About international syndicalism

I have asked myself, in which form I would write this article on syndicalism. It has occurred to me and also others the last couple of years, , how many wrong opinions, especially in Germany circulate about the syndicalist movement. A movement which originated in France and then spread from Italy, French speaking Switzerland and the Netherlands, later also spread to the United States (the Industrial Workers of the World with its secretariat in Chicago), Germany (the Freie Vereinigung Deutscher Gewerkschaften, transl. Free Union of German Unions), Spain (Solidaridad Obrera transl. Workers Solidarity, in Barcelona) and also to the United Kingdom (for which the editorial ‘The Industrialist’ functioned as a central pillar of the movement), to Böhmen, South America and so on.

Certain is that the international social democratic press played an important part in circulating these faulty ideas. A press which in general lacks the necessary objectivity when writing about young rivalling movements in any truthful manner.

Second there are certain magazines, like in France particularly that of Le Mouvement Socialiste, which although they hardly penetrating into the circles of workers, at least join the revolutionary syndicalist movement. For outsiders who are observing the workers movement their members (theoreticians and literates) might deem them leaders of this movement, but their writings often contain the falsest of interpretations of syndicalism (and I mean the true movement here). This becomes especially clear, when one of these magazines manages to publish an article by a militant representative a revolutionary union.

These are also misconceptions that are spreading internationally. For some months for instance a member of Le Movement Socialiste published in the official magazine of the North-American union (American Federalist) an article in which it was stated that authors of Le Movement Socialist (like Georges Sorel, Hubert Lagardelle, etc.) were actually in a way the spiritual leaders of the revolutionary-syndicalist movement in France. Much more general as anywhere else however the misunderstandings that we talk of seem to have been spread. Professor Werner Sombart has in his last (sixth) publication of his book Sozialismus und Soziale Bewegung (trl. Socialism and Social Movement) a very special new chapter (the fifth of the first part) added, in which he pays special and thorough attention to the new tendency of socialism in France – that of revolutionary syndicalism. He knows to honor this movement but nonetheless offers a sharp critique to it. A critique of such sharpness, that one can only expect from an economic and philosophically schooled man as Sombart is. Although I acknowledge Sombart’s criticism on some points, he doesn’t critique the actual syndicalist movement in France, but more specifically its literary interpreters. I consider it useful to link the following pages to Sombart's book in order to explain syndicalism and its tendencies. They will – like is common in the French magazines – have the character of a critical book review, but it will leave enough space to go into the subject at matter.

These pages will attempt especially to show the reader how important it is to separate the real movement and its different tendencies from what one in France calls ‘appreciations personnelles’ (trl. personal assessments) – that is the personal fantasies about the movement. For this I will be forced to bring things forwards that I could have only learned though year long propaganda work.¹

Let start with the history of the movement: Syndicalism in Fance is for sure older than prof. Sombart and many with him suggest. That “the first initiative” for the movement should be a move by Georges Sorel in the year of 1897 (Sombart, S.110), is a statement which would raise eyebrows in France in a similar way as it would raise eyebrows and cause amusement that syndicalist teachings could also be dubbed as “Sorelism’. Already in 1897 there was a congress by French Confederation of Labour (Confederation General du Travail) in Toulouse, on which Pouget’s and Desalle’s interesting Report were about boycott and sabotage was being addressed. Its content alone should already suffice to prove, that the tactics of the syndicalists in France had then already taken concrete form. The syndicalist literature goes back as far as the early \[eighteen\]nineties, and on the international socialist congresses in Brussels (1891), Zürich (1893) and London (1896) there were already different meetings and discussions among revolutionary unionists. Yes, we can with certainty conclude that the later writers of the syndicalism – Sorel, Hubert Lagardelle, Berth and among others the “Movement Socialist” in France, Labriola, Leone, etc. from “Pagine Libere” and “Divenire Sociale” in Italy – didn’t develop one single new idea for the syndicalist teachings. Just in the same way they don’t really have any notable influence on the development of the movement in general. Of course this last remark should be understood in the way that the texts of these writers didn’t influence that movement any more that the many others did, like those of \[Jean\] Jaurès, George Clemenceau or Aristide Briand. In France these writers are clearly outsiders to the movement, even more than is the case in Italy (on which I will come back later).

Also, when we read in prof. Lombart (S. 125- 126) that Millerandism² gave “the main initiative to the syndicalist reaction in France”³, we believe that, despite the stretched formulation, we are confronted with misinterpretations that are again based on the wrongful claims of the literates of this movement. Self only have come to the syndicalism in the beginning of this century, they believe all to easy, when it didn’t form with them, then it upon their arrival at least received its “main impulse”.

Acknowledging that the syndicalist movement, especially in France, in all its tendencies and its tactics as a people’s movement – a movement in the workers circles itself – had its historical origins, as I just mentioned, stretches into the early \[eighteen\]nineties, yes even stretches back as much as the days of the old International.⁴

If you are determined to connect the name of a specific person to the establishing of the syndicalist movement in France, then this without doubt has to be Fernand Pelloutier. He was the organizer of the Labour Markets, of which he had become secretary in 1985. I have to repeat myself here however: the movement is older and has been given historical substance since the congress of St. Etienne (1892), where the decision was made Federation de Bourses du Travail to found the and since that of Limoges (1895) where the Confederation Generale wrote its statutes, the revolutionary syndicalism in opposition to the parliamentary socialist union movement. We have to recall ourselves, that this break with the parliamentary movement wasn’t just theoretical, but also was happening practically. This happened in 1894 on the congress in Nantes, where the Federation of the Labour Markets was having a specific syndicalist congress while in the same city the Guesdist socialist fraction⁵ was having its political-unionist congress. Yes, its remarkable that this break exactly happened on the question of the revolutionary general strike, which was accepted by a great majority by the revolutionary syndicalists in Nante, while, or even because this was just before was condemned by the Guesdist congress.

* * *

If we look at the origins and character of the syndicalist theory, the misinterpretations are countless. “Their main representatives, French and Italian, as far as I know them personally”, prof. Sombart (p. 110) says:

“are lovable, fine, educated people. People of culture with clean clothes, gut habits and elegant women. People with whom one would be happy to spend time with and looking at them would not for the slightest moment that think they would represent a current that has turned itself against the bourgeoisification of socialism. People who want to help the hardened hands, the real and true workers, obtain their rights.”

But again, these are the intellectuals of the syndicalist movement that are represented as the “main representatives”. And that for prof. Sombart it is not a coincidental mistake, but a very clear historical and theoretical misinterpretation of the origins of the movement, shows because he traces this origin back to the neo-Marxism (p. 120), he thinks, “the syndicalists themselves” claim. That it clearly and fully doesn’t represent a new theory; that they are nothing more than and thereby the only true Marxism. Historically this has to be already seen as a very fantastic idea. Because one has to be aware that the syndicalist doctrine overall arose mostly in where Marxism never really was able to take root. And that in countries where Marxism has played a leading role in the workers movement – namely the middle and eastern European countries – with exception of the Freie Arbeiter Union Deutschland (FAUD) and some bohemian associations, there cannot be spoken of any syndicalist movement. The “newly awakened life” was therefore sprouted exactly there where there was no life before.

Looking at the historical development of the movement, also here I have to go into deeper. If we leave aside the not inconsiderable contingent of those syndicalist workers who area active as revolutionary trade unionists only because they are sensitive to the fruits of agitation in the form of a material improvement in their situation, and turn to those elements who theoretically consciously call themselves revolutionary syndicalists – that is, to those elements from whose ranks in reality the “main representatives” of the movement have emerged – then, in my opinion, three more or less strictly separate categories are to be distinguished among them.

First of all: the only-unionists who within the syndicalist movement are now internationally committed to the maxim of “Syndicalism is sufficient in itself” and who therefore gradually became revolutionaries, because the developments of the class struggle practically forced them to. Many board members of the workers associations in France are part of those.

Second: the group of syndicalists who have their origins in the anarchist movement and came to syndicalism because they were looking for a place where they could go over from the propaganda by the word to the deed. For France I could point here for instance to Pelloutier, Emile Pouget, Monatte, Yvetot, Desalle, Charles Desplanques, Broutchoux and a whole arrange of others. They form the elements who in France have without doubt contributed most to the fact that the union movement in France took a revolutionary turn; often however without ever taking note of Marx or Marxism.

Third come into focus those syndicalists like Laquet, Griffuelhes and so on, who turned themselves from the many socialist groups to anti-parliamentary syndicalism. This because they had slowly come to the conclusion (which prof. Sombart considers as the general position of all), “that socialism is starting to degenerate”. This means becoming superfluous, matt, weak, slow, conventional, with one word is “bourgeiosifying”. (p. 111) Even amongst this group, these so-called “neo-Marxists” – if there are even militants amongst them who are conscious neo-Marxists – however form only a really small part. As known, the great majority rather stems from the ranks of the Allemanists⁶ and specifically in Paris the syndicalist movement had Allemanist origins. This means so much as that Marx was an unknow greatness, who’s name they have heard of every now and then from the “Marxist” camp (the so-called Guedists). Here we have to take note that even the main representatives of this last group, the “Marxist” current in France, only had a very elementary and poor understanding of theoretical Marxism.

What role do these so-called “neo-Marxists” literates from for instance Movement Socialiste play, and whom prof. Sombart ties to this movement; these “lovable, educated people” or those “fine people” who he names later (p. 128)? Practically, meaning in the strikes and wage-movements, as I said before, no role at all. Similarly, little however in the syndicalist press, like the Voix du Peuple, Action Syndicale and so forth, nor in the syndicalist brochures published in contrast by Emile Pouget, Yvetot, Griffuelhes, Merrheim, Dellesalle etc. To understand why the actual syndicalists didn’t object when they abroad were characterized as lead by those literates, one has first and foremost consider that they in general didn’t master any foreign languages and that they in their very busy propaganda-lives find little time to devote themselves to polemics or criticism. Also, one has to consider that the literates of Mouvement Socialiste came over to the syndicalist camp in the period of the so-called “Millerandism”, as opposition groups withing the (parliamentary) socialist movement to which they in part still belong. Even on the congress of the Parti Socialiste Unifie in Toulouse (Autum 1908) they co-signed the by Jaures formulated unification resolution. For them, as the opposition, everything that Prof. Sombart said about the reaction against the flattening and bogging down of socialism as a predominantly political parliamentary movement applies with full force. (p. 111)

The infighting and splits in the socialist camp were not unbeneficial for the revolutionary syndicalists. Because the politics of Millerand and other ministers, who chose to fill their different minister posts from the ranks of the reformist union leaders, lead next to other influences especially to the fact that the reformist wing in the French Syndicalist movement got strengthened. The revolutionary leaders of this movement found it now in their interest to meet the political-socialist opposition with a smile. While the anarchist participation inside and outside the movement was secured, and the ‘Millerandism’ found deaf ears with the ‘pure-syndicalists’. If they could now support the opposition to the opportunism, and in a more consequent way than the Guedists – who are in fact just politicians – then they would in this way simultaneously support their own position. This is why I think some revolutionary syndicalists like Pouget, Griffuelhes et all agreed their personal cooperation to the magazine Le Mouvement Socialiste and why they just before the congress of Marseille (Autum 1908) took the initiative with certain neo-Marxists and anarchist to launch a publication under the name of Action Directe. This magazine discontinued again after the congress.

In Italy the situation is different. There revolutionary syndicalism is – both theoretical and methodical tactic – was imported from France. And the literates played a prominent role with this import. This is also the reason why these are now still actively cooperating in the syndicalist workers associations (meaning participate in the syndicalist congresses). In my role as publisher of the Bulletin International I have received reports from different Italian cities in which there is complained about this collaboration. In that sense these reports proof how wrong it is, even for Italy, to equal the tendencies within the syndicalist workers associations with the theory of the syndicalist literature.

For the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, America and so forth there can be no talk of leadership of the young syndicalist movement by neo-Marxist theorists, because there are no theorists who are associated with the syndicalist movement.

Here we have shown, why the explanation that the origins of the syndicalist doctrine have to be traced back to neo-Marxism, has to be rejected. And simultaneously I proved how the mixing of both currents, at least for some countries, maybe can be explained.

Understood in this manner it is also completely useless to delve deeper into the question if there is “a large Marxist influence⁷” within the syndicalist theory, because it is in general difficult to identify what a ‘Marxist tendency” even means and in how far we are dealing with ideas that are specifically attributed to Marx, or are things that were in the time of Marx “in the air” and were “common good” among socialists and communists (one here only has to think about the studies in the last years of the Communist Manifest by Marx and Engels themselves, and their critical comparison with Victor Considerant’s in 1847 published Principes de socialisme, Manifeste de la democratie au XIX siecle).

In any case, as prof. Sombart shows in the specific chapter of his book (chapt. II, Der Urspung transl. ‘Its origins’), a considerable Marxist contingent, practically from the International and specifically from the anti-Marxist opposition within this movement, went over to revolutionary syndicalism.

But also prof. Sombart seems not to take the neo-Marxist origins of revolutionary Marxism all too serious: “Nowhere in Marxism” he says correctly on p. 122, “I find an explicit rejection of parliamentary action \[sic\] and believe that the idea of direct action – which is the central pilar of the syndicalist doctrine – logically is in contradiction with the by Marx never explicitly formulated theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” And there he was correct as well when he notices that “the fundamental ideas of anti-parliamentarism and direct action, but also the plan of anti-centralism, and on the autonomy of the individual groups of workers based future society, has among others been taken from the anarchist theory.”

When attributing Syndicalism to be a descendent of neo-Marxism, the terms would inevitably be confused. A confusion for which in my opinion not syndicalism, but to the so-called “neo-Marxist theories” are responsible. Professor Sombart is a too thorough expert on Marx, to not admit to me, that our neo-Marxists in France and Italy have just a very superfluous and flawed understanding of the economic theories of Marx. And maybe he would even agree with me, that todays “neo-Marxists” are in their principles “neo” in whatever they want, but not neo-Marxist.

* * *

My presentation here on the history and origins of the syndicalist movement have taken up a lot of space. It however did not make it much easier to summarize the character, function and goal of the movement and its tactics, refuting and rejecting misinterpretations where they arise.

Function and goal of the movement I could maybe formulate easily following the first articles of the principles of the Confédération du travail in France, which strives for:

1. The grouping of wage workers for the defence of their moral and material, economic and their work-related interest;
2. They (the confederation) groups, outside of any political school, all the class-conscious workers for the struggle that has to be fought for the abolishing of the wage-system and patronage.

First and foremost, syndicalism is focused to improve the material and moralist situation of the wage worker in the form of realized wage-increase, shortening of work hours, abolishment of several specific work-related malpractices, the sacking of unpopular foremen, the direct realization of the greatest freedom and self-management in the labour process, etc. This part of the task, which the modern syndicalist movement has set itself, will, for the foreseeable future, surely be the central part of the work of the movement.

But in performing this task, the unionized workers stumble on the employers in similar fashion as they often bump into the existing state institutions. Practically, and also looking at the furthest consequences, the demand of the immediate economic, political etc. interest of the workers is aiming to increase the influence on the labour relations in the factory and the workshop and accordingly push back the influence of the capitalist employers. In this manner, the syndicalists as determined revolutionaries aim to go further – until the gradual and definitive abolition of the Employers and its wage system. The first and closest intent in every single sector and every trade and the final common goal have here been brought together and summarized in a short formula. Of course, between one and the other will be different periods that will generally develop production \[cq. labour relations\], but also further the economic, intellectual and moral development of the working masses. This means that it’s not to be expected that all industries nor all countries will enter the same stage at a similar moment.

If we want to further develop the purpose and ultimate goal of the movement, we must now, above all, clear up all kinds of misinterpretations on the part of the literary interpreters of syndicalism.

Let us first get rid of the misinterpretation that the ideas on which many of the syndicalists' theories are based, are supposed to have ‘a thoroughly artisanal character’. To justify this, Mr. Sombart refers (pp. 124-125) to an essay by Mr. Berth in the January 1907 issue of Mouvement Socialiste, in which (following Proudhon) "quite frankly and freely the gradual ascent from apprentice to journeyman to master is praised as the ideal of the workers' organisation. Well, Mr Berth may fight this out personally with Professor Sombart, but this ‘ideal’ has absolutely nothing to do with the actual syndicalist doctrine. And when Mr Sombart later (p. 131) criticises a sentence that he attributes to Enrico Leone: ‘Il socialismo abolirà, non erediterà il sistema di fabbrica’ (socialism will not inherit the factory system, but abolish it), I ask how it is possible to take these writers seriously. Writers who so obviously disregard the existing relations of production and the actual development of the technical productive forces when establishing the principles of the modern revolutionary workers' movement.

Absolutely the aim of gaining ever growing indirect and direct influence on the production process in the factories and workplaces and on production in general something very different than aiming at getting back to the state of pre-capitalist artisans or the “abolition of the factories”!

And yet it seems to me, that citations like the ones cited here, had large influence on Sombart his in my opinion flawed efforts to prove a strong connection to the “socio-economic milieu” in France and the origins of Syndicalism. “I would like to add” he states “that the idea of cooperative group-oriented organisation of society, the theory of labour, their liberation and much more, could only be received in a country where the type of capitalist enterprise largely still is based upon the medium-sized workshop with its master craftsman at the top and a relatively low number of assistants.” Professor Sombart here clearly has had in mind too much the Parisian artisans-workshops and we should not forget that also in France the modern unionist movement “largely” bears character of a middle- and large-scale industrial movement. Of course, in France like anywhere else there is a lack of trade union organisations like those of the loggers or the seamen (inscrits maritimes) who don’t fit in these categories, but the revolutionary steelworkers and shipwrights, the railway workers (with a strong minority of revolutionaries), electricians, workers in the glass industry, the match factories or those in the stone quarries etc. yes also the workers in construction and navvies (earth works), the carpenters and furniture makers etc. in the larger cities are working without doubt in the medium- to large industry. An interpretation of the syndicalist movement in terms of the promotion of advancement from apprentice to journeyman to master or the abolition of factories would not even be understood by these trade unionists.

Similar value, like ascribed to the above-mentioned statements by Berth and Leone, should be given to those take from Sorel by Sombart (p. 128): “We have taken the thesis from Marx: that the progress of production can never be too swift, and we see this sentence as the most valuable part of the master’s legacy”. Mr. Sombart criticizes this sentence followingly: “Peculiar, most peculiar! Two life times ago, Marx could still be forgiven for such distastefulness (of which I myself was guilty ten years ago): today, anyone who cares about their reputation should no longer carry such parvenu ideals⁸ around with them. Especially not if you want to introduce a new one. After all, the idea that there can never be enough production is the most legitimate child of capitalist snobism."

I believe latest happily and leave it to Mr. Sorel to defend “Sorelism”. I only note, that one is very little in workers circles and especially circles of unionists if one isn’t familiar with the fact that one should almost accuse the modern wage worker of the opposite of the idea that “the progress of production could never be too swift.” This would follow from his own situation as a wage worker! Because he would be out of work if too much would be produced! Workers have always rejected the implementation of new machinery (like the weavers or Hazebrouck not long ago), we can regret this; and the modern syndicalists would so too, as far as they take the standpoint of the general cultural progress. But from a wage workers point of view, this struggle against the machinery is understandable. Also, the syndicalist in the factory or workshop remains a wage worker and one can at most teach him to accept the technical progress of production when he himself is benefitting from it and it not only serves the profit and the dividend of the business class. On the other hand, the popularity of sabotage (based on the principle of “worse wage, worse labour”) found ways into revolutionary unionist circles, is explained by the fact that they want to halt the competition of production and do so where they are not able to improve the workers wage. There they at least aim to let the quantity of their production follow their (stagnated) wages.

Let us now look at those tendencies within syndicalism hostile to the state!

The wage workers, like I emphasized above, in their undertakings will find the modern state and its institutions of coercion pitted against them many times. In that, the state is in its whole apparatus hierarchically organized, and there where it is acting as a modern businessman in the different monopolistic industries like mail, telegraph, telephone, railways etc. it has the aspiration to transport that hierarchical organisation also onto its employees and workers. Insofar it buys its services it also pursues in all countries to lay its heavy hand on their souls, their intellect, on their social and political opinions. Also in this aspect, syndicalism, as a general school of thought which takes the interests of the class as a whole into account, has to take a stance as an opponent of the state. This follows already from the above-mentioned pursuit of the organized workers to gain an ever-increasing influence on the labour process and the whole production. The authoritarian governmental system of production is in stark contrast to the “industrial democracy:” that the modern wage worker wants to achieve.

However, if we want to discuss these against the state aimed tendencies within the syndicalist movement in any serious manor, we will one more time have to go to the workers movement itself; in the real struggle, like for instance during the last general strike of the post, telegraph and telephone worker (their newsletters, minutes, and the demands by the civil servants etc.) show these tendencies and leave aside as much as possible the interpretations of the writers of Movement Socialiste.

“Next to the fact that the solutions by the syndicalists do not satisfy me”, Mr. Sombart (p. 129-130) states in relation to this matter. “It is not about the willingness to eliminate all wrongs, by decreeing a social order which doesn’t contain them anymore! That one simply says: We don’t want centralisation, no bureaucracy and in its place put the autonomous workers groups, which don’t need any supervision or higher administration. Or: we don’t want the factory with its soul grinding labour specialization and will replace it with the mental labour of the individual producers. That is utopianism in its purest form. These proposals for reforms clearly don’t take into account the necessary conditions which our society and its economic culture is bound to.”

I agree with this to the fullest. I believe however that Mr. Sombart would not have written these lines, would he have been able to study syndicalism in our modern trade union movement, instead of the writings of the essayists. Mr. Sombart in particular attacks Eduard Berth, the “specialist on this matter” (I don’t believe that Mr. Sombart means this ironically) who explained it as follows: “To let the worker be truly free, it is necessary that the hierarchical division of labour ceases to exist; it is crucial that the workers that set the workshop into motion start taking upon them the intellectual force of the production process and as a group (resorbant en lui les puissances intellectuelles de la production), similar to an entrepreneur, in Labriola’s words, develop the overall work plan: including management and execution. That is the solution. Otherwise, socialism will remain an imitation of the bourgeois spirit (contrefagon boureois).”

Mr. Sombart has it easy again: “In total agreement, Mr. Berth states that the hierarchical division of labour has to cease, so that the worker can be fully freed etc. But is it then enough, that they decree it?” (see page 131).

The correct assessment of the syndicalist tendencies within the unions themselves leaves Mr. Berth however cold. And especially the Berthian tirade against the “hierarchical division of labour” I posed that one should not forget that the emancipation of the wage workers, springs from the division of labour and not from the Berthian “progression from apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman” (see above).

In reality, the fact that the worker has become the sub-component, the operator of a machine, has sometimes contributed much to his emancipation, be it only partial. And the old Marxian conception from the early period of modern large-scale industry, which describes the factory worker as a ‘living appendage’ of a ‘dead mechanism’, need no longer prevent us in our time from recognising the great advantages of the division of labour, economically, intellectually and morally, for the wage worker.

Let’s try here also to look at thing correctly. In the assessment of those currents withing syndicalism which are hostile to the state, one has to consider that the syndicalists in their unions work for their actual lives, and when Mr. Sombart emphasises (p. 116) that they “don’t really clearly pronounce their hostility” their hostility towards state, this has in my opnion to do with the fact that they can’t move forward as much as reality allows them to. In this sense they would not only admit that there will be need for “supervision” if one wants to prevent to return to pre-capitalist production, but also that this supervision will, under every form of social organisation, will look very different in the different spheres of production – like how work will for instance be structured very different in the railways (where constant material danger is present without good organisation of work processes) than in construction or agriculture. In relation to the state as entrepreneur, as to private entrepreneurs, the modern syndicalist thus strives only for the greatest possible substitution of supervision from above by organisation and supervision from below, that is, on the part of the direct producers. And when we look at the goals of the revolutionary syndicalists in everyday life, we will see for instance that in the last large-scale strikes, the mail-, telegraph- and telephone workers, the demands by the syndicalists were also the most revolutionary in their efforts for the recognition of the freedom of organisation and cooperation of the workers and civil servants. A freedom they wanted to try to extend before they eventually would join the Confederation Generale du Travail <span class="mark"></span>(CGT).\[sic\] To go further than that in their struggle against state-authority at that moment seemed impossible to them. And instead of selecting their own supervisors in the offices and workshops, like they might be able to demand in twenty or thirty years, they only demanded the dismissal of an in their opinion impossible chief, that of deputy of state Simyan.

The rejection of the state in the modern union movement can therefore only be seen as a tendency, as an aspiration in a certain direction and nothing differently; similar to how for instance sincere Jesus Christ meant his commandment to love one’s neighbour. And also, if it never really would come to the true abolishment of the state, similarly to how little we get to the strict realisation of the Sermon of the Mount stating “if anyone gives you a stroke on your right cheek, offer him the other also”, this aspiration in the aforementioned direction does have clear theoretical and practical meaning.

The same should be applied to the syndicalist pursuit for the autonomy of the workers syndicates. When Mr. Sombart askes (p. 130) “which autonomous workers syndicates should have the responsibility for the railway lines in North-America or the channels of a country or the iron works of Essen or Pittsburgh, without being talked into it?” We will at the moment and looking at the current technical development of course have to answer: none. But still a continuing progress is possible in the direction of the organisation of the whole of production, exchange of goods and traffic, under the supervision of the representatives of the whole of the railway organisations of Northern America, or the autonomous population of a region equipped with waterworks, or also by the whole of the workers in the combined iron works of Pittsburgh or Essen, of whom representatives then have to coordinate with the consumers (the public), similarly as the large capitalist entrepreneurs or shareholders of a canal have to do so now.

With this I come to another of the main goals of the syndicalist movement that is being addressed by Prof. Sombart: If “the unions are the place where the workers have to attain their knowledge and skills, which will allow them to wrest from the hands of the entrepreneurs the direction of production to become manager and organiser themselves.” (p. 137)

Mr. Sombart believes that “a major error underlies the reasoning of the syndicalists”. In my opinion the error is on behalf of professor Sombart himself, who clearly understands the “direction of the production” as if the worker has to learn about the “production process” in its union so that he “later can become an business owner himself.” Also on this point, the literature seems to have had the poorest of effects. Prof. Sombart writes: “I do not know, what one is thinking, when one writes ‘In the union there is being formed the ability and the technical-political familiarization on a new basis to be able to lead the production process.’ (Leone) “Please” Mr. Sombart asks: “what do the dockworkers learn from the transatlantic shipping company; what do blast furnace workers from the organisation of a melting works, of the calculations of the iron production, what do the assistants of the functioning of a warehouse, what in general does a union member know of any kind of production process?! I have to be struck blind; then somewhere there has to be – even when small – a relationship between the two worlds, because there are such smart people like the syndicalists take up such identity?” (p. 137-138). And further on (p. 139): “Which disastrous error is it: equating the gradual formation of capitalist enterprise within the womb of the old feudal-artisanal society with the development of trade unions! (Sorel frequently).”

Let us leave Leone, Sorel and their relation to technological development aside for now! And let’s then first ask prof. Sombart a counter-question. What does a shareholder of a shipping company, of a melting works plant or a warehouse experience about the “production processes” and the “functioning” of the businesses? Maybe even less then the lowest of the productive workers!⁹ And non the less these shareholders have the direction within the capitalist enterprises in their hands through the general direction. And this is what is key in the end, not about the technical direction of the businesses!

For what is raised here is a question of ownership. The goal of modern syndicalism is to increasingly push back the capitalist private entrepreneur from his position of power, not as technical director, but precisely as owner. And the historical task of the modern trade union movement is precisely to eliminate the separation of the immediate producer from the means of production caused by capitalism and reunite the two.

If you ask the shareholders of a modern large corporation about the technical management of the company, they will reply that such management is purchased and that, given the current state of technology in production and distribution, it would be difficult to do otherwise. The general manager of a large capitalist factory is bought with a large salary and perhaps a certain number of ‘shares’, just as, depending on the current state of the labour market, engineers, cashiers, mathematicians, chemical engineers, supervisors, etc. are bought with a smaller salary. Workers’ cooperatives are already acting in the same way by the way.

So the syndicalists of our time claim that they are pursuing the gradual suppression of the capitalist owner in industrial, commercial, etc. enterprises, until they are completely eliminated. One must not think that their aim is to prepare the current janitor of a steelworks or a department store for the future management of such an enterprise by educating him in a trade union.

They claim that the modern trade union movement is ultimately a struggle for control of factories and workshops, which simply means that the essential question is whose will shall prevail in future: that of capitalist enterprises or that of organised producers.

Prof. Sombart adds an interesting reservation to his remarks on the ability of trade unions to serve as precursors to future productive cooperatives: “The only things that correspond to the early capitalist structures in the realm of craftmanship in our times, are state and municipal enterprises (which the syndicalists also want nothing to do with) and cooperative enterprises based on consumer organisations: here, indeed, there are signs of a new mode of production, and here, indeed, there are practical training grounds for socialism. But in the trade unions?”

"I consider it one of the greatest shortcomings of the syndicalist doctrine (which is so promising in this regard!) that it completely disregards the cooperative movement and, in particular, the formation of consumer associations. It should focus its attention on this and (following the example of the Webbs) base its plans for the future on an organic connection between consumer associations and trade unions" (pp. 139–140).

Modern syndicalists will naturally find it difficult to regard their movement — a producers' movement directed against private capitalism — as sufficient for the entire social production and distribution of wealth. There are indeed syndicalists in various countries who subscribe to the doctrine that “syndicalism is sufficient", but this doctrine must not be misinterpreted in the sense mentioned above and refers rather to the influence of political parties on the trade union movement. In my opinion, the syndicalist doctrine is in no way contradictory to the fact that the state and local authorities will undoubtedly extend their influence in various branches of industry in the near future. I consider state and municipal production, albeit in such a way that it will have to reckon with syndicalist workers' organisations, to be the future form of production and distribution in certain sectors and, as already mentioned above, syndicalism will then make a particular effort to remove the hierarchical structure from collective businesses.

In order to gain a more accurate picture of the relationship between syndicalism and the cooperative movement, it must be borne in mind that the former is a militant organisation of producers which, on the whole, can hardly focus its attention on the cooperative movement. However, there can be a certain degree of cooperation between the two movements. For example, in return for the supply of members from the syndicates, consumer cooperatives can provide financial assistance, credit, etc. to the syndicates in their struggle against the capitalists (during strikes and lockouts, etc.).

The situation is different for productive cooperatives, which can be promoted alongside the syndicate movement in those branches of agriculture, industry, transport and traffic where modern medium-sized or large businesses have not penetrated, or have penetrated only with difficulty, and are unlikely to penetrate successfully in the near future, such as in various branches of repair work and craftsmanship and, in general, in various rural and small-town businesses. If, incidentally, such productive associations show a tendency towards communism at the same time as the practical elimination of small businesses — as is already the case for certain businesses in various countries — then in theory there would be a real point of contact for syndicalists here.

Association for Communal Land Ownership in the Netherlands was reorganizing and aims to establish and organise productive cooperatives on a more communist basis, eliminating private enterprise. With the afore said in mind, I responded when, a few months ago, this association asked me, as someone with theoretical and practical experience in the trade union movement, to work with them in this direction and I know that many syndicalists and revolutionary communists think the same way.

Such collaboration doesn’t have to hinder the syndicalists to keep clear that for the main branches of industry, trade and transport, yes also in the production of many agricultural products (cotton, wheat etc.) in all modern countries, already for decades the time is over where it is possible to think to establish sustainable productive cooperatives that are able to withstand the competition of modern capitalism. In all these main sectors it is not about establishing new businesses based on communist-syndicalist principles to rival the capitalist run ones, but about pushing out those capitalist businessmen from their own technically highly developed businesses. In this only the union struggle along revolutionary syndicalist line can intervene, not the cooperative movement.

* * *

Prof. Sombart characterizes the tactic of syndicalism very precisely, when noting (p. 116 in his book) that is not like late Marxism hoping for the almost automatic transition and full restructuring of the current economic system into a socialist one. “Waiting for accumulation and concentration processes to run their course is as foreign to syndicalists as the idea of basing their hopes on the gradual impoverishment of the masses.” Instead of waiting for history to unfold, they want to “make history” themselves. This quote from Leone, which Sombart cites in his book, aptly expresses their attitude.

But when Prof. Sombart, drawing further on the literature on syndicalism, comes to the conclusion that "strictly speaking, there is only one thing, only one driving and at the same time creative force: the revolutionary will of the proletariat, which must develop into enthusiasm for dedication and work" (ibid.), then anyone who is familiar with the syndicalist movement through its practical propaganda will find this statement all the more questionable, since in this movement it is reasonable to speak only of a revolutionary will in the economic development of society and its productive forces, and we, who live in the practical reality, know only too well how much the ‘enthusiasm for dedication’ is still lacking. And it sounds downright ironic when Mr. Sombart continues: ‘But the revolutionary will of the proletariat also encompasses all the possibilities of a new mode of production. This will be based on a completely new morality: the morality of selfless sacrifice for the good of the whole.’ Here it seems to be the good Sorel who has tempted the German critic to draw his final conclusion: "The effort to do better, which manifests itself despite the absence of any immediate and proportional personal reward"...

Now, such a ‘mode of production’ based on ‘a new morality’ may sound quite appealing in literature; but the syndicalist movement is a sober, everyday movement, and in everyday life, as in the trade union movement in general, the lack of “selfless sacrifice” and solidarity is much more to be regretted than the opposite. One should not exaggerate, and in my personal experience, the trade union movement as a revolutionary element in the social development would certainly have been much more successful in various countries if, firstly, the individual syndicates had not focused too much on their own immediate, narrow professional interests — even if these coincided with the “good of the whole” in the labour movement — and secondly, if the workers of all industries and professions together did not regard their movement too much as a struggle directly linked to today’s conditions. The statements made by writers such as Mr. Sombart should rather be understood as ideal impulses in a direction in which the revolutionary syndicalist movement, like the entire labour movement, will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to push itself.

Practical issues, such as those touched upon in Sombart's book, must also be understood in the same way: "no contributions and no strike or even insurance funds; therefore, the rejection of any policy of negotiation or agreement with employers." (see p. 118)

No contributions and no strike fund? I do not know of a single ‘syndicalist’ in France or elsewhere who is active in practical propaganda who would demand such a thing; on the contrary, there is a general urge within the syndicalist camp to increase contributions in order to make strikes and wage movements possible and successful — which is hardly possible otherwise within a movement that is primarily developing into a militant movement. However, if the contributions are set too high, the union members will leave the ranks, and even the most combative syndicalist has to take this reality into account.

Then there is something else that distinguishes the revolutionary syndicalists from the "reformists" in France, or even distinguishes the French trade union movement from, for example, the German movement embodied in the large central associations: Revolutionary syndicalists generally declare themselves to be supporters of trade union funds and high contributions to them, insofar as the money is used for militant purposes. As for the formation of insurance funds, on the contrary, they seek to limit these as far as possible and, for example, to reduce them to the provision of subsistence allowances. However, revolutionary syndicalists only tolerate support funds, such as those that exist in Germany, England, America, in the large conservative associations and in certain "reformist" trade unions in France — funds that pay out money in the event of illness, disability and death, or even when changing residence, etc. — if they have no other choice. In principle, however, they regard the creation of such funds as the task of the "Mutualité"¹⁰ — which already has more than three million members in France — and not as the task of the trade unions, because they regard the latter primarily as fighting organizations.¹¹

Great caution must also be exercised when considering the syndicalists' rejection of ‘any policy of negotiation or agreement with the business community.’ Of course, where there is an ongoing struggle between two parties, there is also a continuous system of “negotiations” and “agreements” between the parties. But there are “negotiations” and “negotiation.” What the syndicalists reject are negotiations in which the members of the executive committee (as is customary in Germany) “reach an understanding” with the employers over the heads of the members of their associations or, in the event of a conflict, over the heads of the striking workers themselves. This is, of course, again linked to the formation of large support funds and the fear of the executive committees of large organizations that these funds will be depleted. What the French syndicalists accuse the conservative trade unionists in German, English, North American, etc. of, is precisely that they place too much trust in the poor pennies of the workers against the golden coins of the capitalists, instead of encouraging in every way the direct action of the members and exploiting it in all its forms.

In short, the movement of 380,000 or 400,000 French trade unionists led by the revolutionary majority cannot be compared with that of the approximately two million unionized workers in Germany. Nor can conclusions be drawn about their influence on social life based on their respective numerical strength.¹² The French organizations, inspired by the spirit of syndicalism, want to be fighting organizations; the German central associations are increasingly becoming insurance companies, “organizations de secours mutuel”, and even if they also lead the economic struggles, strikes and wage movements in Germany, they nevertheless view these struggles primarily from a penny pittance point of view. In my opinion — and I believe I am fairly well acquainted with international conditions — this is why the C.G.T., with its 400,000 members, currently has significantly more influence on social life in France than, for example, the central associations with their nearly 2 million members in Germany. In France, the actions of the most energetic elements of the working population are not paralyzed by a majority of fee-paying members who have joined the associations solely for the sake of support and insurance!

The tactics of the syndicalist movement are often summarized under the motto ‘direct action’. In contrast to indirect action, i.e. primarily parliamentary action, direct action takes the form of intervention by those directly involved, not only in strikes and boycotts, but also, where workers are too weak to take offensive action, occasionally through obstruction or sabotage (working according to pay, or performing poor work for low pay), etc. Of course, the use of direct action to influence government bodies and to support good laws or combat bad ones is not excluded. But here too, it remains action in real life and not in parliament, and manifests itself in pressure on all political parties without distinction. For example, we know how trade unionists in France demonstrated for the implementation of the law introducing a weekly day of rest, and how, in order to enforce this implementation, they stormed the large storehouses en masse, where the 24-hour day of rest had not been introduced despite the law.

However, due to the position taken by Mr. Sombart, the character of certain fighting methods proposed by the syndicalists, is not always given its due in his book; for example, that of the strike, which Mr. Sombart regards not only as a suitable weapon against the capitalist class, not as a form of direct action, but rather as a means of "promoting everything that helps to strengthen the revolutionary will, in other words, above all, everything that repeatedly makes the proletariat aware of its class antagonism to the bourgeois world, which nourishes its hatred of this world and its representatives and also stokes it anew" (p. 118). Ideological motives hardly play a role in everyday life and in the real struggle against the capitalist business owners, and even the syndicalists do not emphasize them as such, as ideological motives. This can only happen in literature or occasionally by a particularly ideologically inclined speaker.

I must level similar criticism at Sombart when he explains the reasoning behind the strike according to the views of the syndicalists (pp. 178–119): “Of course, the strike must not be a carefully considered transaction, but must erupt spontaneously from the decisions of the agitated masses; it must not be made possible by the use of carefully saved contributions, but must rest exclusively on the ability to endure hardship and on the willingness of other groups of workers to make sacrifices, who now voluntarily rush to support the strikers.” To be honest, I have never heard such reasoning from the syndicalists themselves, at least not from the syndicalist workers, and it would, incidentally, be met with scorn by the workers in factories or workshops. I believe that this misinterpretation must also be attributed to the literature on French syndicalism and to the false concepts about it imported to Germany and elsewhere. Not only, as I said above, are the syndicalists in France working quite positively towards increasing contributions, but the ‘spontaneity’ of the movement can only occasionally be considered by them as a secondary factor in the struggle against the employers. This factor is for example more prominent at the beginning of the workers' organisation than in its later development, more so in general strikes than in strikes in individual trades and industries. Its effect also varies greatly in different industries and professions, etc.

Let us turn to the general strike: even the propaganda for it and the first attempts in this direction cannot be attributed to psychological and ideological motives to the extent that Mr Sombart does (p. 130 and 134). After all, the general strike is also a weapon that only has power to the extent that it gradually emerges from the development of economic conditions and the concurrence of various individual strikes; it grows naturally and spreads gradually, just like the organisation of the workers or employers itself. This is also how the syndicalists of France think about it, insofar as they are in touch with everyday life. Only in the sense of a social phenomenon arising from real conditions, and not primarily as a means of "reviving revolutionary passion" can the general strike be regarded as "a kind of field manoeuvre"’ (Sombart, p. 119).

Furthermore, the general strike is not necessarily synonymous with socialism. Labriola and Sorel wrote in this sense in the sentences quoted by Mr Sombart, but this has only literary value and should at least be taken cum grano salis (transl. 'with a grain of salt'). Workers' socialism is not ‘entirely contained in the general strike.’ The latter, as a means of struggle, can indeed bring about a decision in favour of a particular method of production at a critical moment, but as such, as a means of struggle, it stands outside the production, whose gradual revolutionary transformation socialism and syndicalism pursue.

Although I would caution against misinterpretations of syndicalist tactics that appear to arise from the literature, as if the "main emphasis"’ should be placed on "fulfilling the psychological and ethical preconditions of the new society," I cannot entirely agree with Sombart's criticism with regard to the aforementioned preconditions.

‘What connection,’ asks Mr Sombart (p. 134), ‘is there between the élan that carries out a general strike and the devoted, enthusiastic mood in which (according to Sorel) day-to-day business is later conducted? I see none.’ And later he writes (p. 136): "No matter how you look at it, isn't it an unrealistic fantasy to imagine that our masses today can be kept in a state of high idealistic tension year in, year out? Everyday life can only be built on unselfish moods under one condition: that religious fanaticism lives in the masses. All other ideal forces will eternally prove too weak to tame the beast in man, even if the ideals are not directed towards temporary goals, as is also the case with the revolutionary enthusiasm of the syndicalists."

But Mr Sombart, how grim and sombre you were when you wrote these lines! In your opinion, does love for children and concern for one's own old age, or the desire to see all people on earth happier than they are now, the desire to avoid war (I am thinking of the anti-militarist efforts of the syndicalists, about which you wrote) etc., are all these things merely “selfish moods” in your view, or do they also have their ideal side, and in this sense, in your opinion, can they not at least have the significance that you attribute to “religious fanaticism”? After all, can the welfare of all humanity on earth not have more value as a social driving force than the uncertain belief in heaven? Yes, as the latter dissolves into the fog of improbability, should not the former naturally come more and more to the fore as an ideal pursuit? Heinrich Heine expressed this as follows:

“A new song, a better song, Oh friends, I want to compose for you: Let us build the kingdom of heaven here on earth.”

* * *

I now almost reached the end of my critical remarks. In order to criticise the syndicalist movement once again in terms of its nature and origins, I am happy to agree with Prof. Sombart when he says: "Only in a country as highly cultivated as France, it seems to me, could such a theory arise" (p. 123). However, in the further development of this ultimately correct observation, we completely disagree, and here I once again regret the misunderstandings that the literature on syndicalism in Germany (and elsewhere) has apparently caused. Let us quote further: "It (syndicalist theory) could only have been conceived by highly refined minds, ... by sophisticated people whose nerves need very strong stimuli to be set in motion. But who also, out of a certain artistic sensibility, have an aversion to everything philistine, to the boutique, to everything specifically “bourgeois”. Silk versus wool! The everyday is as abhorrent to them as the natural. They are gourmets of social theory who created syndicalism as a system of thought." (p. 123–124)

However, as discussed above, syndicalism is not only a popular movement in its practical origins, but also in its theoretical formulation, a mass product par excellence, whose creative minds and inventors are difficult to identify, and whose “system of thought” later writers have been unable to change in the slightest. And one can accuse our construction workers and manual labourers, in whom initiative and the desire to “do it themselves” are so deeply rooted, or our metalworkers, sailors and dockworkers, our woodcutters and vineyard workers, etc., of anything one likes, yes, one can also make some justified accusations against syndicalist leaders in France, the Merrheims, Patauds, Griffuelhes, Pougets, Monattes, Luquets, Yvetots, Jouhauxes, etc., but to say that they suffer from ‘over-culture’ or are even ‘gourmets of social theory’—no, that is really too much!

One should investigate more deeply the origins of a social theory such as syndicalism. And when one correctly states that such a theory could only have arisen in a highly civilised country such as France, one should bear in mind that France underwent four revolutions within a century and a quarter, and that tough in Central Europe — Germany and Austria — a radical revolution could at most bring about the realisation of the dreams of 1848, France is on the verge of realising the Commune.

What historically lies at the heart of the syndicalist movement in France and makes its success and progress possible is the fact that all political regimes in this country have failed, that all imperial, royalist and bourgeois republican systems have gradually been “weighed” but found to be too “light”, and thus the masses themselves have moved far beyond the stage where they still expected political reforms in general able to restore social life and make it prosper.

Added to this, of course, is the temperament of these people who, like the French or Italians, as Sombart notes, “are accustomed to acting impulsively, in whom a sudden rush of enthusiasm floods their entire being, whose nature is dominated by such sudden effects and carried away to swift action’ (p. 124). Of course, the “active minorities”, about whom one can speak and write so contemptuously in Germany (especially in the social democratic press), and ‘élan’ play a particularly important role here!

All this is closely linked to the nature and character of syndicalism as a mass movement, and explains why the French (and also Italian) trade union movement will never predominantly take on the character of movement for insurance and sickness relief.

Can we conclude from this that the syndicalist movement "represents a reaction against the neglect of the trade union movement in the Romance countries"? (Sombart p. 125) In my opinion, no; we can only conclude that ‘trade union movement’ means something different in France than it currently does in Germany or England (in England, again, partly for different historical and economic reasons than in Germany).

In one respect, I agree with Mr. Sombart: "To put it bluntly: as excellent and felicitous as many of the views and theories of syndicalism are, it is not yet the new social theory. For this to be created, a completely different deepening of all problems would be necessary" (p. 141). And although I fully agree with this assessment, I do not think as much as Mr Sombart about Marxism, from which the doctrine would have to "completely free itself", because Marxism has never had a particular influence in France, I readily acknowledge that syndicalism, precisely because it is in its innermost essence a popular movement, has been able to be effective only in an overly critical manner and not yet sufficiently constructive.

"It is not the new social theory yet." The elements are still fermenting in colourful confusion, and here and there they still seem to be at odds with each other. This is the case for anyone who is not in the habit of scientifically examining social problems and who has not yet realised that human society was, is, and always will be a multicoloured mosaic of very different modes of production and ways of life.

The synthesis of syndicalism has not yet been achieved. But anyone who sets about developing it will be particularly aided in their studies by the fact that the movement, as it stands, has its roots in real social life and not, as Marxism does, in metaphysics.