💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › goldman-syndicalism-its-theory-and-practice.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:41:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Syndicalism Author: Emma Goldman Date: 1913 Language: en Topics: anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism, theory Source: *Mother Earth*, January-February 1913. Part 1: Retrieved on 2020-10-07 from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/ME/mev7n11.html Part 2: Retrieved on 2016-10-20 from http://fair-use.org/mother-earth/1913/02/syndicalism-its-theory-and-practice
In view of the fact that the ideas embodied in Syndicalism have been
practised by the workers for the last half century, even if without the
background of social consciousness; that in this country five men had to
pay with their lives because they advocated Syndicalist methods as the
most effective in the struggle of labor against capital; and that,
furthermore, Syndicalism has been consciously practised by the workers
of France, Italy and Spain since 1895, it is rather amusing to witness
some people in America and England now swooping down upon Syndicalism as
a perfectly new and never before heard-of proposition.
It is astonishing how very naĂŻve Americans are, how crude and immature
in matters of international importance. For all his boasted practical
aptitude, the average American is the very last to learn of the modern
means and tactics employed in the great struggles of his day. Always he
lags behind in ideas and methods that the European workers have for
years past been applying with great success.
It may be contended, of course, that this is merely a sign of youth on
the part of the American. And it is indeed beautiful to possess a young
mind, fresh to receive and perceive. But unfortunately the American mind
seems never to grow, to mature and crystallize its views.
Perhaps that is why an American revolutionist can at the same time be a
politician. That is also the reason why leaders of the Industrial
Workers of the World continue in the Socialist party, which is
antagonistic to the principles as well as to the activities of the I. W.
W. Also why a rigid Marxian may propose that the Anarchists work
together with the faction that began its career by a most bitter and
malicious persecution of one of the pioneers of Anarchism, Michael
Bakunin. In short, to the indefinite, uncertain mind of the American
radical the most contradictory ideas and methods are possible. The
result is a sad chaos in the radical movement, a sort of intellectual
hash, which has neither taste nor character.
Just at present Syndicalism is the pastime of a great many Americans,
so-called intellectuals. Not that they know anything about it, except
that some great authorities — Sorel, Bergson and others — stand for it:
because the American needs the seal of authority, or he would not accept
an idea, no matter how true and valuable it might be.
Our bourgeois magazines are full of dissertations on Syndicalism. One of
our most conservative colleges has even gone to the extent of publishing
a work of one of its students on the subject, which has the approval of
a professor. And all this, not because Syndicalism is a force and is
being successfully practised by the workers of Europe, but because — as
I said before — it has official authoritative sanction.
As if Syndicalism had been discovered by the philosophy of Bergson or
the theoretic discourses of Sorel and Berth, and had not existed and
lived among the workers long before these men wrote about it. The
feature which distinguishes Syndicalism from most philosophies is that
it represents the revolutionary philosophy of labor conceived and born
in the actual struggle and experience of the workers themselves — not in
universities, colleges, libraries, or in the brain of some scientists.
The revolutionary philosophy of labor, that is the true and vital
meaning of Syndicalism.
Already as far back as 1848 a large section of the workers realized the
utter futility of political activity as a means of helping them in their
economic struggle. At that time already the demand went forth for direct
economic measures, as against the useless waste of energy along
political lines. This was the case not only in France, but even prior to
that in England, where Robert Owen, the true revolutionary Socialist,
propagated similar ideas.
After years of agitation and experiment the idea was incorporated by the
first convention of the Internationale in 1867, in the resolution that
the economic emancipation of the workers must be the principal aim of
all revolutionists, to which everything else is to be subordinated.
In fact, it was this determined radical stand which eventually brought
about the split in the revolutionary movement’of that day, and its
division into two factions: the one, under Marx and Engels, aiming at
political conquest; the other, under Bakunin and the Latin workers,
forging ahead along industrial and Syndicalist lines. The further
development of those two wings is familiar to every thinking man and
woman: the one has gradually centralized into a huge machine, with the
sole purpose of conquering political power within the existing
capitalist State; the other is becoming an ever more vital revolutionary
factor, dreaded by the enemy as the greatest menace to its rule.
It was in the year i900, while a delegate to the Anarchist Congress in
Paris, that I first came in contact with Syndicalism in operation. The
Anarchist press had been discussing the subject for years prior to that;
therefore we Anarchists knew something about Syndicalism. But those of
us who lived in America had to content themselves with the theoretic
side of it.
In 1900, however, I saw its effect upon labor in France: the strength,
the enthusiasm and hope with which Syndicalism inspired the workers. It
was also my good fortune to learn of the man who more than anyone else
had directed Syndicalism into definite working channels, Fernand
Pelloutier. Unfortunately, I could not meet this remarkable young man,
as he was at that time already very ill with cancer. But wherever I
went, with whomever I spoke, the love and devotion for Pelloutier was
wonderful, all agreeing that it was he who had gathered the discontented
forces in the French labor movement and imbued them with new life and a
new purpose, that of Syndicalism.
On my return to America I immediately hegan to propagate Syndicalist
ideas, especially Direct Action and the General Strike. But it was like
talking to the Rocky Mountains — no understanding, even among the more
radical elements, and complete indifference in labor ranks.
In 1907 I went as a delegate to the Anarchist Congress at Amsterdam and,
while in Paris, met the most active Syndicalists in the Confédération
Générate du Travail: Pouget, Delesalle, Monate, and many others. More
than that, I had the opportunity to see Syndicalism in daily operation,
in its most constructive and inspiring forms.
I allude to this, to indicate that my knowledge of Syndicalism does not
come from Sorel, Bergson or Berth, but from actual contact with and
observation of the tremendous work carried on by the workers of Paris
within the ranks of the Confédération. It would require a volume to
explain in detail what Syndicalism is doing for the French workers. In
the American press you read only of its resistive methods, of strikes
and sabotage, of the conflicts of labor with capital. These are no doubt
very important matters, and yet the chief value of Syndicalism lies much
deeper. It lies in the constructive and educational effect upon the life
and thought of the masses.
The fundamental difference between Syndicalism and the old trade union
methods is this: while the old trade unions, without exception, move
within the wage system and capitalism, recognizing the latter as
inevitable, Syndicalism repudiates and condemns present industrial
arrangements as unjust and criminal, and holds out no hope to the worker
for lasting results from this system.
Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for immediate
gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that labor can expect
humane conditions from inhuman economic arrangements in society. Thus it
merely wrests from the enemy what it can force him to yield; on the
whole, however, Syndicalism aims at, and concentrates its energies upon,
the complete overthrow of the wage system. Indeed, Syndicalism goes
further: it aims to liberate labor from every institution that has not
for its object the free development of production for the benefit of all
humanity. In short, the ultimate purpose of Syndicalism is to
reconstruct society from its present centralized, authoritative and
brutal state to one based upon the free, federated grouping of the
workers along lines of economic and social liberty.
With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first, by
undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing and
educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity, to
prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been
abolished.
Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism. That
circumstance accounts for the presence of so many Anarchists in the
Syndicalist movement. Like Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers
along direct economic lines, as conscious factors in the great struggles
of to-day, as well as conscious factors in the task of reconstructing
society along autonomous industrial lines, as against the paralyzing
spirit of centralization with its bureaucratic machinery of corruption,
inherent in all political parties.
Realizing that the diametrically opposed interests of capital and labor
can never be reconciled, Syndicalism must needs repudiate the old
rusticated, worn-out methods of trade unionism, and declare for an open
war against the capitalist regime, as well as against every institution
which to-day supports and protects capitalism,
As a logical sequence Syndicalism, in its daily warfare against
capitalism, rejects the contract system, because it does not consider
labor and capital equals, hence cannot consent to an agreement which the
one has the power to break, while the other must submit to without
redress.
For similar reasons Syndicalism rejects negotiations in labor disputes,
because such a procedure serves only to give the enemy time to prepare
his end of the fight, thus defeating the very object the workers set out
to accomplish. Also, Syndicalism stands for spontaneity, both as a
preserver of the fighting strength of labor and also because it takes
the enemy unawares, hence compels him to a speedy settlement or causes
him great loss.
Syndicalism objects to a large union treasury, because money is as
corrupting an element in the ranks of labor as it is in those of
capitalism. We in America know this to be only too true. If the labor
movement in this country were not backed by such large funds, it would
not be as conservative as it is, nor would the leaders be so readily
corrupted. However, the main reason for the opposition of Syndicalism to
large treasuries consists in the fact that they create class
distinctions and jealousies within the ranks of labor, so detrimental to
the spirit of solidarity. The worker whose organization has a large
purse considers himself superior to his poorer brother, just as he
regards himself better than the man who earns fifty cents less per day.
The chief ethical value of Syndicalism consists in the stress it lays
upon the necessity of labor getting rid of the element of dissension,
parasitism and corruption in its ranks, It seeks to cultivate devotion,
solidarity and enthusiasm, which are far more essential and vital in the
economic struggle than money.
As I have already stated, Syndicalism has grown out of the
disappointment of the workers with politics and parliamentary methods.
In the course of its development Syndicalism has learned to see in the
State — with its mouthpiece, the representative system — one of the
strongest supports of capitalism; just as it has learned that the army
and the church are the chief pillars of the State. It is therefore that
Syndicalism has turned its back upon parliamentarism and political
machines, and has set its face toward the economic arena wherein alone
gladiator Labor can meet his foe successfully. ,
Historic experience sustains the Syndicalists in their uncompromising
opposition to parliamentarism. Many had entered political life and,
unwilling to be corrupted by the atmosphere, withdrew from office, to
devote themselves to the economic struggle — Proudhon, the Dutch
revolutionist Nieuwenhuis, John Most and numerous others. While those
who remained in the parliamentary quagmire ended by betraying their
trust, without having gained anything for labor. But it is unnecessary
to discuss here political history. Suffice to say that Syndicalists are
anti-parlamentarians as a result of bitter experience.
Equally so has experience determined their anti-military attitude. Time
and again has the army been used to shoot down strikers and to inculcate
the sickening idea of patriotism, for the purpose of dividing the
workers against themselves and helping the masters to the spoils. The
inroads that Syndicalist agitation has made into the superstition of
patriotism are evident from the dread of the ruling class for the
loyalty of the army, and the rigid persecution of the anti-militarists.
Naturally, for the ruling class realizes much better than the workers
that when the soldiers will refuse to obey their superiors, the whole
system of capitalism will be doomed.
Indeed, why should the workers sacrifice their children that the latter
may be used to shoot their own parents? Therefore Syndicalism is not
merely logical in its anti-military agitation; it is most practical and
farreaching, inasmuch as it robs the enemy of his strongest weapon
against labor.
---
Now, as to the methods employed by Syndicalism—Direct Action, Sabotage,
and the General Strike.
Sabotage has been decried as criminal, even by so-called revolutionary
Socialists. Of course, if you believe that property, which excludes the
producer from its use, is justifiable, then sabotage is indeed a crime.
But unless a Socialist continues to be under the influence of our
bourgeois morality—a morality which enables the few to monopolize the
earth at the expense of the many—he cannot consistently maintain that
capitalist property is inviolate. Sabotage undermines this form of
private possession. Can it therefore be considered criminal? On the
contrary, it is ethical in the best sense, since it helps society to get
rid of its worst foe, the most detrimental factor of social life.
Sabotage is mainly concerned with obstructing, by every possible method,
the regular process of production, thereby demonstrating the
determination of the workers to give according to what they receive, and
no more. For instance, at the time of the French railroad strike of
1910, perishable goods were sent in slow trains, or in an opposite
direction from the one intended. Who but the most ordinary philistine
will call that a crime? If the railway men themselves go hungry, and the
innocent public has not enough feeling of solidarity to insist that
these men should get enough to live on, the public has forfeited the
sympathy of the strikers and must take the consequences.
Another form of sabotage consisted, during this strike, in placing heavy
boxes on goods marked Handle with care, cut glass and china and precious
wines. From the standpoint of the law this may have been a crime, but
from the standpoint of common humanity it was a very sensible thing. The
same is true of disarranging a loom in a weaving mill, or living up to
the letter of the law with all its red tape, as the Italian railway men
did, thereby causing confusion in the railway service. In other words,
sabotage is merely a weapon of defense in the industrial warfare, which
is the more effective, because it touches capitalism in its most vital
spot, the pocket.
By the General Strike, Syndicalism means a stoppage of work, the
cessation of labor. Nor need such a strike be postponed until all the
workers of a particular place or country are ready for it. As has been
pointed out by Pelloutier, Pouget, as well as others, and particularly
by recent events in England, the General Strike may be started by one
industry and exert a tremendous force. It is as if one man suddenly
raised the cry Stop the thief! Immediately others will take up the cry,
till the air rings with it. The General Strike, initiated by one
determined organization, by one industry or by a small, conscious
minority among the workers, is the industrial cry of Stop the thief,
which is soon taken up by many other industries, spreading like wildfire
in a very short time.
One of the objections of politicians to the General Strike is that the
workers also would suffer for the necessaries of life. In the first
place, the workers are past masters in going hungry; secondly, it is
certain that a General Strike is surer of prompt settlement than an
ordinary strike. Witness the transport and miner strikes in England: how
quickly the lords of State and capital were forced to make peace.
Besides, Syndicalism recognizes the right of the producers to the things
which they have created; namely, the right of the workers to help
themselves if the strike does not meet with speedy settlement.
Sorel maintains that the General Strike is an inspiration necessary for
the people to give their life meaning, he is expressing a thought which
the Anarchists have never tired of emphasizing. Yet I do not hold with
Sorel that the General Strike is a social myth, that may never be
realized. I think that the General Strike will become a fact the moment
labor understands its full value—its destructive as well as constructive
value, as indeed many workers all over the world are beginning to
realize.
These ideas and methods of Syndicalism some may consider entirely
negative, though they are far from it in their effect upon society
to-day. But Syndicalism has also a directly positive aspect. In fact,
much more time and effort is being devoted to that phase than to the
others. Various forms of Syndicalist activity are designed to prepare
the workers, even within present social and industrial conditions, for
the life of a new and better society. To that end the masses are trained
in the spirit of mutual aid and brotherhood, their initiative and
self-reliance developed, and an esprit de corps maintained whose very
soul is solidarity of purpose and the community of interests of the
international proletariat.
Chief among these activities are the mutualitées, or mutual aid
societies, established by the French socialists. Their object is,
foremost, to secure work for unemployed members, and to further that
spirit of mutual assistance which rests upon the consciousness of
labor’s identity of interests throughout the world.
In his The Labor Movement in France, Mr. L. Levine states that during
the year 1902 over 74,000 workers, out of a total of 99,000 applicants,
were provided with work by these societies, without being compelled to
submit to the extortion of the employment bureau sharks.
These latter are a source of the deepest degradation, as well as of most
shameless exploitation, of the worker. Especially does it hold true of
America, where the employment agencies are in many cases also masked
detective agencies, supplying workers in need of employment to strike
regions, under false promises of steady, remunerative employment.
The French Confédération had long realized the vicious rôle of
employment agencies as leeches upon the jobless worker and nurseries of
scabbery. By the threat of a General Strike the French syndicalists
forced the government to abolish the employment bureau sharks, and the
workers’ own mutualitées have almost entirely superseded them, to the
great economic and moral advantage of labor.
Besides the mutualitées, the French Syndicalists have established other
activities tending to weld labor in closer bonds of solidarity and
mutual aid. Among these are the efforts to assist workingmen journeying
from place to place. The practical as well as ethical value of such
assistance is inestimable. It serves to instill the spirit of fellowship
and gives a sense of security in the feeling of oneness with the large
family of labor. This is one of the vital effects of the Syndicalist
spirit in France and other Latin countries. What a tremendous need there
is for just such efforts in this country! Can anyone doubt the
significance of the consciousness of workingmen coming from Chicago, for
instance, to New York, sure to find there among their comrades welcome
lodging and food until they have secured employment? This form of
activity is entirely foreign to the labor bodies of this country, and as
a result the traveling workman in search of a job—the blanket stiff—is
constantly at the mercy of the constable and policeman, a victim of the
vagrancy laws, and the unfortunate material whence is recruited, through
stress of necessity, the army of scabdom.
I have repeatedly witnessed, while at the headquarters of the
Confédération, the cases of workingmen who came with their union cards
from various parts of France, and even from other countries of Europe,
and were supplied with meals and lodging, and encouraged by every
evidence of brotherly spirit, and made to feel at home by their fellow
workers of the Confédération. It is due, to a great extent, to these
activities of the Syndicalists that the French government is forced to
employ the army for strikebreaking, because few workers are willing to
lend themselves for such service, thanks to the efforts and tactics of
Syndicalism.
No less in importance than the mutual aid activities of the Syndicalists
is the cooperation established by them between the city and the country,
the factory worker and the peasant or farmer, the latter providing the
workers with food supplies during strikes, or taking care of the
strikers’ children. This form of practical solidarity has for the first
time been tried in this country during the Lawrence strike, with
inspiring results.
And all these Syndicalist activities are permeated with the spirit of
educational work, carried on systematically by evening classes on all
vital subjects treated from an unbiased, libertarian standpoint—not the
adulterated knowledge with which the minds are stuffed in our public
schools. The scope of the education is truly phenomenal, including sex
hygiene, the care of women during pregnancy and confinement, the care of
home and children, sanitation and general hygiene; in fact, every branch
of human knowledge—science, history, art—receives thorough attention,
together with the practical application in the established workingmen’s
libraries, dispensaries, concerts and festivals, in which the greatest
artists and literateurs of Paris consider it an honor to participate.
One of the most vital efforts of Syndicalism is to prepare the workers,
now, for their rĂ´le in a free society. Thus the Syndicalist
organizations supply its members with textbooks on every trade and
industry, of a character that is calculated to make the worker an adept
in his chosen line, a master of his craft, for the purpose of
familiarizing him with all the branches of his industry, so that when
labor finally takes over production and distribution, the people will be
fully prepared to manage successfully their own affairs.
A demonstration of the effectiveness of this educational campaign of
Syndicalism is given by the railroad men of Italy, whose mastery of all
the details of transportation is so great that they could offer to the
Italian government to take over the railroads of the country and
guarantee their operation with greater economy and fewer accidents than
is at present time done by the government.
Their ability to carry on production has been strikingly proved by the
Syndicalists, in connection with the glass blowers’ strike in Italy.
There the strikers, instead of remaining idle during the progress of the
strike, decided themselves to carry on the production of glass. The
wonderful spirit of solidarity resulting from the Syndicalist propaganda
enabled them to build a glass factory within an incredibly short time.
An old building, rented for the purpose and which would have ordinarily
required months to be put into proper condition, was turned into a glass
factory within a few weeks, by the solidaric efforts of the strikers
aided by their comrades who toiled with them after working hours. Then
the strikers began operating the glass-blowing factory, and their
cooperative plan of work and distribution during the strike has proved
so satisfactory in every way that the experimental factory has been made
permanent and a part of the glass-blowing industry in Italy is now in
the hands of the cooperative organization of the workers.
This method of applied education not only trains the worker in his daily
struggle, but serves also to equip him for the battle royal and the
future, when he is to assume his place in society as an intelligent,
conscious being and useful producer, once capitalism is abolished.
Nearly all leading Syndicalists agree with the Anarchists that a free
society can exist only through voluntary association, and that its
ultimate success will depend upon the intellectual and moral development
of the workers who will supplant the wage system with a new social
arrangement, based on solidarity and economic well-being for all. That
is Syndicalism, in theory and practice.