Syndicalism No. 10 Q, IRISH MESSENGER” 1 o. BOOKS. SOCIAL ACTION SERIES. Syndicalism BY REV. J. JOY, S.J., M.A. Dublin OFFICE OF THE ‘'IRISH MESSENGER 5 GREAT DENMARK STREET 1914 Price One Penny JSltjt'I ffisstat: WILLIAM HENRY,' S.j. imjmim pcitrst : * GULIELMUS, Archiep. Dublinen., Hibernia Primas. The Irish Hierarchy and Social Questions Speaking of these questions, and of the evils of Socialism, Syndicalism, Stiikes, and Tock-outs, His Imminence the Cardinal, the Archbishops, and Bishops of Ireland, in their recent joint Pastoral, write as follows :—...... .. Th i5 se l subJ ects > indeed, cannot be too well understood bv the shepherds and guides of the people; and it is a great acquisition of strength on the side of right that they are discussed in a variety of excellent little Catholic publications that are within the reach of all, and that all may read with lasting advantage.” PRESS NOTICES. The Irish Ecclesiastical Record for January, 1914, speaking of the earlier books of the series, says : — “ We cannot too highly recommend the above seven pamphlets published at the Office of the Irish Messenger, 5 GreafDenmark Street, Dublin, at the price of one penny each. They are written, needless to say, in full harmony with the Catholic teaching on social questions, and come at the present time as a welcome contribution to the sadly vexed controversies that are troubling the Irish world of labour. ... We welcome these pamphlets for their intrinsic worth ; we recommend them heartily to our reverend readers as splendid material for distribution among the workers of their respective parishes ; but we also welcome them as evid- ences that the Irish clergy are willing and able to defend the cause of truth with the powerful influence of the printed word.” America writes :— “ The Editor of the Messenger of the Sacred Heart, which with its numerous cheap but precious publications, has rendered invaluable service in our day to Ireland’s material as well as spiritual interests, has met the demand (for social bet- terment) by announcing a continued series of popular booklets on the countless variety of subjects involved in the social ques- tion. . . . The first six pamphlets give promise of capable and practical work. Consisting each of about 8000 words in some twenty pages, they are popular in style and price, and more original in conception and exposition than one is wont to expect in such treatises. . . . The author . . . has mastered much more than a book knowledge of the subject.” DeabfcJM SYNDICALISM. The terms “ Syndicalism ” and “ Syndicalist ” have been freely used in recent controversies, and often with seemingly little appreciation of Aim of this their meaning. There seems to be Pamphlet. a haziness about this subject on the part of the man in the street, which it is the aim of the present pamphlet to remove in some degree. The limits of space and the very nature of the subject forbid anything like exhaustive or even adequate treatment, as will of course be evident to students of the countless protean modes and forms through which various social theories are evolving, never the same from day to day or place to place. Because these movements are living and not dead, it is a hopeless task to attempt to label them off and sort them into various categories and give exhaustive and final expositions or refutations. This pamphlet will attempt nothing so foolish in the case of Syndi- calism. The word “ Syndicalism ” is an immigrant from France. When in France it was originally innocent and void of terror, for “ Syndicalisme ” The Meaning means nothing more or less than tt of the Term trade unionism. But within the "Syndicalism.” ranh;S 0f French “Syndicalisme” or trade unionism, there arose two camps—“ Syndicalisme reformiste ” and “ Syndicalisme revo- lutionnaire” The former v/as law-abiding and orthodox ; the latter revolutionary and extreme. The English word “ Syndicalism ” is used exclusively for the latter doctrine. Hence this pamphlet shall not deal with 2 SYNDICALISM. “ Syndicalisme reformiste,” which is simply trade unionism, of a more or less orthodox type, and is in France propagated by the Syndicats jaunes or Yellow Unions. It will deal merely with the " Syndicalisme revolutionnaire ” propagated by the Syndicats rouges, or Red Unions, and the spread of its doctrines in other countries. Syndicalism, so understood, is in the main the social policy which, on its destructive side, advocates the upheaval of the present state of Syndicalist society by industrial methods of a Teaching in drastic and sometimes violent nature ; Brief. and, on constructive side, so far as it is at all constructive, the recon- struction of the ruins of the world on the basis of Trades Unions and Trades Unions alone. Class hatred is to it the breath of life. Improved relations between Capital and Labour would lessen the zest of Labour for the fight, and so the extreme Syndicalist will have none of it. Politics and a political State, even the Socialist State, stink in his nostrils. Hence the Syndicalist is very far from being a Socialist. He regards Socialism as being an out-of-date dogmatism, to be cast away into the lumber heap of the ages. The Socialist is con- servative enough to believe in the need for a State, and State machinery ; to the Syndicalist this need is a super- stition, the mother of a litter of other superstitions — patriotism, militarism, nationalism, and the rest. In the Syndicalist world there will be no strife, no conflict, no war ; all will be forbearance and peace between individuals and nations in the universal brotherhood of Trade Unionism. Such in rough, very rough, outline is extreme Syndicalism and the extreme Syndicalist. Though rough, yet this description will be shown to be not unfair, admitting, of course, that these doctrines are held in different degrees of completeness and intensity by various Syndicalists, and bodies of Syndicalists, according to local circumstances and temperament. SYNDICALISM. 3 We will examine these principles in greater detail later, having first cast a glance at the history, constitution, and strength of the movement. It is a disputed point when exactly and where Syndi- calism had its birth, or whether it is to be considered as a separate movement at all, but Rise o! we may with the majority of writers Syndicalism. regard it as separate and trace it to France and the last decade of the last century. It is, then, young in years, though rapidly ageing in experience. It was born of widespread discon- tent and unrest, due to increase in the cost of living, without corresponding increase in wages. Orthodox economic and political pressure was applied, but failed wholly or in great part to secure the desired redress. Genuine grievances, though serious enough in all con- science not to require exaggeration, have been mag- nified, when shown through the lenses of the literature of discontent. This literature, without giving the workingman any really well-grounded social education, has acquainted him with the social theories of many lands, and preached the solidarity of Labour. Thus the labour cause has become international : it has lost its parochial and even national character ; and this fact has been influential in the rise and spread of Syndicalism. For it would seem that the Syndicalism of these countries, if it does not owe its whole being and existence to French influences, yet certainly was brought to consciousness of itself by the formulation and crystallisation of its doctrines in the writings of the Syndicalist philosophers and propagandists of France—Sorel, Berth, Lagardelle, Griffuelhues, Pouget, Pataud, Yvetot, and the rest. France, too, has supplied a model for Syndicalist organisations in the Confedera- tion generate du travail. In the words of Ramsay MacDonald : “ France is the birthplace of Syndicalism and the General Confederation of Labour is its embodiment.” % 4 SYNDICALISM. Trade Unions were legalised in France in 1864, but even in the Congress of 1878 they disclaimed any Utopian ideas for the reform of the Preparing whole social order. They confined ^Syndicalism" th f, ir f ttel ? tion to mutual benefit and in France. collective bargaining on the old lines. But the Congress of 1879 Havre saw a change. A political Socialist party—the Guesdistes had been formed and now created a schism, and expelled the more moderate section of the Congress. Thus the 'seventies ended with a victory for political Socialism, and a new era opened up for labour in France, lasting till the rise of Syndicalism in 1895. The years that followed were full of domestic strife and schism in the Labour ranks, but the flow of the tide was towards extreme views. In 1888 the Congress at Bordeaux approved of the general strike. In 1892 was formed the Federation des Bourses du travail , and a resolution was passed to the effect that reliance must be put not in political efforts for legislation, but in an economic revolution, the general strike. In a sense this was the beginning of Syndicalism, but it did not take definite form till a few years later. In these few years there was a sharp struggle between the Federation and the Guesdistes , who defended political action. In 1894, at the Congress of Nantes, the Syndicalists, with the help of the able advocacy of M. Briand, who since has had such a strenuous political career, succeeded in condemning political action and expelling the Guesdistes from the Congress. Thus Syndicalism and Socialism were divorced, and Syndicalism began its separate career. The following year—1895—a new Society was formed — la Confederation du travail. This was at first in rivalry with the Federation des Origin and Aim Bourses du travail, but, being far of the C.G.T. inferior in zeal and revolutionary fervour, it eventually had to recog- nise its own futility, and amalgamated in 1902 with SYNDICALISM. 5 its old rival. The amalgamated Society was known as la Confederation generate du travail—the C.G.T., since become so familiar. The personnel and the spirit of the Federation des Bourses ruled the C.G.T., and in 1906 the new Society declared its indepen- dence of Socialism. This was not, however, without a struggle and a division, but those who favoured alliance with the political Socialists were defeated by an overwhelming majority. A resolution was then passed which was an official statement of Syndicalist ends and means. It declares that, while the C.G.T. will fight for immediate ameliorations, yet its ultimate object is expropriation of the capitalist class ; that its means will be the general strike ; that the Syndicat or Union is to be a group for production and distribution ; that individual Syndicalists may take part “ in any form of struggle which corresponds to his philosophical or political ideas/' but must not introduce politics into the Unions ; that “ direct action ” against the employers is most effective and the Confederation should be inde- pendent of all political parties. We may notice inci- dentally the weakness of the position of the Syndicalist who abuses and decries all political action within his union, and outside it throws himself with full vigour into political propaganda—usually Socialist. The C.G.T. has undoubtedly exercised great in- fluence in the economic warfare of France since its foundation. In 1905 it had 158,000 Strength and members ; in 1906, 203,273 members ; Influence of the thence the numbers rose to 357,814 C.G.! 1 . in jgI0 . 450,000 in 1911, and some- thing about 500,000 in 1912. The figures have been disputed ; but we may take it that the C.G.T. includes somewhat more than one-third of the organised labour of France. Now only one-tenth of the labour of France is organised, and so the C.G.T. repre- sents only, roughly, one-thirtieth of the manual workers. 6 SYNDICALISM* Furthermore, it has been estimated by Ramsay MacDonald that at least 250,000 of the members are opposed to the revolutionary programme of the Comite Confederal. Bearing these facts in mind we see that while the Syndicalist organisation in France may exercise, and has exercised great influence, still it has not the grip on the labour of France necessary for its sweeping programme. This fact is being realised within the ranks during the last few years. Violent methods have been tried and failed, and many of the members of the C.G.T. now favour political Violent Counsels action and more peaceful means of moderate* views® redress- The Secretary of the C.G.T. Syndicalism ’ declares that recruiting is becoming weakening. difficult : the C.G.T. “ seems like a wearied body whose activity re- laxes more and more each day.” A former secretary, M. Griffuelhues, says : “ There reigns in the Syndical world a deplorable state of mind, a profound ignorance of the necessity for action . . . the Syndical idea has lost its force and vigour. The Syndical movement is going through a crisis which may be fatal.” Pouget and Lagardelle might be quoted in a similar sense. The latter says that Syndicalism is being undermined on the one hand by Anarchism, and on the other by Guesdisme or political Socialism. Against Guesdisme, however, the C.G.T. declared again in 1912, at Havre, its independence of all politics. But, as we have already suggested, this independence is in great part destroyed by the fact that individual Syndi- calists take an active part in politics, usually in the Socialist ranks. Even within the unions, Lagardelle declares that there is “ a Syndicalist parliamentarianism as bad as the Socialist parliamentarianism.” From these and other quotations which might be given, it seems that, especially as regards recent years, Ramsay MacDonald's conclusion is near the mark ; “ Syndicalism SYNDICALISM. }r as a policy is absurdly weak and is not making progress even in France, its most suitable soil." A Syndicalist manifesto, published in 1912, by five of the militant leaders of the C.G.T., and approved of by the Congress, recognises this want of progress. It condemns individual, hasty or violent action, and recommends more moderation. This is suspect by some of being merely an opportunist recruiting move ; but it may be a sign of a return to a saner frame of mind in French Trade Unionism. In other respects also Syndicalism is becoming mellowed and mild. It now recognises the necessity of a strong war-chest, and no longer recommends living merely on enthusiasm. It has given over its contempt for numbers and the unthinking majority, and is troubled at its want of recruits. It is less centralised, more respectful of local needs and opinions. It no longer glories officially in violence, though it permits it. Some Syndicalists dis- card sabotage. They are becoming more reconciled to the idea of half the loaf till the whole is forthcoming. M. Keufer, Secretary of the Federation du Livre, con- gratulates himself on the fact that the revolutionary unions are becoming wise and practical. Niel, once Secretary of the C.G.T., and amongst the most re- spected of its leaders, has always fought against the theory that Syndicalism was out to convulse society, and has counselled the step-by-step advance along purely economic lines, with a clear head and practical grasp of the conditions and necessities of the hour. Now it would seem that slowly French Syndicalism is veering towards these saner and steadier views characteristic of the old steady, practical, John Bull Trade Unionism ; while English Trade Unionism has of recent years shown signs of trending towards the discarded doctrines and methods of French Syndical- ism ; though there are indications that even already it is recovering its temporary loss of balance, and that the Syndicalist influence is not considerable or lasting. 8 SYNDICALISM. Syndicalism has spread to most Syndicalism °* the important European countries, in other countries, to America, Australia, South Africa, and even Japan. The spontaneity with which it has been adopted makes for the theory that it is not the French system im- ported, but merely local Trades Unionism off its balance ; yet its leaders have always looked to France and French writers for inspiration and justification. Obviously it is impossible here to treat of the develop- ments of the movement in all these countries. Every- where it has certain common characteristics, but every- where also it has taken on a local colouring, and it would require a more pretentious volume than this to do justice to the movement as a whole. In America the Industrial Workers of the World—the “ I.W.W.”—is a vigorous Syndicalist organisation, helped considerably by the corruption so largely existing in American public life, against which it is in revolt. The violence and extent of the recent South African strike has been widely assigned to Syndicalist influence. In Germany Syndicalism as understood in France scarcely exists. It manifests itself merely in the peaceful “ political strike, ” which is not much more than a form of demonstration ; and also in an antimilitarist campaign. In fact Syndicalism, though it has spread to most countries, seems destined to have but an ephemeral influence over any. In moments of violent outburst its creed is invoked, but it is in no sense a world- force. In England Ramsay MacDonald holds that Syndicalism “ is negligible Early Syndicalist both as a school of thought and as an Vie ^ S wen E Mhe nd ’ organisati°n for action.” As early Chartists. as the third decade of the last century, Robert Owen had advo- cated federation of unions, the general strike, and the reconstruction of society on the SYNDICALISM. 9 basis of the trade union as the unit of production and distribution, with one Grand National Council. He established his Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, and enrolled in a few months half-a-million members. The movement caught on for a time, but ended in failure. The Grand National was broken up ; and in the inevitable reaction Trade Unionism was left paralysed for some years after. Though the Chartist movement was political, yet it had all the Syndicalist vision of the omnipotence of the general strike ; but it engendered violence, and violence called out the military, who crushed this labour upheaval in 1848. Then followed in England a re- action in favour of more hard-headed Reaction to and practical Trade Unionism. Re- ^n^methodT serve funds were amassed, and the unions fought for local and pressing needs by collective bargaining and hard blows struck at the crucial moment. The move- ment was, on the whole, free from French anarchical and communist ideas. The leaders were cool, practical, business men. They regarded business as business and not as war. They fought for a fair share of the profits : not for the whole. “ A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," was their motto. A change has, however, been passing over English Trade Unionism. Within the last twenty years the old pilots are being dropped. An active minority, imbued with Socialist principles and believing in political action, has ousted the quiescent majority, who sought no social revolu- tion and believed that the true scope of Trade Unionism was the betterment of the condition of Labour, outside politics by strong benefit funds and collective bargain- ing, with the strike as a last resort. The Taff Vale judgment, making the union funds responsible for actions of union officials, showed the need for a Labour Change again to New Unionism. 10 SYNDICALISM. Reaction again from Politics due to discontent with Labour Party. Party in Parliament, and in 1906 that Party was defi- nitely established. This Party has done much for the cause of the workers, but they have not been able to realise the dreams of many of their impatient supporters. Capital controls the party machine through the party purse under the present party system of government : and against this control by Capital of the other great parties the Labour Party has waged an unequal fight. The result has been disappointment with political methods and a swing back of the pendulum towards pure industrialism. Much of what is called Syndicalism in England is simply a renewed fervour of faith in the old weapons. The wider federation of Labour and wider extent of strikes is due to the wider federation of Capital. In this intense and more violent industrial warfare autho- rities so intimate with English labour movements as Ramsay MacDonald, W. V. Osborne, Philip Snowden, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb, refuse to recognise the direct influence of doctrinal Syndicalism. Mr. Osborne ascribes the lawless- ness and unrest of recent years to the irresponsibility conferred on the unions by the Trades Dispute Act of 1906, which secured that the union funds could not suffer for the misdemeanours of its members. Little success, he says, attended the efforts of the small band of Industrial Syndicalists before or after that Act to capture the unions. What passes as Syndicalism in England is merely the development of Trade Unionism into Labour Unionism : the fight for the interests of Labour as a whole, and no longer those of one trade, by means of unions no longer confined to workers in one trade, but open to several trades and even unskilled workers. The federation of unions and centralisation Views of Labour Leaders on Syndicalism in England : Mr. Osborne. SYNDICALISM. tl of control, joined to the violence of the “ New ” Unionism are, in his view, responsible for English Syndicalism. Syndicalism in England was not im- ported and has no separate existence apart from this Unionism. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald analyses in Mr. Ramsay a somewhat similar way the constitu- MacDonald. ents of English Syndicalism : “ A leader or two who never held any balanced judgments upon anything, a section or two moved by the impulses of the moment, a certain number of people disappointed with majority rule, and claiming majority rights for the particular minority to which they belong, others convinced . . . that change by political methods is slow and uncertain, have embraced the new propaganda and have ranged themselves under the new banner of revolutionary direct action.” Yet it is not true to say that there is no distinct Syndicalist movement in England. Though small and not influential, there is such a party, which differs toto caelo in its view of means and ultimate end from Socialist or orthodox Industrial Unionism. Ben Tillet, Tom Mann, and Haywood are the best known leaders, and their views are distinct from those of even the " New ” Unionism in its extreme forms. In 1910 Tom Mann founded the Industrial Syndicalist as the organ Recent History °* *he English movement. That paper of Syndicalism in and also the Daily Herald , during Snowden’s views": r t + roubles ’ has , advocated Syndicalism Syndicalist views and fanned the weak and destined passions of the Labour Left. Though to become weaker. Syndicalism did not cause the strikes of 1911-1912, the Syndicalist leaders infused into them the intense bitterness of class hatred and class war. The Industrial Syndicalist itself admitted that not five per cent, of the leaders of those strikes knew what the word “ Syndicalist ” meant ; 3 12 SYNDICALISM. yet the Syndicalist leaders tried to utilise the occasion for their own propaganda. But these strikes were, on the whole, a failure, and the Unions are chary of entering into similar struggles again. Instead of leading the workers towards Syndicalism there are signs that these strikes have discredited the movement. The Sympathetic Strike is now universally condemned by the representative labour leaders. No trade union has accepted Syndicalism officially ; there is no con- siderable Syndicalist organisation ; and though, in periods of stress and strain, there will always be violence and violent doctrines, yet revolutionary Syndicalism will not take root. All through the century there have been similar outbursts, due to disappointment with the poor results of political methods, and the slowness of the lumbering Parliamentary coach ; but these outbursts have ended in reaction against violence and the hasty strike, which has so often failed. Recent events would seem to point to the fact that England is now again going round in the same cycle. Mr. Snowden, in his able and moderate work, Socialism and Syndicalism, says that “ the present Syndicalist movement in Great Britain is due to the fact that a new generation of trade unionists has grown up who know nothing from their own experience of the former failures of the methods they advocate ; to disappointment, because a Labour Party of forty members in Parliament has not established the millennium in six years ; to increased difficulty of living, owing to the increased cost of commo- dities ; and to the attraction which dramatic action always has for youth and inexperience.” However, he regards the Syndicalist crisis as past. If it did not get a following of settled converts in 1911-12, it never will ; it will soon be as much ancient history as Owen's General Strike and the Chartist Movement. The recent Labour Congress (December, 1913) in London, has been practically unanimous in its assertion of confidence in its leaders and rejection of the Syndicalist attacks syndicalism. 13 on them. It was a severe blow to Syndicalism, and the opinion of the meeting was clearly and strongly against the policy of the general and sympathetic strike as suicidal. THE TEACHING OF SYNDICALISM. It is extremely difficult to give a satisfactory exposition of the teaching No very settled of Syndicalism. It is more a ten- System of Doctrine, dency and an impulse than a settled system of doctrine. Some of its leaders have advised that there should be no attempt at analysis or reasoning. The native hue of resolution must not be sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought. " Man has genius only in proportion as he acts without reflection ” : thus the ex- prophet of the movement, Sorel. Hence there is no settled agreement on Syndicalist reconstruction of society, though their destructive programme is fairly clear, and to this we will now turn. In common with the Catholic and the Socialist, the Syndicalist is un- e (l) U Capftalism y 2 sPar^nS ^is criticism of the abuse must go. °f the present Capitalist system. In common with the Socialist he regards that system as incapable of being humanised, or Christianised. The Syndicalist, as well as the Socialist and the Catholic, sees the great staring fact of present-day economics—that the wealth of the world is multiplying under the whirr of Machinery as if under a magic spell ; that Capital and directive ability are receiving a correspondingly increased share in wealth and comfort ; while manual labour alone has received little or no increase in its real as contrasted with its nominal wages. He sees with Leo XIII. {Rerum Novarum) that “ a very small number of very u SYNDICALISM. rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” He sees a state of society in which one- tenth of the population own nine-tenths of the wealth. Statistics might be multiplied indefinitely to prove this, but it is useless. No one acquainted with the facts ventures to deny the existence of widespread injustice and unchristian action in the treatment of the worker. It is this glaring fact which makes the Syndicalist demand the abolition, root and branch, of the Capitalist system, as it has inspired all the revolutionary isms. Hence it is childish to imagine that one can crush those movements by a theoretic refutation of this or that principle of Marx or Engels or the rest. Marx and Engels have been revised almost out of existence by later schools, and the revisers have themselves been revised. These movements are not dead, static things, but living and dynamic, with all the motive force of a great wrong. When you work yourself into a fine frenzy over some treatise on Socialism of twenty, ten, or even five years ago, the modern Socialist will simply smile at you, agree with your criticisms for the most part, and ask you have you read Philip Snowden's Socialism and Syndicalism, or Ramsay MacDonald's Socialism, or some other such modern exposition. Give the workers a larger share of the profits, good homes, good recreation for mind and body, education, respect and reasonable comfort, and an interest in the success of their work, and you will do more to kill revolutionary ideas than by years of syllogism spinning, and quixotic tilting with wind-mills. Asa consequence of the Syndicalist's (2) Class Hatred and loathing for the Capitalist system Class War. there follows his doctrine of class war—bitter, unrelenting war, that will give no quarter and ask for none, that has drawn its sword and thrown away the scabbard. “ The class SYNDICALISM. 15 struggle, there is the basis of Syndicalism/' says Felicien Challaye, the writer of one of the most reliable books on Syndicalism. The Syndicalist wants no go- betweens to arbitrate this war : he wants no compro- mise, no parley ; for he believes that he is strong in his cause, and that the future is with him. Hence, though he will work for increase of wages, less hours and better conditions, yet his real and openly avowed aim is social revolution. Hence he will have no lasting contracts, no hard and fast agreements, which might fetter his efforts or retard for an hour the coming of that revo- lution. He is intensely, bitterly “ class conscious/' and is determined to remain so. He holds that the worker differs only in name—the unmeaning name of political freedom—from the slaves of old ; and that charity between a slave and his lord is out of the ques- tion. Furthermore, this line of cleavage is clear cut and insurmountable under the present system. Hence the Syndicalist rejects ortho- (3) Rejects dox Trade Unionism. This can only Orthodox Trades organise a fraction of the workers. Unionism. and the Syndicalist wants all. It has achieved no appreciable results. It is too slow, and has been out-witted by Capital at every point. It recognises Capitalism, while Syndicalism says that Capitalism is incompatible with the liberty of the worker and the dignity of his humanity. The worker will not be free till he owns the factory ; till he gets economic control ; and that he can never accom- plish under the wage-system, the child of Capitalism. The wage-system, then, must be (4) Wage-System abolished. Industry must be so Condemned. organised that the workers will obtain the whole product of their labour and work under no dictation from a higher class. These were the aspirations of the Owenites, the Chartists, the French Communists, and of Labour for SYNDICALISM.16 several generations. But Labour has failed to realise them. Co-operation has failed to abolish the wage- system, and prospered only by recognising that system in its own management. Hence the Syndicalist will not recognise such Co-operation as his ideal. Thus he has broken with the Capitalist, the old Trade Unionist, and the Co-operator as we know him. With the political Socialist he is on no better terms. They differ both (5) Rejects Political as to end and means ; though more Socialism as as to means than end. For we shall deteriorating. ^ iater that the Syndicalist is forced to interpret his ideal Co- operative Commonwealth very much in the sense of the Socialist all-fathering State. However, there is no doubt as to the Syndicalist antagonism to Socialist political means, and with this we shall now deal. The early Utopian and Marxian Socialists did not expect to gain their end by political means, though the Marxian school regarded Socialist politics as a useful preparation and education for the great day of the automatically realised revolution. They dreamt of a great upheaval, social and political. Such an uphea- val was the only hope of the proletariat when political power was in the hands of Capital, and Capital had no conscience or no fear of public opinion to take its place. This upheaval, so near at times in vision, in concrete fact seemed more and more remote. Gradually, too, political power, or its semblance, passed from the “ classes ” to the " masses.” Capital still held the purse strings and so controlled the party machine, inspired legislation and influenced administration , but, nominally at least, the people became supreme by a numerical superiority of votes. Then arose Revisionist Socialism—the hope of a revolution by constitutional means—a capture of the State by the workmen s votes. Many of the visions and theories of early Socialism were discarded, and all efforts were concentrated on SYNDICALISM. *7 gradually securing the central control of property by elected bodies for the common good. There was no longer talk of one great coup d'etat, which was to usher in the millennium. The practical heads saw clearer than that. They saw that it was hopeless to expect to abolish the wage-system at one stroke ; and many admitted the impossibility of doing so at all completely. Hence they settled down to the humdrum work of nationalising more and more of the public services and enterprises — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways, the land. They advocated the taking over of certain industries as state monopolies for revenue ; the municipalisation of services such as the tramways, the water, gas, and electric and milk supplies. Thus Socialism would be gradually realised, not by dynamite, or bayonet, or barricades, but by the ballot. But the ballot has put the Socialist at the mercy of the other classes for sympathy and votes. Under this political and parlia- mentary influence the revolutionary red has faded away to a mild pink. Men have entered Westminster red and reeking from the barricades and returned with awe and reverence and forbearance on their lips. They have quickly taken a broader and more responsible view of national and imperial affairs. They have realised the essential necessity of order, control, settled authority and bureaucratic machinery in government, the chaotic influence of mob rule, the need for circumspection in launching big political schemes ; and one by one they have gone back to the barricades as messengers of peace to temper the passions of their more violent supporters. It is little wonder that many of their followers were suspicious of this Discontent with change. “ You promised us,” they C0 ^?Diomacv and “ that we, the manual workers, should own all the work of our hands and work under no man's rod. Now you tell us that not we alone, but the whole State, i8 SYNDICALISM. of every class—the poet, the artist, the philosopher, the cleric, the lawyer, the man of letters, and the thou- sand others—who know not our hard toil, as well must own what we produce. We must give them share and share or even greater shares of our wealth, and we, the manual workers, will be a minority and subject still. You tell us that we must work for a wage and under official control. Where, then, is our boasted liberty from the slavery of wagedom ? We value that freedom more than the little extra bread you may give us.” This has been the cry of Syndicalism, “ Economic free- dom,” “ A free workshop ” : not on bread alone does man live. Louis Levine, in his able and exhaustive work, The Labour Movement in France, asserts that this desire for economic freedom from the arbitrariness of the individual employer is the main motive which stimulates the militant workingman to his collectivist hopes. The Syndicalist despises Socialist diplomacy, com- promise, and desire for numbers. “ The free man, even if he stand alone, is superior to the servile crowd.” “ French Syndicalism,” says Lagardelle, “ was bom of the reaction of the proletariat against Democracy.” And Ramsay MacDonald : “ Socialism must be parlia- mentary, or nothing. And there is nothing more galling to enthusiastic reformers to whom the alluring vision of human perfection is very near, as in a dream, than the heavy, lumbering coach of Parliamentary progress.” Politics, too, presupposes a community of interests and interests of a community. The Syndicalist denies that a wolf and a lamb—Capitalism and Labour—exploiter and exploited—can form a community or have any common interests. The nation and patriotism are shibboleths and can be nothing else under existing economic conditions. SYNDICALISM. *9 Furthermore, Labour loses its sting in contact with other classes ; Politics its esprit de corps weakens ; it loses detrimental to its zeal for the Holy War: 1 The cfass-war*; no* bourgeois, bourgeois interests, bour- mediation wanted, geois ambitions and vanities, pene- trate even the parties which call themselves working-class.” The classes must be kept rigidly apart : no traitorous inter- course must be allowed ; and that is inevitable in politics. For politics are contaminating. In them money and wire-pulling rule. They are coming more and more into the hands of the wealthy bourgeoisie ; and the bourgeoisie are the hardest task-masters. They may grant an Old Age Pension or Insurance Act, but they will keep their heel well planted still on their vic- tim’s neck. But the Socialist in Parliament allows himself to be fooled by these crumbs thrown from the Capitalist table. He is fooled, too, by the mock show of statesmanship and influence which is conceded to him. The Syndicalist mocks at the bourgeoisie patrons of Socialism, the Fabian Society, and the rest, as “ middle class, showing the mask of Socialism, snobbish on the one hand and cunning on the other.” He wants no outside interference in his fight with Capital. He rejects the aid of clergy and politicians sympathetic with the cause of Labour. Ben Tillet recently said in Dublin [Evening Telegraph account, December 8th, 1913), “ Clergymen could not help them . . . Even if the priest and the parson were anxious to help them he would still say to them— Clear the ring and let us fight it out/ ” The working-class organisation must be working-class through and through and nothing else. “ The workers’ emancipation can only be the work of the workers themselves.” Mediators mean peace and compromise, and Syndicalism wants neither. “ Union- ism,” says Tom Mann, “ that aims only at securing peace between employers and men, is not only of no 20 SYNDICALISM. value in the fight for freedom, but is actually a serious hindrance and a menace to the interests of the workers.” What, then, is the worker to do (6) “ Direct Action ” if be has rejected collective bargain- ee only way ing and political methods ? “ Direct of redrew; Action”—the general strike: this a o age. js the watchword. Direct Action means action by the workers for their own interests without intermediaries—politicians or others. It is to proceed along the lines of the “ Irrita- tion,” the Sympathetic, and the General Strike. The “ Irritation Strike ” consists in a deliberate campaign to lessen, while remaining at work, the quantity and the value of the output. “ Bad work for bad pay.” The employer can be assailed only in his profits. Hence the Syndicalist must reduce those profits, thus to elimi- nate by degrees the shareholders who own the indus- tries, and compel the owners to give them over as un- profitable to the workers. Carelessness and inferior work is recommended as a means to this. Another is what the French call “ Sabotage ”—deliberate damaging of machinery, wasting time, displeasing cus- tomers, and every conceivable means of interfering with the successful running of the enterprise, whatever it be. Some Syndicalist leaders, as Pouget, have even suggested the details of this warfare, such as “ scoring lines on rollers by a pennyworth of sand,” and others of the same sort. “ Simple common sense,” says Pouget, “ suggests, that as the employer is an enemy, it is no more disloyal for the workman to entrap him into ambuscades than to fight him face to face.” Sorel and those who follow him condemn this “ sabotage ” as hinder- S°rel condemns jng the efficiency of the worker,a 0 se * though they approve of violence and the general strike. They ask how can the workman, who has accustomed himself to inefficient work, be a fit instrument in the recon- SYNDICALISM. 21 struction of a purely industrial State, either morally or economically. But the fact is that Syndicalist warfare in almost all cases has been accompanied by this prac- tice. When you preach revolution and class-war it is not easy to say, “ thus far and no farther ” to thou- sands of passionate and uneducated men. If it is war, let it be war, with the ethics of war, says the Syndi- calist rank-and-filer ; and granted his premiss it is not easy to quarrel with his conclusions. This guerilla warfare is, however, (7) The General but a preparation for the great final Strike. war—short, sharp, decisive—which will once for all crush Capitalism. That is the General Strike. This idea is, as we have seen, as old as Owen ; but it has received special pro- minence from the Syndicalist. All in Syndicalism leads to it and from it ; it is the centre. It is the revo- lution itself ; with it automatically will come the Syndicalist millennium. "We shall prepare the way as rapidly as possible for ‘ The General Strike,’ of national proportions. This will be the actual social and industrial revolution ” : so Tom Mann. The strike is to be “ general ” in its widest sense. On one day, at one word of command, the workmen in every trade, every industry, every State service, will all "down tools.” There will be violence and “ sabotage.” The State will be paralysed ; the army will be powerless or will revolt ; the bourgeoisie will be deprived of all the com- forts of life. Things will come to such a pass that the rich will flee the country and thus the workmen come into “ their own.” It is this blessed consummation that is the object of the General Strike, not any partial amelioration. General Strikes for partial amelioration have been for the most part a failure ; it will not be so when used for the upheaval of the whole existing social order, says the Syndicalist. The General Strike is “ direct action ” in its purest form : no voting ; no representatives ; no compromise ; no tantalising delays 22 SYNDICALISM. and makeshifts ; one sharp blow and all is won. “ Vio- lence is a thing very beautiful and very heroic ; it is of service to the primordial interests of civilisation ; it can save the world from barbarism/ 1 writes Sorel. Yet Sorel* is not strong in his faith that the General Strike will ever be “ A Myth,’’ realised as a historical fact. But, according to Sorel. says^ even if it does not happen, still as an ideal, a “ myth,” leading on to action, it will be the cause of anything else which may happen. A “ myth ” he defines as “ a mixture of fact and art for the purpose of giving an aspect of reality to the hopes on which present conduct depends. Such a mixture is the General Strike, and the intuition of it as the realisation of the Syndicalist millennium will bring about the millennium. Furthermore, relying on Bergson, he teaches the superiority of Intuition to Intellect as a guide to action. Hence he says that we must not analyse or question this “myth/' but follow on where the light leads. Reflection means death to action ; inspiration is the one thing necessary, not reason. Inspiration brings emotion, and emotion successful action. Now the " myth ” of the General Strike is, by its dramatic appeal, eminently suitable to act on the masses as a spur to intense ideals of loyalty and self-sacrifice for the Revolution. Hence its value for Sorel. " Strikes have given birth in the minds of the people to the noblest, deepest, and most inspiring of motives, but it is the General Strike that groups all these ideas into a universal picture and, by bringing them together, gives to each its maximum of possible influence. We obtain thus such an intuition of Socialism that language is impotent clearly to express it, and we obtain this intuition in a perfectly timeless whole. In fact, it is the perfect knowledge of the Bergsonian philosophy /' * Sorel has recently completely lost faith in and renounced the Syndicalist creed. SYNDICALISM. 23 Constructive Schemes ; None for Sorel. What, then, of the day after the Revolution ? Sorel, Berth, Lagar- delle, and a large section of the Syndicalists bid us not ask the question. It is vain to try to schematise the future. Bring about the Revolution first and then see what comes. “ Directly we think of definite aims endless disputes arise. Some will say that their aims will be realised in a society without govern- ment. Others say that they will be realised in a society elaborately governed and directed. Which is right ? I do not take the responsibility of deciding. I wait to decide whither I am going until I have returned from my journey, which will itself have revealed whither I am actually going ” : thus Griffuelhues. Another school has, however, given us a hazy picture of the future Pouget and Pataud’s Syndicalist Community. Pouget and Reconstruction. pataudj as they have thrown on canvas their vision of the General Strike, so too they have planned their future State. Everything is in ruins after the Great Upheaval ; but at the voice of the charmer the damaged machinery is made whole, the ruined wTalls rise to the music of Apollo's lyre. The workmen seize the works ; a co- operative brotherhood is formed ; a co-operative society of workers rules each factory and each mine ; they are federated into larger societies of the same trade ; and the Federations are united in the Grand Central Organisation, the C.G.T. itself in France, which will not only determine the relations between different trades and industries, but also perform what- ever diverse functions of government may still be neces- sary. For there will be no State. The brotherhood of man will be such a binding social force that the func- tions of government become very few and simple. There will be no politics, no internal strife needing State adjudication. The wage-system will be abolished, 24 SYNDICALISM. and with it all the tyranny of the past. There will be no army, no navy, none of the immense bureaucratic machinery of the modern State. All that will be need- less. How all this is to come about we are not told ; at least we get no ex- No satisfactory planation which will satisfy any of CX how la this person who does not accept the funda- Revolution, is to be mental principles of renouncing realised or the reason and yielding himself up to a working of the blind faith in the " myth ”—a wild, unceasing pursuit of a will-o -the- wisp, acknowledged by some of the inspired prophets as such. Neither is it clear how several departments, essential to social life, such as education, will be provided for. Even as regards reli- gion, the supreme social importance of which few even of the extreme iconoclasts have ventured to deny, the Syndicalist has no clear message. Syndicalism, Sorel would respect religion as an Socialism, * elevating “ myth,” for the same and Religion, reason that he advocates the General Strike ; both make for higher aspi- rations and nobler conduct, though both are, or may be, equally unreal. But in judging of the relations of Syndicalism to religion, just as in the case of Socialism, we must be guided, not by the isolated declarations of leaders or the occasional diplomatic resolutions of Con- gresses—but by the whole tone of the movement. Syndicalism, as Socialism, is not a set of formularies — it is a living, throbbing movement. It is mere academic folly to judge the spirit and the real tenets of such live movements otherwise than by a broad outlook on the spirit of the men who follow after. The sound judg- ment of the man of the world who is in daily contact with his fellow-men, is more reliable here than any astute professor or theorist's analysis of resolutions and declarations. Hence it is idle to advance, as Mr. Snowden SYNDICALISM. 25 does, as an argument for the purely economic char- acter of Socialism, a declaration of the German Social Democratic Party, that Socialism has, in its corporate capacity, nothing to do with religion ; that religion is the individual's concern. He might have advanced other declarations of a similar nature ; but the inward- ness of these declarations is apparent when we study the circumstances and motives which prompted them. They are mere vote-catching devices. The shrewd leaders of Socialism know that they must not give too violent a shock to old convictions. They tell the work- man he can be a Socialist and a Christian ; but once he is a Socialist he very quickly casts off Christianity. “ I cannot,” says a prominent American Socialist, Joseph Leatham, “ at the present moment remember a single instance of a person who is at one and the same time a really earnest and intelligent Socialist and an orthodox Christian.” And another, Mr. Hillquit, ack- nowledges that ninety-nine per cent, of Socialists are agnostics. This is no peculiarity of American Socialism. From the Socialist literature and speeches of every country quotations could be multiplied in defence of a materialistic and determinist interpretation of the universe, an educational policy frankly secular, a policy of exclusion of religious and clerics from the schools, even a condemnation of Christianity or any form of theism as superstition. The spirit is there and runs through the whole movement, and those leaders who are really sincere in their conviction that Socialism is not incompatible with Christianity, seem to be powerless to check this tendency. For our part we must judge the movement as a whole and, so viewed, it stands con- demned as anti-religious, while we pay homage to the efforts of those men who would preserve some vestige of religion to the masses of their followers. What we have said of Socialism and religion is true also of Syndicalism. In this respect they are at one. The French Syndicalists, the Industrial Workers of the 26 SYNDICALISM. World in America, the British, Italian and German Syndicalists all adopt the same attitude in varying degrees towards Christianity, which Socialism does. Catholicism in partcular is the bete noire of both, inas- much as it is the strongest, and most uncompromising and consistent opponent of secular education and all vagaries in moral and religious teaching. Examination and Criticism of Syndicalism. I have dwelt at such length over the history and exposition of the doctrines of Syndicalism that there is but little space available for criticism. Yet, perhaps, the best criticism would have been fuller exposition ; for the extreme Syndicalist is one of those whose de- struction is most easily accomplished by freedom and enough rope. The Syndicalist teachings on class-war, sabotage, irritation, sympathetic and general strikes, need but to be explained in detail to refute themselves. It is for this reason that Sorel, Berth, and Lagardelle wisely abstain from such detailed and concrete expo- sition, and shroud themselves in a cloud of mysticism and vague generalities ; while Pouget and Pataud have committed the unpardonable sin of explaining what they mean, and thus have done more than any of their enemies to refute the doctrines they uphold. From their explanation it is clear that Syndicalism is founded on principles which are untrue ; that its destructive policy is ethically objectionable, and its constructive schemes impracticable. The fundamental principle of Syn- The “ Class-war ” dicalism, that society is rigidly theory needs divided into two warring classes — modification. the exploiters and the exploited— • needs much modification. Of course there is such a division, but it is by no means clear-cut and irreconcilable, nor does it embrace the whole popu- lation ; there are large sections of the population which SYNDICALISM. 27 are partly in one class, partly in the other. There is an interdependence of interests and much good-will and respect between the various grades of society, and within the ranks of Capital as well as of Labour there are warring interests. Hence the war is by no means a war of Capital and Labour merely. It is often a war of one industry with another, or of different grades within the same industry. There is, of course, a struggle —an intense struggle—going on between Capital and Labour, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they have many interests in common ; that society is a very complex organism of mutually interdependent parts ; that a victory for Capital or Labour in one industry may mean a defeat for its brother Capital or Labour in another. Any solution of the social question must recognise the essential unity amidst diversity of society. The dichotomy of the Syndicalist is an unreal abstraction untrue to life. The interests of Labour and Capital are not irreconcilable, and with good-will, a sound and vigorous public opinion and Christian charity, Labour will get more and more of its due share of profits without the loss to Capital of what may right- fully belong to it. It is the duty of those who have the welfare of society at heart to create an efficacious public opinion and contribute, by practical schemes, to the realisation, through many blunderings and much error, it needs must be, of a better and worthier social order, in which the higher joys and the beautiful things of life as well as the fulfilment of lower needs will be attainable by all who care to strive to attain them ; and in which worth of any kind will have opportunity and adequate reward. This will mean fighting, but the fighting we trust will ultimately lead to mutual under- standing and good-will. War always, everywhere, in everything—a truceless war—is by no means neces- sary or inevitable. Even already the social conscience of the public is roused to some extent, and it lies with the friends of the poor and of peace and Christian 2 8 SYNDICALISM. charity to rouse it more. Thus, by legislation, by private effort, by kindly feeling and organised social works, war will be averted and men realise that they are bro- thers one to another and all to Christ. When we turn to the destructive „ _ . , _ , . „ policy of Syndicalism we see that it most detrimental ! s 1*1* ^ (( • J A , ? ) > ‘ • to the workers, impolitic. Direct Action —i.e., action by the workmen on their own initiative and without intermedi- aries—will be necessary to remedy special grievances, while the fight goes on. But experience has shown that even the ordinary strike is morally detrimental to the workers, and should be used with caution. How much more so, then, the “ Irritation ” Strike, and the General Strike ! The Irritation Strike is dishonest and destructive of industry and thus injures the workers materially and morally ; the General Strike can never be realised on the huge scale contemplated ; and if it did arise it would bring most misery on the poor, who always suffer most from a paralysis of industry. If the poor suffer so much in the course of partial strikes, when they can get relief from their unions and the help proferred by those in work, what will be their sufferings when all are out and the funds of the unions speedily exhausted ? Furthermore, they would be bound to suffer intensely in the depression of trade which would follow. The most experienced and wisest of the Labour leaders have seen this, and have condemned the Sympa- thetic Strike and all attempts to widen the area of con- flict unnecessarily. The federation of Capital has necessitated a certain widening of the strike area ; but that is recognised by these men as an evil, and the General Strike is losing the fascination which it had over the imagination of the workers. A policy which ignores elementary economic laws is unworthy of leaders of men, and, if followed, can but bring destruc- tion to those who adopt it, SYNDICALISM. 29 Now, an unthinking strike policy ignores the fact that to raise wages T c? Syndicalist in one industry often means raising ignores Elementary J e + c . os* of + livi^ all round, so far as Economic Laws, that industry affects the community ; and a general rise of wages, out of proportion to the margin of profit, means a general rise in the cost of production and the selling-price, and a consequent lowering of the purchasing power of money. Furthermore, a policy of unrest begets a difficulty in procuring, and so a rise in the price of Capital and a consequent decrease in wages, or the ruin of industry, and unemployment ; and thus the last state of the workman is little better, if at all better, than the first. Of course most industries could give an increase in wages without these evil consequences ; but some could not, and there must be a discrimination, which the old Unionism was generally careful to make. The Syndicalist strike policy ignores the fact that the support of the community has great influence on the success or failure of the strike. Now, the community would certainly resist a Syndicalist General Strike ; it would organise “ free ” and volunteer labour, and use all the resources at its command, even the army and citizen forces, to put down organised revolution. This we have seen lately in South Africa, where there was a citizen force of 60,000 men. It is useless for the Syndicalist or Socialist to say that the abolition of Capital would alter all our economic laws, until they explain how modern industry is to be run without the help of Capital. We cannot, even if we would, reverse the wheels of progress and do away with costly machi- nery and big factories, which have centralised industry and made Capital a necessity for economic and national welfare. The substitutes for Capital provided by both systems would speedily be found in practice either futile or containing most of the objectionable features of Capital. 30 SYNDICALISM. To realise this in the case of Syndicalism we will suppose that the General Strike is an accomplished fact, in spite of the obviously insurmountable diffi- culties in the way of getting all the workers of the world, or even of one country, thus to combine. We will sup- pose, further, that the community has been foolish enough not to defend itself, that all government and authority has collapsed in a most inexplicable manner, and that Capital has handed over its house, furnished and in order, in spite of the violence and sabotage of the revolution, to Labour. What then ? The miners take over the mines, the dockers the docks, the railway- men the railways, and so on. Even if we suppose that these co-operative societies can surmount the difficulty of beginning without Capital—a formidable difficulty, even where the plant and machinery were so cheaply acquired—will they be able to abolish the hated wage- system and subjection to authority ? In the course of a very able article, published as a Supplement to the Syndicalism^ Crusade , Sidney and Beatrice Webb the Wage^system. exa™ne Syndicalism from this point of view. They show that in the future Syndicalist State there would be necessary the same hierarchy of officials and mana- gers which exists at present ; that bureaucracy instead of disappearing would be largely increased ; that the allowance to the individual worker would have to take a form identical with the weekly wages system ; that this allowance would have to be fixed on a scale, based not merely on the output of the individual worker, but also on several other considerations. Neither could the rate of allowance be determined by the workman's own Union, or even by the National Council of the unions of his trade, but by the General Council repre- sentative of all the National Councils of different trades. This would be necessary in order to adapt supply to SYNDICALISM. 31 demand ; to prevent any one trade or industry sending up prices at the expense of others ; to make a fair division over all the workers of the advantages arising through special and natural circumstances in rich industries such as the railways or mines. For the Syndicalist admits that, after all, it is impossible to have the rail- ways merely for the railwaymen, or the mines for the miners, and so on ; that these things must be for the community first, and through the community for the railwaymen and the miners and the other workers also. Furthermore, this central General Council would have to perform all the organising, legislating, and regulating functions of the present directors, and managers, and “ bosses ” of every description. These regulations would in practice, if there were not to be utter chaos, be pretty much what they are at present in their broad outlines. The new “bosses” would, of course, be more humane and considerate, but they would be “ bosses ” still, and experience of Trades Union and Co-operative Society officials shows that even when the workingman is “ boss ” the shoe of authority and obedience pinches. Abolition of authority and obedience is then as im- possible as the abolition of the wage-system, or the establishing of a uniform wage for all workmen, else- where than in the airy and nebular regions where so many of the social castles of the future have been built. They will not bear the test of the concrete, hard, prac- tical experience of human nature and human condi- tions as we know them, and any sane, responsible leader will build on what we know, and not on a floating vision of what human nature and human life may be in the millennium to come. 32 SYNDICALISM. (b) its impossible functions, Further flaws, running through the whole foundations of the Syndicalist Further objections cjty have been pointed out—for in- Syndicalism : stance, the constitution of the General Council and the immense, (a) The Constitution complex and utterly impossible of the nature of the functions which it must General Council, perform. First, as regards its consti- tution, it is elected on a representative basis and represents merely the workers. Now, the mode of its con- stitution opens up the way to all the politics and political methods and the political State, which the Syndicalist abhors ; while the fact that it would represent merely the workers is obviously unjust, when we consider the nature of its functions. It is clear that in regulating for production it must also regulate for consumption and affect consumers as such ; yet con- sumers, as such, have no representation in its councils. Furthermore, it must, in the absence of any other body, fulfil all the functions of a modern Parliament and the modern bureaucracy. It will have to see to Education, amendments of the Social system, Foreign and Colonial affairs, Police, the Judicature, National Defence, and many other departments of the modern State, which cannot be superseded ; and in addition it will have the more than herculean task of dealing with the countless industrial and social problems, which the new social State will throw on it. In other words, it will have to take on itself the work of all the modern Parliament and Government departments, and, in addition, that of all the governing boards, directors and managers of modern industry, complicated even beyond modern complication. While the wisest of modern statesmen are declaring the necessity of decentralising govern- ment and leaving local affairs to local management, in their despair of dealing efficiently with them by a central representative body, the Syndicalist is clamour- SYNDICALISM. 33 ing for a State centralised beyond the wildest dreams even of Napoleonic centralisation. Of course it is inevitable that in such a State there would be only just as little and as much intimate knowledge and sympathy with the life of the manual worker amongst the governing classes, whatever name we call them by, as there is at present. The Community has yet another (c) Minorities crow to pluck with Syndicalism. It would suffer. has been said that Syndicalism was bom of a revolt against the super- stitious worship of democracy and majority rule : it professes reverence for the " conscious minority ” above the unthinking and lethargic mob : and in this there is much to be admired, though we have a greater faith in the sound sense of an instructed democracy than the Syndicalist. Yet in the Syndicalist State minorities would suffer even more than now. It is by no means clear what would be the lot of the learned professions except that, if they were to have any voice in govern- ment or administration, they would have to organise themselves on the footing of Trades Unions, if the Syndicalist manual worker State would allow that, at the sacrifice, it would seem, of consistency with many Syndicalist declarations. So, too, individual workers, students, literary men, journalists, poets, artists, inventors, ecclesiastics, and many others who could not be organised into Unions, must suffer. The fact of the matter is that the Syndicalist takes too simple a view of life and society : the functions and the people who make both possible are far too complex and intricate and interdependent to be ticketed and labelled, regi- mented and drilled, in the way he proposes ; and if he got his way life would be deprived of all that makes it most livable. We see, then, that the Syndicalist State is undesirable, even if it could be realised ; that it cannot be realised 34 SYNDICALISM. by the means proposed ; and that even if it could be realised by those means, they would be ethically un- desirable, and so could not be justified by the end pro- posed, however good. But we must not conclude this essay Some good without pointing out the good ten- tendencies in dencies of Syndicalism. It is right Syndicalism.. in insisting on the fact that success for the workman depends even more on industrial action than on politics ; though, of course, it should give more generous recognition to the work of social reform of the Labour Parties in the Parliaments of the world. It should admit also that much can be done by political means even within our present poli- tical States, when the public conscience is properly aroused ; that even with the grip which Capital has on the modern State, yet there are indications that it too will have to yield to ethical considerations and yield to the demands of public opinion for more Christian treatment of the worker. It is right in exposing the wire-pulling and corruption that is almost inseparable from party politics ; but the remedy for this again is not revolution, but an instructed and shrewd public opinion, a better press and publicity, as far as possible, in matters of State. Lastly, but far from least, Syn- dicalism is right in the homage which it pays to the Co-operative ideal. Agricultural Co-operation, as prac- tised in Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and elsewhere, has proved an unquestionable success, and wherever its work has been temporarily retarded, it has been due to accidental reasons ; while the story of the fabulous success of the English Co-operative Societies reads like a romance in the fairyland of figures. Co-operation such as this should be encouraged in every way : but this Co-operation, does not abolish Capital, but distributes it more widely and increases the ranks of the capitalists by making the workman and the farmer themselves investors and capitalists. SYNDICALISM. 35 With a gradually realised Co-operative Common- wealth of this kind, which is in a true sense a proprie- tary State and respects all rights which should be re- spected, we have every sympathy ; but this is very far from being the ideal of the Syndicalist. We must refer to other pamphlets of this series, which are to follow, for a fuller treatment of the Co-operation we have com- mended and the benefits which accrue from it. BIBLIOGRAPHY. ENGLISH WORKS. Guy Bowman : Syndicalism, Its Basis , Methods and Ultimate Aims. (London, 1913.) J. G. Brooks : American Syndicalism : The I. W.W. (Macmillan 1913; 5*. 6d.) G. D. H. Cole, B.A. : The World of Labour. (Bell, 1913 ; 55.) A. Estey, D.Ph. : Revolutionary Syndicalism. (King, 1913 ; ys. 6d.) J. H. Harley, M.A. : Syndicalism. (Jack, 1913 ; 6d.) Louis Levine, D.Ph. : The Labour Movement in France. (Kino- 1912 ; 65.) v A. D. Lewis : Syndicalism and the General Strike. (Unwin 1912 ; 3s. 6d.) J. R. MacDonald, M.P. : Syndicalism. (Constable, 1912 ; is.) Tom Mann: The Industrial Syndicalist. (Bowman, London 1910-1912.) Philip Snowden, M.P. : Socialism and Syndicalism. (Collin* 1913; «•) 36 SYNDICALISM. Prof. W. Sombart : Socialism and the Social Movement. (Dent ; $s. 6d.) Sidney and Beatrice Webb : What Syndicalism Means. (National Committee for the Prevention of Destitution. 1913; id.) FRENCH BOOKS. C. Bougl£ : Syndicalisme et Democratic. (Paris.) F. Challaye : Syndicalisme RSvolutionnaire et Syndicalisme Rifovmiste. (Paris : Alcan, 1909.) Pataud et Pouget : Comment nous ferons la Revolution. (Paris : Tallandier.) G. Sorel : Reflexions sur la Violence. (Paris : Riviere, 3 e edition, 1912.) An English translation of Sorel's work is announced by Messrs. Swift. Handbook ol Catholic Charitable and Social Works in Ireland, it, EDITED BY REV. J. McDONNELL, S.J. His Eminence Cardinal Logue writes of it:—“I find it to be a very interesting and useful publication .... I am sure it will prove a very useful book of reference.” His Grace the Archbishop of Tuam writes:—"It seems to me a very timely publication—singularly full and accurate for a first edition It will come as a revelation to many of the variety and extent of the charitable and social work being quietly accomplished by the priests and religious of Ireland. ’* The Most Rev. Dr. Sheehan, Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, writes in reference to this book:—“ You have certainly, by its publication, supplied a long felt want in this country; and, all things considered, I think it will be agreed that you have supplied it well We must all feel grateful to you for having undertaken this religious and patriotic work, and for having performed it with such energy and success.’' “ The Month ” says of it :—“ Father McDonnell has produced a most useful volume, which gives a comprehensive view of the vast work for social betterment which is being carried on in Ireland.” ‘‘The Irish Monthly.”—The late Father Matthew Russell, S.J , wrote of it: —“The compilation of this volume must have entailed great labour and care. It is the first of its kind. It describes all the social and charitable works carried on in each of the dioceses of Ireland by priests and nuns and lay Catholic associ ations, arranged in four sections, according as they are aids in distress, or in sickness and affliction, aids to reformation or to religious, social or physical development. Please God, this Hand- book will gain new friends for these benevolent institutions and may lead to the formation of new ones.” Social Action Series The Social Question Introductory. { ?"ththousand. By Rev. P. J. Connolly, S.J. No. 1—The Church and Labour. No. 2 The Church and Working Men. No. 5—The Church and Working Women. No. 4 The Church and the Working Child. No. 5—The Church and Trades Unions. No. 6—The Church and Social Work. 6* . .Sx All by Rev. L. McKenna, S.J., M.A. No. 7—The Pillars of Socialism. By Rev. Michael J. Phelan, S.J., No. 8 Our Schools and Social Work. By Rev. E. Boyd Barrett, S.J., M.A. D.Ph. No. 9—Socialism and the Working Man. By Rev, J. McDonnJl, S.J, No. 10—Syndicalism. By Rev. J. Joy, S.J., M.A. No. 11—Effects of Strikes. By Rtv. E. Boyd Barrett, S.J., M.A., D.Ph. Others in the press. We strongly recommend these books to Catholic working men and women, to priests and to all who are in.erested in Irish industrial problems. We ask our Promoters and readers to spread them broadcast, and to see that they are placed in all ctiurch book-boxes. They are calculated to exercise a very important influence for good. Nos. i to 6 handsomely bound in Cloth, i /- ; 1/2 post free.