If Syndicalism is everywhere increasing at the expense of Socialism, it is, I repeat, because this corporative movement, although a renewal of the past, synthetises certain needs born of the specialisation of modern industry.
We see its manifestations under a great variety of circumstances.
In France its success has not as yet been as great as elsewhere.
Having taken the revolutionary form already mentioned, it has fallen, at least for the time being, into the hands of the anarchists, who care as little for Syndicalism as for any sort of organisation, and are simply using the new doctrine in an attempt to destroy modern society.Socialists, Syndicalists, and anarchists, although directed by entirely different conceptions, are thus collaborating in the same eventual aim--the violent suppression of the ruling classes and the pillage of their wealth.
The Syndicalist doctrine does not in any way derive from the principles of Revolution.On many points it is entirely in contradiction with the Revolution.Syndicalism represents rather a return to certain forms of collective organisation similar to the guilds or corporations proscribed by the Revolution.It thus constitutes one of those federations which the Revolution condemned.It entirely rejects the State centralisation which the Revolution established.
Syndicalism cares nothing for the democratic principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.The Syndicalists demand of their members an absolute discipline which eliminates all liberty.
Not being as yet strong enough to exercise mutual tyranny, the syndicates so far profess sentiments in respect of one another which might by a stretch be called fraternal.But as soon as they are sufficiently powerful, when their contrary interests will necessarily enter into conflict, as during the Syndicalist period of the old Italian republics--Florence and Siena, for example--the present fraternity will speedily be forgotten, and equality will be replaced by the despotism of the most powerful.
Such a future seems near at hand.The new power is increasing very rapidly, and finds the Governments powerless before it, able to defend themselves only by yielding to every demand--an odious policy, which may serve for the moment, but which heavily compromises the future.
It was, however, to this poor recourse that the English Government recently resorted in its struggle against the Miners'
Union, which threatened to suspend the industrial life of England.The Union demanded a minimum wage for its members, but they were not bound to furnish a minimum of work.
Although such a demand was inadmissible, the Government agreed to propose to Parliament a law to sanction such a measure.We may profitably read the weighty words pronounced by Mr.Balfour before the House of Commons:--``The country has never in its so long and varied history had to face a danger of this nature and this importance.
``We are confronted with the strange and sinister spectacle of a mere organisation threatening to paralyse--and paralysing in a large measure--the commerce and manufactures of a community which lives by commerce and manufacture.
``The power possessed by the miners is in the present state of the law almost unlimited.Have we ever seen the like of it? Did ever feudal baron exert a comparable tyranny? Was there ever an American trust which served the rights which it holds from the law with such contempt of the general interest? The very degree of perfection to which we have brought our laws, our social organisation, the mutual relation between the various professions and industries, exposes us more than our predecessors in ruder ages to the grave peril which at present threatens society....We are witnesses at the present moment of the first manifestation of the power of elements which, if we are not heedful, will submerge the whole of society....The attitude of the Government in yielding to the injunction of the miners gives some appearance of reality to the victory of those who are pitting themselves against society.''
3.Why certain modern Democratic Governments are gradually being transformed into Governments by Administrative Castes.
Anarchy and the social conflicts resulting from democratic ideas are to-day impelling some Governments towards an unforeseen course of evolution which will end by leaving them only a nominal power.This development, of which I shall briefly denote the effects, is effected spontaneously under the stress of those imperious necessities which are still the chief controlling power of events.
The Governments of democratic countries to-day consist of the representatives elected by universal suffrage.They vote laws, and appoint and dismiss ministers chosen from themselves, and provisionally entrusted with the executive power.These ministers are naturally often replaced, since a vote will do it.Those who follow them, belonging to a different party, will govern according to different principles.
It might at first seem that a country thus pulled to and fro by various influences could have no continuity or stability.But in spite of all these conditions of instability a democratic Government like that of France works with fair regularity.How explain such a phenomenon?
Its interpretation, which is very ******, results from the fact that the ministers who have the appearance of governing really govern the country only to a very limited extent.Strictly limited and circumscribed, their power is exercised principally in speeches which are hardly noticed and in a few inorganic measures.
