conflict with those of the Socialist Party.
The Syndicalist and Socialist movements have a hundred fundamental points of conflict. They are absolutely unharmonizable, either on the orthodox Socialist theory or that of the Industrial Socialists. The Syndicalists, realizing that the two movements cannot co-operate, have chosen the more efficient one, the direct action movement, and are developing it and vigorously fighting its natural enemy, the political movement. This fight is to the finish and the rebel worker must get “on one side of the barricade or the other.” He cannot stay on both sides. And if he calmly studies the two movements he will surely arrive at the Syndicalist conclusion that the direct action movement is the sole hope of the working class, and that the parasitic political movement, next to the capitalist class itself, is the most dangerous enemy of the working class.
[11] In this pamphlet the term “political action” is used in its ordinary and correct sense. Parliamentary action resulting from the enemies of the franchise is political action. Parliamentary action caused by the influence of direct action tactics, such as the passage of the minimum wage bill in England during the recent coal strike, is not political action. It is simply a registration of direct action.
[12] Kautsky, “Der Weg zur Macht.” p. 77. [English translation: The Road to Power.]
[13] An early German political argument against the labor unions was that they were relics of the old guilds, and that the workers composing them were the most reactionary or the working class.
[14] The failure of the Paris Commune was another factor in the rejection of this theory. (See chapter VII).
[15] The much-heralded custom of demanding signed resignations from Socialist candidates for office has proven a distinct failure in keeping Socialist office holders free from this universal corruption, which implies nothing short of the bankruptcy of representative government.
[16] This niggardly concussion was made to the labor unions by the politicians only when it could be no longer withheld.
[17] The same attitude obtains towards all other so-called working class political parties.
[18] Kritsky, “L’Evolution du Syndicalisme en France.” p. 359–370.
[19] The immense labor unions of Germany, which are controlled by the Socialists, are fair types of Socialist unions. They seldom strike, and never use modern tactics. Possessed of the latent power to overthrow capitalism they content themselves with serving as voting machines and mutual benefit societies.
[20] “Zur Agrar Frage,” p. 318.
[21] “Risveglio,” Geneva, May 25, 1912.
Last updated on 20 March 2023