Revolutionary Syndicalism in France (The Direct Action of its Time) by F.F. Ridley. (Cambridge University Press, 279 pages, £4.20).
Youth today has thrown off the yoke of social-democracy and of Stalinism but is obliged, by the nature of things, to try and find its roots in the past, even when it thinks it has erased everything and started afresh. Academics who also generally attempt to find some link, or at least some similarity, between the currents of today and those of the past, are thus encouraged in their works. May 1968 in France could not have failed to give an impetus to such efforts. It is in this way that F.F. Ridley's (1) study on the revolutionary syndicalist current of the French, pre World War I Labour Movement can be explained.
We do not believe that between what has been happening in France since 1968 and what took place between 1900 and 1914 exist such links as those mentioned by Ridley in his study. Among the present revolutionary movements (apart from the Trotskyists), the Maoists and the Spontaneists have usually adopted a hostile attitude towards the unions.
Having said this, Ridley's study must, before all else, be examined for its analysis of the French revolutionary syndicalist movement, as it was then. From this point of view the book contains much valuable information about the origins, the characteristics and the activities of the revolutionary syndicalist movement. On the other hand, it suffers from serious weaknesses when the author deals with the ideas of this current outside their social context, and he neglects many important issues. A very grave shortcoming lies in the fact that the author does not, even in the most general of terms, approach the question of what happened to the various forces in this movement on the outbreak of war and especially after 1914. How can one pretend to fully understand a phenomenon when one ignores its outcome, even if this means its disintegration and its end?
The author is correct in stressing that revolutionary syndicalism must not be considered as an ideology which, consciously applied, was meant to guide the activities of the militant workers; it was a current of the French Labour Movement, and thus a political current in the broad sense of the term (even though it was one of the specific particularities of the movement that 'politics' were forbidden!) which pragmatically carried out its action around a number of general themes and ideas; these were more or less well formulated but never systematized.
This departure point of the author was a very good one. It is only natural that the author of such a study had to clarify what was at the basis of the ideas of such a movement, and a large part of this work has been equally well approached. Thus, the first two sections of his book (Historical Background and [illegible] of the C.G.T.) contain valuable information, even if there are some errors.(2)
On the other hand, the last section of the book (Ideological Context') has no bearing whatsoever on revolutionary syndicalism. It is true that during its lifetime this current certainly interested various intellectuals and bourgeois or petty-bourgeois schools of thought because of its characteristics (such as 'direct action', the use of violence, anti-parliamentarianism, hostility to the parties, etc). But the revolutionary syndicalists themselves were never interested in these bourgeois or petty-bourgeois ideologies. The fact that later on some of these ideologists flirted with fascism is something totally alien to these revolutionary syndicalists. For none of the syndicalists (with perhaps the exception of an odd individual who had abandoned all militant action) ever associated himself with a fascist formation.
After the 1914-18 War the French revolutionary syndicalists either entered the reformist factions or joined the Communist Party. Some even, in vain, attempted to resurrect the tradition. But we will return to this later. Instead of proceeding to study what became of the revolutionary syndicalists after the war and the October revolution (this would have enabled him to better understand the pre-1914 syndicalist movement) the author has engaged himself on a series of reflections on the reactionary intellectual tendencies, i.e. those tendencies who are prone to substituting irrationalism for rationalism. Revolutionary syndicalism had nothing in common with Bergson and others; nor was it any more responsible for the ideas of Sorel than Lenin was for the eulogies Sorel bestowed upon him in his 'Reflections on Violence'. The revolutionary syndicalist movement was not a backward current of the French Labour Movement, but was the most militant and most revolutionary current of the time; this in spite of its pragmatism, its inadequacies and its errors.
However, let us leave aside this part of the book which smacks of pedagogy, and sum up those aspects of the work which are particularly correct and useful.
(1) First of all Ridley mentions the peculiarity of the social structure of syndicalism. The movement found its echo not among those layers of the French working class employed in the big factories, but amongst the workers who were employed in small factories or in workshops, thus men of high professional qualifications. (We must remember that during this period the unskilled working class was numerically still small).
(2) Revolutionary syndicalism expressed a reaction from these workers towards reformism and electoralism which had become of prime importance for the socialist factions. Three men in particular mark the principal socialist tendencies existing in France prior to 1914. These were Jaures, Guesde and Vaillant.
The Jauresian current was openly reformist even though Jaures himself was a reformist of a more sophisticated type. Guesde claimed to be a Marxist, but his Marxism was of a 'Kautsky' type. That is to say, revolutionary rhetoric coupled with reformist action. Because of his very rigid and sectarian attitude towards the syndicalists he had secured their hostility. Vaillant, the old Blanquist leader, had also settled in reformist politics. Nevertheless he had personally good relations with the C.G.T.
(3) In the formation of the revolutionary syndicalist movement elements of anarchistic origins play a very important role. After their failure in certain 'experiences' the anarchist workers looked for a media to propagate their ideas in the working class. They found this in the developing syndicates. What the author does not appear to know was that around 1907 a break occurred between the 'real' revolutionary syndicalists and the so-called anarcho-syndicalists. This break presents interesting features because of its nature; it was not the result of tactical divergencies about the course of action to be taken, but because the anarcho-syndicalists felt it was necessary to build up an organisation which would elaborate the orientation the movement was to take, whereas the revolutionary syndicalists rejected the principle of any other organisational formation apart from the syndicates.
(4) What the author says about the methods of the syndicalists is usually correct; these refer to the strikes, their anti-militarist propaganda, their struggles for certain general demands (such as for the 8 hour day, or for adequate labour exchanges). One cannot really talk of specific revolutionary syndicalist 'methods' in as much as these are the same as those of the syndicalist militants in other countries under similar conditions. But we will come back to the issue of the general strike.
In spite of these correct evaluations Ridley's book unfortunately remains very fragmentary and fails to give a synthetic view of the movement. This is because only a revolutionary Marxist interpretation could have given it. This was later done by the Communist International, particularly under Trotsky who followed the French movement very closely in the first years of the International. He himself was personally very well acquainted with the most prominent members of the movement.
The revolutionary syndicalist movement was a political revolutionary current of a very specific nature. Its essential characteristics were a certain 'ouvrierism', anti-parliamentarianism, anti-electionism, anti-militarism and anti-patriotism. It had taken up these positions largely because of its hostility to the reformism of the French socialist movement, both before and after the latter's unification in 1905. The revolutionary syndicalists saw the dangers in reformism and the corruption in 'politics', i.e. in reformist and parliamentary politics. They believed that salvation was only to be found in direct confrontation with the bosses and the state. They believed that the syndicate would provide everything the working class needed to overthrow capitalism and to emancipate itself. Their view of the future society was tainted with anarchism. They rejected the state; future society would be constituted around local federations of producers. We cannot but repeat that the whole movement was marked by its social structure, by the fact that it was composed of small groups of very highly skilled workers.
Under the direction of the revolutionary syndicalists the C.G.T. of before the war was a hybrid organisation, midway between a political formation, a syndicalist party without any formulated ideology, and a real syndicate, that is to say a mass organisation. They were unable to find a solution in the dialectical relationship between the party and the syndicate. The same theoretical weakness prevented them also from finding a relationship between the revolutionary struggle for reforms, and the struggle for the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Their phobia of the State, inherited from anarchism and aggravated by the reformist politics of the socialists, disarmed them in the daily problems posed by the immediate workers' demands and the struggles in strikes. As revolutionary syndicalists they had to reject the State and Parliament, but, at the same time, as leaders of the syndicates and of the strikes they had to ask the State and Parliament for legislations, and they had to ensure the bosses would respect these.
A clear distinction must be drawn between the revolutionary syndicalists and the trade union militants of other countries (such as Germany or Britain). The latter were already bureaucratized to the extreme and although the revolutionary syndicalists abhorred this, at the same time they aspired to have strong trade unions like those of these countries.
An aspect of revolutionary syndicalism which has not yet been stressed is its organisation, or rather its absence of organisation. Their opposition to all centralism (again, of anarchist origins) found its expression in the non-existence of any organizational plan. The militants would meet as individuals in the committee meetings or sometimes in the local unions or federations to which they belonged. But they never worked together on the national level and only met on the occasion of a C.G.T. congress.
Under these conditions the 'independence of syndicalism' which the militants proclaimed also became the independence of each individual member vis a vis the others.
We will now approach the essential defect of the book. Towards the end of the first decade of the 20th century a crisis was to occur in the revolutionary syndicalist movement. The leading militants of the C.G.T. began to realise the inadequacy of their ideas and of the organisation as it then stood. The turn-over rate in the syndicates was very high and they would have liked to replace these by organisations similar to the German unions, i.e. stable and numerically strong organisations. Some of the members were also intent on better understanding the capitalist mode of production they were fighting. Amongst the latter were Monatte, Merrheim and Rosmer who around 1909 grouped themselves around a review 'La Vie Ouvriere'. Curiously enough, although Ridley cites this review in his bibliography he totally omits mentioning it in the study. We consider this a grave error. For, if an important section of the revolutionary syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists collaborated after August 1914 with the French bourgeoisie (in the same manner as the leaders of the Socialist Party) the group that had gathered around 'La Vie Ouvriere' was to become the first centre of opposition to the war and to the policies of the Sacred Union. They were also the first to turn to the October revolution and to organise a mass opposition force around themselves. This opposition would indeed have taken the direction of the C.G.T. had the reformists, under Jouhaux, not deliberately provoked a schism in 1921.
Certainly this group, and the numerous militants that had assembled around it after the War, did not easily abandon the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism to become communists. In Alfred Rosmer's book 'Moscow under Lenin' we can find a faithful account of all the discussions that took place at the time on this issue.
We must add that the revolutionary syndicalists, by entering the young Communist Party, contributed largely in rooting this party in the French working class and in making it the strongest working class party of the country. When the Communist International and its sections bureaucratized those who came from revolutionary syndicalism (as well as those who had come from the old socialist party) were unable to fight it and continued to furnish important working class cadres for the P.C.F.
Monatte and a few others attempted to revive revolutionary syndicalism, but with no result. Today the majority of those who claim to descend from revolutionary syndicalism are gathered in 'Force Ouvriere' and continue (to the best of their ability) to 'oppose her majesty' in this central union. A few remained faithful to the 3rd International by joining the Trotskyist movement.
As for the formula 'the independence of syndicalism':- this has more than once after 1920 been used as an excuse by syndicalist militants to leave the Communist Party (which in those days was still revolutionary!) and to join the reformist sections. For them the 'independence of syndicalism' came to stand for the independence from the revolutionary struggle.
There is another interesting feature of Ridley's book which deserves more mention than we can give it here. This is the issue of the 'general strike'. It is obvious that the concept of the general strike was conceived and presented by the revolutionary syndicalists as an utopian and even mystified concept. It reminds us somewhat of the Chartists who talked about the 'grand national holiday'. It is equally evident that it served as a springboard for men like Briand who were later to become bourgeois politicians of sad repute. Nor is it any less evident that the pseudo-marxist critique Guesde formulated on the general strike was reformist in essence.
One of the greatest failures of the revolutionary syndicalists, when they spoke about the general strike, was to ignore the discussions that had taken place amongst the German Left (especially Rosa Luxemburg) who referred to this as the 'mass strike'. In these discussions, especially with reference to the 1905 Russian Revolution, the general strike left the domain of utopia and was considered as a concrete step which in certain cases could become the immediate prelude to an insurrectional struggle for power.
It is easy today to criticize this unreal and utopian conception the revolutionary syndicalists had on the 'general strike'. It is, however, not pointless to recall (as Ridley does) that this 'myth' of the general strike has certainly taken shape, especially in France since 1936. Only recently May 1968 has shown that a general anti-capitalist mobilisation of the working class spontaneously took the path of a general strike. And if this massive mobilisation did not lead to a revolutionary insurrection it was because the traditional leaders refused to call for a general strike precisely because it would have placed them before the question of power. Thus we see that this 'myth' of the general strike can indeed become a reality.
To conclude, revolutionary syndicalism was, in the period proceeding World War I the true vanguard current of the French labour movement. The best elements of this current defended the October Revolution and joined the Communist International. In doing so they contributed to make of the Communist Party a party that was well and truly rooted in the French proletariat.
Today there is no current in the French labour movement that revives revolutionary syndicalism and a return to it is not possible. The present composition of the French working class offers no objective basis for such a movement and the experience of the French proletariat has taken it well ahead of this.
Pierre Frank, January, 1971.
(1) Problems of Political Theory and Institutions at Liverpool University.
(2) We are not so much alluding to certain minor historical errors in the description of the socialist forces in France prior to 1905 (the 'Tower of Babel' to which the author refers is indeed an apt description of this). We are thinking of those errors which are visibly the result of a misunderstanding of Marx and Marxism.