💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emile-pouget-the-party-of-labour.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:45:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Party of Labour Author: Émile Pouget Date: Unknown Language: en Topics: anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism, syndicalist, anarcho-syndicalist Source: Retrieved on August 19, 2017 from https://libcom.org/library/party-labour-emile-pouget
The Party of Labour is what it says it is, the banding together of the
workers into one homogeneous bloc; the autonomous organisation of the
working class into an aggregate operating on the terrain of the economy;
by virtue of its origins, its essence, it shuns all compromise with
bourgeois elements.
The grassroots cell of the Party of Labour is the trade union and it is
by the trade unions coming into contact with one another, through their
shows of solidarity that the Party of Labour reveals itself, shows
itself and acts.
On the one hand, the trade union is affiliated to the national
federation of its trade; on the other, to its Departmental Union. The
federal agencies of these two in turn federate with each other and out
of their union comes the agency that marshals the workers energies and
interests: the General Confederation of Labour.
This federalism of overlapping concentric circles is a marvellous
amplifier of workers; strength; its component parts reinforce one
another and the particular strength of each is magnified by the support
of all the rest. On its own, the trade union has no resources or
energies other than its own and could operate in a restricted way only;
whereas, through its affiliation to the Party of Labour, it can draw
upon the considerable powers afforded it, in a ripple effect, by
organised solidarity.
This enormous strength — which defies measurement in that it is forever
growing — is the result of association on economic terrain. That is the
only basis upon which such a thriving organism with nothing to fear from
the intrusion of any disorganising factor can be constructed.In fact,
since the construction of this coming-together is in the class interests
of the proletariat, any attenuation of its demands and revolutionary
power is pointless and every attempted deviation doomed in advance to
futility.
The Party of Labour is a party of interests. It takes no account of the
opinions of its component members: it acknowledges and co-ordinates only
the interests — be they material or moral or intellectual — of the
working class. Its ranks are open to all of the exploited regardless of
their political or religious views.
Yes, the Party of Labour ignores opinions, no matter what they may be!
On the other hand, it goes after the exploitation of human beings in
whatever form this may assume.
A worker with baroque philosophical or political views — who may be a
believer in some God or in the State — will have his place alongside his
comrades within the ranks of this party. But what comes in for criticism
within this party is the exploitation of theological, political or
philosophical creeds; what is reproached is the intrusion of priest or
politician, both of whom make a livelihood out of speculating with
peoples beliefs.
Within the party, there is a place for all of the exploited, even if
many of them (in todays society where there is nothing but absurdity and
crime) are obliged to buckle down to pointless or indeed harmful
undertakings.
The worker in the arms plant, the builder of warships, etc., are engaged
in noxious tasks: they are doubly the victims of bad social organisation
since they are not only exploited but must also do their bit towards
malfeasant activity. However, their place is still inside the Party of
Labour.
By contrast, anyone who is, by virtue of his personal function, a
bringer of harm — the informer, say — is to be shunned. Such a person is
a parasite of the most revolting type: sprung from the working class, he
has debased himself with the vilest of undertakings: as a result, only
in the bourgeoisies ranks is there any place for him.
Thus the Party of Labour stands apart from all other parties by virtue
of this essential fact: that in banding together those who work against
those who live from exploitation of human beings, it marshals interests
and not opinions. Thus, of necessity, there is a unity of outlook in its
ranks. Among the personnel making up the more or less moderate, more or
less revolutionary schools of thought, such a unity of outlook is
feasible (and exists!); but such differences on the detail neither
invalidate nor breach the syndicalist unity that arises from identity of
interests. This power to absorb individual differences, under the
umbrella of the agreement that necessarily springs from a community of
interest, gives the Party of Labour an edge in terms of vitality and
action and affords it an immunity from the blights afflicting the
political parties.
Inside every party — the Party of Labour excepted — the over-riding
objective is “policy”, and on the basis of a similarity of opinions, men
of divergent interests — exploiters and exploited (and one must be
either one or the other!), are thrown into one anothers company. This is
a characteristic of all democratic parties. They are, all of them, a
motley collection of men whose interests run counter to one another.
Not that this anomaly is peculiar to the bourgeois democratic parties.
It also disfigures socialist parties which, once having set foot upon
the slippery slopes of parliamentarism, come to jettison the specific
characteristics of socialism and become nothing more than democratic
parties, albeit of a more accentuated variety.
More and more capitalists, bosses, etc. are being won over to socialism
and these reconcile their parasitical existence as best they can with
the acting out of their beliefs. One of the things that attracts
recruits from the enemy camp is the deviation in the direction of
parliamentarism. Whereas they have not quite completely been eliminated,
then at least the fact that the theory of taking government power has
relegated revolutionary concerns to the background, has whetted some
appetites. And these defectors from the bourgeoisie have calculated the
benefits of turning socialist and cherish the hope of gaining the upper
hand in that way. So much so that there are those who become socialists
the way that others become lawyers or publicans. It is regarded as a
career move — an excellent way of getting ahead?
The Party of Labour need have no fear of such dangers. By virtue of the
very fact that it is constructed upon the class interests of the
proletariat and that its action takes place in the sphere on economics,
there is no way that individuals can rely upon it or invoke it in the
satisfaction of their selfish interests. The contradiction there is
formal and insurmountable. Indeed, since the gratification of personal
ambition is feasible only in the realm of politics, any who attempt any
such chicanery and pursue a selfish private interest within the Party of
Labour can accomplish but one thing: their own self-exclusion from the
labour camp.
The same phenomenon can be seen when a working man becomes an employer:
even though the parvenu may still be motivated by good intentions and
cling to his revolutionary aspirations, as a rule he is excluded from
collective groupings — his class interests having changed.
The same thing goes for the parvenu in politics: he quickly drops out of
trade union activism and, in most cases, once he has achieved his
purposes, and risen to the desired elevation, he willingly steps aside
and refrains from all activity within the economic organisation.
Now, if individual deviations are incompatible with the organisational
make-up of the Party of Labour, it is all the more firmly to be excluded
as a possibility that that body as a whole should succumb to a deviation
that would be nothing short of its very negation. By virtue of the very
fact that it is constituted upon the class interests of the proletariat,
it cannot at any time or in any fashion be a breeding ground for the
ambitious.
It cannot turn into a party of politicians. Apart from the fact that
that would be lapsing back into past errors which exhausted the working
class in futile struggles and in efforts that brought it no benefit
(albeit that they were not futile and without benefit for those keen to
speed their progress up the ladder!), such a comprehensive deviation
would be tantamount to an affirmation that the proletariat, deserting
the prey for its shadow, would disdain to win economic and social
improvements and be wholly consumed instead by the pursuit of political
illusions.
So just as it is unthinkable that the working class should lay aside its
interests, it is also unthinkable that the Party of Labour should turn
into a democratic party.
The Party of Labour is a direct by-product of capitalist society: it is
the concert of proletariat forces, for which the working class logically
strives from the moment it wakes up to its interests.
The current society is made up of two classes whose interests run
counter to each other: the working class and the bourgeois class:
consequently, it is only natural that each of these should rally around
its own social pole — the workers around one, the exploiters around the
opposite social pole.
The coming-together of the working class makes up the Party of Labour:
it, therefore, is the aggregation suited to the form of exploitation,
which is why it emerges spontaneously with no preconceived notion
governing its co-ordination.
It would be a waste of time for us to dwell upon demonstrating the
existence within society of two antagonistic social classes which, far
from amalgamating into one homogeneous unit, merely accentuate their
differences. That is a fact so patently obvious that we need not labour
the point.
This irreconcilable antagonism is the result of the seizure by the
ruling class of all of the assets of society — its instruments of
labour, property and resources of all sorts. From which it follows that
the lower class is obliged, in order to survive, to submit to the
conditions foisted upon it by these grasping types.
Such deference to the capitalist by the proletarian who, in return for
his labour, receives a wage considerably less than the value of the
labour forthcoming from him, the wage-slave, is, the bourgeoisie
contends, a natural phenomenon. They even venture to argue that the wage
is not subject to change — and are none too bothered in their
contentions by the successive disappearances of slavery and serfdom,
which ought to caution them against the absurdity of arguing that
property (as held by them) alone is the exception to the laws of life
which are movement and change. However, even as they contend that the
waged — as a class — are doomed to eternal exploitation, they see fit to
blind them with the chimera of individual emancipation, dazzling their
victims with the possibility of escaping wage slavery and taking their
place in the ranks of the capitalist class.
Aside from the fact that as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned such
hopes have the merit of inducing the exploited to bear their misfortune
with patience, they neutralise or at any rate slow down the growth of
class consciousness among the proletariat.
The education and training bestowed upon younger generations have no
other purpose: those generations are subjected to a method of
intellectual castration based upon rehearsal of prejudices, peppered
with preaching about resignation, as well as incitements to unrestrained
self-seeking.
The argument is that in the present society, everyone has the bed he has
made for himself and the place he deserves: that, if one is to make it
one has to be an honest, sober, intelligent worker and so on. What is
not said, although it is implied, is that to these qualities, one more
must be added: one must be devoid of scruples and elbow ones way ahead
without regard to ones fellows.
In the bourgeois view, life is an ongoing struggle of human against
human; society is an arena where each is the enemy of all.
Distracted by such sophistry, the proletarian at first dreams of
individually breaking free of wage slavery. Since work underpins
everything and since wealth is there for the taking for those who
display order and perseverance, he will make his fortune! Moreover, in
his view, wealth is only the achievement of independence and freedom and
the assurance of well-being. But alas! He must discard his dreams.
Reality requires it and he has to admit that it is materially impossible
for the workers to attain the yearned for relief. Before he could
achieve individual emancipation, he would have to own his instruments of
labour and the wherewithal to set them in motion. Now, modern
production, being formidably industrialised, requires such considerable
capital outlay that a worker would have to be mad to imagine that he
might set aside, out of his wages, the capital he requires to acquire a
factory.
To be sure, some proletarians do step out from their class: thanks to
exceptionally favourable circumstances, some powerful personalities
without scruples as to choice of method do manage to inch their way into
the bourgeoisie.There are even some cases of men who started out as
workers (Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc,) turning into the kings of wealth.
The bourgeoisie has taken these upstarts to its bosom. It is all the
more pleased to welcome them aboard because, by introducing an injection
of new blood, they consolidate its privileges: moreover, it parades them
by way of unanswerable arguments to show that it is easy for
parsimonious working men to become bourgeois.
It would be naive of the workers to let themselves be tempted by this
bait and to content themselves with hopes of just such an eventuality.
That would be tantamount to letting themselves be lulled by the same
song as the shepherdesses of legend who dreamed of a Prince Charming
showing up to ask for their hand in marriage.
And then what? Even if it were true that the most gifted members of the
proletariat can make their fortune, the situation of the mass of them
would not have altered: the workers would carry on slaving for their
exploiters, grazing materially and spiritually, with no prospect to look
forward to but the repose of the grave.
Thus the individuals escape from wage slavery, which anyway means that
those who make it are obliged to exploit their class brothers, offers no
remedy to the social ills afflicting the proletariat. Such escapes can
only occur on a small scale and all that they imply is a few adjustments
to a few individual situations, having no impact upon the fate of the
workers as a whole, who carry on slaving for the benefit of the masters
and rulers.
Furthermore, even were the numbers achieving comparative ease, indeed
wealth, larger, that would do nothing to erase the antagonism that pits
the producer class against the parasite class. For as long as social
relations remain as they are — the relation of employer to wage slave,
of ruler to ruled — the problem will remain and class struggle will be
an inevitable phenomenon.
Even if we were to suppose that the moans of the masses crushed and
broken on the social battle-field were to trouble the peace of mind of
the smug and those who, out of a spirit of charity or guile, may deign
to cater for the material lives of the exploited, amalgamation of the
classes would not be the outcome of such intervention and society would
not be pacified by that remedy.
It has often been said: “Man does not live by bread alone!” Which is why
the social question is not just a material problem. For us to be happy
and content, it is not enough that we should be assured of our “crust”:
we also want to be free of all impediment and all domination: we want to
be free, to be beholden to none and to have no relations with our
neighbours other than those founded on equality, regardless of the
differences in our abilities, expertise and functions.
The point therefore is to work a change in the structure of society so
that henceforth there is only one category, one class possible: that of
the producers. Such essential change can only be wrought on the basis of
communism — communism alone being able to guarantee that every
individual enjoys complete autonomy and unfettered scope for
development.
Once upon a time, before big industry drove the artisan from his tiny
workshop — and stripped him off the instrument of his labours — the
working man had some prospect of carving out a rough, but independent
existence for himself. Today, in industry, such a dream is feasible only
in exceptional cases.
Even now in the countryside the peasant can hope to carve out a
comparatively free existence upon a tract of land. However, such
liberation is tending to become more and more fraught with difficulties
(and in most cases very precarious) because of the confiscation of the
land by the rich, because of the escalating taxes and the rapaciousness
of the middlemen. And anyway, the peasants liberation is accompanied by
such worries! He lives in constant terror of the tax collector, the
money-lender and leads a joyless, crushingly bleak existence slaving
like an ox.
Such autonomy of peasant and artisan, gained at huge effort, is a
particularly illusory emancipation in that both are beholden to
capitalism and their earnings are modest, in comparison with the amount
of toil required of them. They are societys hybrids who do not quite fit
the description bourgeois, nor are they wage-slaves: they are a
hang-over from the artisanate and the peasantry: although not readily
classifiable, their interests and those of the working class are the
very same. At present, though, they can be taken to task for preferring
their own fate to that of the wage slave: except that they ought to be
saying to themselves that their living conditions are a hang-over from
the past and that it is in their interest to lend a hand in the coming
social change: indeed, they have much to gain from offering no
resistance to the Revolution, and instead playing a part in its success
and adapting to the new modes of production and distribution.
So we can see how illusory is the bait of individual emancipation held
out by the bourgeoisie: of the several methods of personal escape from
wage slavery hypothetically on offer, none is liable to be widely taken
up and thus cannot be embraced by the workers at large as a remedy to
their sad lot, for none is likely to provide for a free and comfortable
existence for all.
So, if this dream of individual escape from wage slavery has been
peddled by the bourgeoisie, it is because the bourgeoisie has seen it as
a siding that can stop the working class from attaining class
consciousness. By stimulating appetites and over-stimulating selfish
ambitions, it has counted upon keeping the proletariat divided against
itself indefinitely so that with each individuals head filled with
thoughts of nothing but the scramble to get ahead, his only concern will
be with climbing on his comrades backs, which will act as a brake upon
the spirit of revolt and nullify innate tendencies towards solidarity.
But the human being could not resign himself fatalistically to perpetual
slavery: the seeds of discord and hatred which the bourgeoisie look
forward to seeing sprout from the Peoples hearts so that its own
security can be assured are a weed, the spread of which cannot forever
strangle the growth of instincts of sociability, for life through
agreement is every bit as crucial to the survival of human society as
the ferocious struggle to survive is dear to the exploiters.
Consequently, in spite of the sophistry and the falsehoods with which
its head is filled, it was inevitable that the proletariat should attain
consciousness of its class interests, especially as the merest
flickering glimmer of reason had to open its eyes to the fact that
societys afflictions are not inescapable.
Why these striking, revolting inequalities? How come there are wretches
who want for their daily bread when there are some who cannot think up
ways of squandering their surplus? How come men are paid only inadequate
wages for hellish toil when there are parasites wallowing in comfort and
luxury?
What is the reason for it all? Is agricultural and industrial output not
up to meeting everyones needs?
No! In the course of his active life, any man devoting himself to useful
toil produces more than he needs to match what he consumes (in food,
clothing, accommodation, etc.), and then some; over that time he
produces as well enough to reimburse the community for the advances it
has made to him to rear him to manhood and he also produces enough to
ensure that he has the wherewithal to live when, overtaken by old age,
he will not be able to work any longer.
Now, if the existence of every single person is not guaranteed, for the
present as well as for the future, out of this fund of intense personal
productivity, the reason is that this wealth is not being used to
guarantee the upkeep of those with a natural entitlement but is diverted
by the capitalist class away from its social destination and mainly
turned to its own benefit.
That the level of agricultural and industrial productivity is high
enough for everyones needs to be met is now incontrovertible.
In industrial terms, production potential is, thanks to the tremendous
improvement in tools, well nigh unlimited: so true is this that in spite
of the prudence of industrialists who each try to tailor their workers
output to the commercial demands of the market, there often is a glut in
the shape of over-production. Those hardest hit in such circumstances
are the workers: it is they who suffer the painful consequences of such
crises, because, in order to restore the balance, the exploiters cannot
think of any better solution than to slow down production, which leads
to unemployment and leads to even greater wretchedness for the working
class.
On the agricultural scene, the picture is equally sombre: the object of
farming is not to reap mammoth harvests and thereby create food in great
abundance: the object of farming is to sell at a profit. Now since sale
prices slump in years when the harvest has been good, whereas man-power
tends to become more expensive, farmers would rather a passable than an
abundant harvest, the former being more easily and more profitably
disposed of.
So here we have the general position: abundance of produce of all sorts
is dreaded rather than desired and there is a tendency to keep the
supply low so that it can be sold dear. The needs of the mass of
humanity never figure among the preoccupations of the capitalists who
preside over production: we have the monstrous spectacle of entire
peoples bereft of the means of survival — and all too often literally
perishing of hunger — when there is an adequate supply of food, clothing
and accommodation available.
Such a glaring iniquity is condemnation enough, without further
arguments being required, of the social organisation that engenders it.
It is utterly necessary that this monstrous system of distribution that
vests almost everything in an exploitative, parasitical ruling minority,
most of whom have little or no hand in wealth creation, should be
overthrown. Now, given the the extent of industrial and scientific
development, such a solution seems practicable only thanks to a
fundamental transformation: the system of exploitation that marshals
human resources in order to set them to producing for the benefit of the
confiscator of natural resources and instruments of labour must be
replaced by a system of solidarity taking natural resources and the
instruments of labour into common ownership and setting them to work for
the benefit of all.
This change is an ineluctable necessity and its advent is hastened as
the working class acquires a better understanding of its class
interests. But this task of reorganising society can only be carried out
and brought off in a context purged of all bourgeois contamination. This
function of acting as midwife to the new society thus falls legitimately
upon the shoulders of the Party of Labour, the sole agency which, by
virtue of its very make-up, excludes all of the dross of society from
its ranks.
Consequently, the marshalling of the working class into a bloc separate
from all the parties — and with appropriate tactics and methodologies of
its very own — is no flash in the pan; it is an inherent requirement of
the present context, for only in such a party — which implies perfect
homogeneity and utter identity of interests — can it feel utterly at
home.
Anywhere else, any other grouping is open to infiltration by elements of
the propertied class and the ambitions of individuals can have noxious
implications. Which is why none of them can boast the unity of outlook,
action and aim that are automatically attributes of the party of the
proletariat class: which is why none is so plainly qualified to
prosecute and accomplish the task of social revolution, expropriation
and reorganisation.
The Party of Labour is the party of the future. In the harmonious
society whose day is coming, there will be no place for anyone but
Labour: parasites of every sort will of necessity be eliminated from it.
So it is only natural that the Party of Labour, the crucible in which
the social combinations of yearned for tomorrows are made, stands
outside of all the existing parties. This is especially unremarkable
since it stands apart from them by virtue not only of its form of
cohesion, but also in terms of the aim it pursues and the methodologies
it advocates and practises.
Whilst other parties have as their objective the retention or removal of
the government line-up — according as they reckon that it is, or ought
to be favourable to their own appetites, their ambitions or quite simply
to their cronies — the Party of Labour ignores this outward and quite
superficial business and sets its cap at working an internal and
external change in the elements of society; it labours to change
mind-sets, forms of association and economic relationships.
The goal it pursues is thoroughgoing emancipation of the workers.
Espousing as its own the watchword of the International Working Mens
Association, of which it is the logical heir, it takes it as inevitable
that that emancipation will be the working classs own doing, without
meddling by outside or heterogeneous elements. It is obvious that, if it
is not to be a mirage, that emancipation will have to imply the
elimination of the bourgeois class and the utter demolition of its
privileges.
Which is to say that the Party of Labour aims at a radical
transformation of the social system.
Examination of economic phenomena demonstrates that that transformation
must be achieved through neutralisation of private property and the
burgeoning of a communist arrangement, so that the current relations
between individuals — the relations of wage-slave to capitalist, of led
to leader — may be turned into relations of equality and liberty.
In fact, there will be no thoroughgoing emancipation unless exploiters
and leaders disappear from the scene and tabula rasa made of all
capitalist and state institutions. Such an undertaking cannot be
effected peaceably, much less lawfully! History teaches that the
privileged have never surrendered their privileges without having been
compelled so to do and forced into it by their rebellious victims. It is
unlikely that the bourgeoisie is blessed with an exceptional greatness
of soul and will abdicate voluntarily...Recourse to force, which, as
Karl Marx has said, is “the mid-wife to societies”, will be required.
So the Party of Labour is a party of Revolution.
Except that it does not regard the Revolution as a future cataclysm for
which we must wait patiently to see emerging from the inevitable
working-out of events. Such pious awaiting of the final catastrophe
would be nothing more than transposition to and continuation upon
materialist ground, of the old millenarian dreams.
The Revolution is an undertaking for all times, for today as well as
tomorrow: it is continual action, a daily battling without let-up or
respite, against the forces of oppression and exploitation. A rebel
embarked upon a revolutionary act is one who, repudiating the legitimacy
of present society, works to undermine it.
It is to this unrelenting task of Revolution that the workers in their
trade unions are committed. They regard themselves as being in ongoing
insurrection against capitalist society and, within its bosom, they are
hatching and developing the embryo of the society wherein Labour will be
All.
However, in spite of this consistently subversive stance, they are prey
to the requirements of bourgeois rule: but, whilst deferring to the
needs of the present, they do not conform to the forms of legality and
do not bless it with their acquiescence, even when it decks itself out
with reforming colours. Their revolutionary efforts are designed to
wrest partial improvements from the bourgeoisie, improvements that they
never mistake for definitive. Thus, whatever the improvement they gain,
and however significant it may seem, they always declare it to be
inadequate and, as soon as they have the measure of their strength, they
waste no time before demanding more.
There is another advantage to these struggles which are forever being
relaunched in ongoing harrying of the exploiters, quite apart from the
fact that they undermine and dismantle capitalist institutions, and that
they blood and strengthen the working class.
It is this posture of ongoing insurrection against definitive conformity
with existing conditions that marks the revolutionary character of the
Party of Labour.
It is a mistake to imagine that violence is always characteristic of a
revolutionary act: such an act can also assume a very moderate shape
displaying nothing of the destructive brutality which our adversaries
point to as the essential feature of revolutionism.
Indeed, it should not be forgotten that in most circumstances the act in
itself has no definite character: it acquires one only as the motives
that prompted it are subjected to analysis. Which is why the same acts
can, according to the case in point, be declared good or bad, just of
unjust, revolutionary or reformist. For instance: killing a man on the
corner of the boulevard is a crime: killing him using a guillotine is,
from the bourgeois point of view, an act of justice: killing a despot is
an act glorified by some and despised by others.. And yet these various
acts are in fact the same: a human life is ended!
It follows therefore that the revolutionism of the working class can
manifest itself in very anodyne actions just as its reformist mentality
might be underlined by unduly violent acts. This, moreover, is what we
can see in the United States: strikes there are often marked by acts of
violence (renegades executed, dynamite outrages, etc.) which are not
indicative of a revolutionary frame of mind, in that the object the
strikers have in mind is restricted to improvements that pose no
challenge to the principle of exploitation: the current society looks
bearable to them and doing away with wage slavery does not enter their
minds.
As a result, the index of the Party of Labours revolutionary character
is that, without ever neglecting to fight for minor improvements, it
aims at the transformation of capitalist society into a harmonious
society.
Improvements, secured on a day to day basis, are thus merely stages
along the road to human emancipation: the immediate material advantages
they bring are matched by a considerable moral benefit: they bolster the
working classs ardour, stimulate its desire for betterment and prompt it
to press for more significant change.
The only thing is that it would be the most dangerous of illusions to
confine trade union action to the securing of partial improvements: that
would be to slide into a morbid reformism. Important though such
improvements may be, they are not enough: they are merely a partial
claw-back of the bourgeoisies privileges: as a result, they do not
tinker with the relations between Labour and Capital. No matter how
splendid these improvements might be imagined to be, they leave the
worker still under the rule of wage-slavery: he is just as dependent
upon his Master as ever! Now what the working class needs is complete
liberation: which means wholesale expropriation of the bourgeoisie.
That decisive act, the culmination of preceding struggles, implies utter
ruination for privilege, and, whereas the preceding struggles may have
been pursued peacefully, it is unimaginable that the ultimate clash will
come to pass without some revolutionary conflagration.
The Party of Labour finds organisational expression in the General
Confederation of Labour (CGT) which was launched in Limoges at the trade
union congress held there in 1895. But if we wish to investigate its
gestation and lineage, we must look a lot further back in time: there is
a direct line showing the Party of Labour to be an emanation of the
International Working Mens Association, of which it is the historical
continuation.
Throughout the 19^(th) century, the workers fought with indefatigable
tenacity to break through the impediments imposed by the bourgeoisie
upon their wishes to band together: instinctively, they set up class
groupings (embryonic, naturally), under cover of mutual associations or
in the shape of resistance societies. When at last the International
Working Mens Association was established, a tremor of hope ran through
the proletariat: its aspirations, hitherto ill-defined, acquired
substance and the future struck it as a less bleak prospect.
In fact, in its “givens”, the International framed the programme of the
Party of Labour: it declared:
“That the emancipation of the workers must be the workers own doing
(...)”
“That the subjection of the worker to capital is the source of all
servitude: political, moral and material..”
“That, on that basis, economic emancipation is the great goal to which
all political movement must be SUBORDINATE.”
“That all efforts to date have failed, for want of solidarity between
the workers of various trades within each country and of a fraternal
union between the workers of various countries.”
There is a formal linkage of theory and tactics: the only
differentiation made is in the mode of association, which is henceforth
to be the interest group — the trade union — whilst within the
International, general agreement was established through the affinity
group — the branch — into which motley elements poured. It has to be
pointed out, though, that this difference in the mode of association was
something of a consequence of the conditions in which the social
struggle was conducted under the Second Empire: so it would be incorrect
to see it as a derogation from the principle of class struggle,
especially as the “givens” cited above are indicative of the importance
that the internationalists gave to trade association.
But it was not long before two camps emerged within the ranks of the
International: on one side, the centralists, the
authoritarians,including Karl Marx who, in accordance with the formula
devised by his disciple Eccarius, called for “the conquest of political
power in order to pass laws for the benefit of the workers”: and, on the
other, the federalists or autonomists loyal to the spirit of the
International who fought against this tendency “in the name of the
social revolution we espouse, whose programme is: emancipation of the
workers by the workers themselves, outside of any directing authority,
even should said authority be elected and agreed by the workers.”
And the autonomists went on to add: “The society of the future should be
nothing more than the Internationals universalisation. So we ought to
take care to match that organisation as closely as possible to our
ideals. How could one expect an egalitarian, free society to emerge from
an authoritarian organisation? That would be an impossibility. It
behoves the International, as the embryo of the human society of the
future, to be, from this moment forth, the faithful reflection of our
principles of freedom and federation and to cast out any principle
leaning towards authority and dictatorship.”
The Party of Labour espouses these principles of autonomy and federalism
as its own.
In the wake of the events of 1870–1871, following the ghastly massacres
that followed the crushing of the Commune, the bourgeoisie, drunk on the
bloodshed, reckoned that it had purged the working class for good of any
inclination to press its claims. It forgot that the spirit of revolt is
a by-product of a bad social milieu and not the result of subversive
preaching and that it would inevitably return as long as the context
remained likely to favour its development.
By the final years of the reign of Napoleon III, the trade unions had
grown so much that they dared to organise themselves into a Federation
and, although that rudimentary agency bound together only the Parisian
unions, its propaganda activity and solidarity activity reached out into
the provinces. These federated unions were simultaneously affiliated to
the International: they took a hand in uprisings and, after the storm
had passed, those which had not foundered utterly had to hold their
tongues.
In 1872, a fore-runner of yellow unionism, Barberet thought that the
time had come — with the revolutionaries crushed or scattered — to
federate what few unions were left and steer them along the paths of
righteousness. Twenty five unions answered his call, but the moral order
was in such a fright about workers organisations that it banned the
Cercle de lUnion syndicale. Whilst no direct measures were taken against
the unions, their isolation and weakness was a comfort to the
government: they carried on existing on the fringes of the Code, merely
tolerated.
Between then and 1876 trade union activity showed itself in delegations
to the Expositions in Vienne (1873) and Philadelphia (1876), which
delegations created temporary liaison between the various groups, but,
reactionary though it may have been, they could scarcely have caused the
government a second thought.
Growing bolder, the plan emerged for a labour congress: it met in Paris
in 1876 and delegates from 70 Parisian unions and from 37 towns (with
mandates from one or more trades associations) took part in it. The
figures give some clue as to the growing vigour of the trade union
movement: one year earlier, in 1875, figures rather higher than the real
ones placed the number of existing unions at 35 in Paris and provinces
alike, manifest proof that the workers did not wait for the licence
granted under the 1884 legislation before setting up their unions. The
1884 law merely registered a fait accompli: the bourgeoisie, unable to
thwart the rise of the trade unions, put a brave face on things by
granting them legal recognition.
At the first congress in 1874 Barberet had pontificated: however,
objections were voiced to his presence and from then on, it was made
plain that authentic labour organisations jealous of their dignity and
autonomy would never condescend to allow themselves to be tamed.
At that time, the demarcation lines between political organisations and
trades associations were blurred: social studies groups and trade unions
engaged in joint propaganda, took part in workers congresses, etc. and
did so all the more agreeably for political concerns being relegated to
the background. The movement was plainly anti-parliamentary: all of the
revolutionaries joined forces to see off the barberettiste menace.
That danger averted — it was warded off once and for all at the
Marseille congress (1879) and the Le Havre congress (1880) — a number of
schools of thought surfaced. For a start there was the division between
the anti-statists, steadfast advocates of anti-parliamentarism (the
anarchists) and those who, with the seal of approval, of Karl Marx after
he put his “Minimum Programme into circulation, laid claim to the
designation of collectivists and leapt into the parliamentary arena,
hypnotised by the hope of capturing power. There was a rational basis to
that first split, in that it arose from divergent outlooks. It became
apparent that personnel who made everything secondary to capturing
public office and those who still staked all their hopes upon
revolutionary action could no longer travel the same road.
But if that split was explicable in terms of a difference of principle,
the same cannot be said of the splits that came after: they were simply
the consequences of regrettable but inevitable electoral competition.
The desire quickly to capture a majority of votes cast led to a
watering-down of the programme: the diehards, faithful to the “Minimum
Programme”, were called Guesdists, after their leader Jules Guesde, and
they hung the label of Possibilists on those who were more inclined to
follow Paul Brousse and Joffrin.
It was the Saint-Etienne congress in 1882 that their paths separated:
the Guesdists found themselves outnumbered there and after some stormy
proceedings they withdrew to hold a congress in Roanne.
A few years on, in 1890, a further split added to the dispersion of
worker elements: this split hit the Possibilist ranks at the
Chatellerault congress: the moderates turned into followers of Brousse
(Broussists) whereas the revolutionaries whose sympathies lay with
Allemane were described as Allemanists.
These internecine squabbles had a particularly damaging effect because
the trade union groupings were an integral part of the various feuding
factions and, quite naturally, professed to belong to this faction or
the other, in line with the preferences if the militants by whom they
were headed. This state of affairs led to an understandable weakening of
the trade unions: the more or less conscious workers were too inclined
to keep them at arms length — as were those who looked to a faction
other than the one that held sway within their own trade association.
Trades organisations, neutered by political jockeying, were thus reduced
to having scarcely any more influence than the social studies groups
with whom they rubbed shoulders when workers congresses were held.
One can only be wrong-footed for a certain length of time. The trade
unions gained strength. Being the essential coming-together, they are
too necessary a thing for the political jockeying acted out within their
ranks to do any radical damage.
The unions grew and, as they grew, becoming conscious of their raison
detre and the mission that has fallen to them, they dreamed of wriggling
free of political tutelage. The first sign of this was the organisation
of a congress that met in Lyon in 1886. Participation was open only to
trade union delegates: the main issue posed was the creation of a
Federation to liaise between the unions.
The government believed that this distancing of the unions from irksome,
discordant political concerns was going to serve its own plans for
domesticating the workers and, in the hope of a resurgence of
barberettisme, it advanced subsidies for the congress.
How cruelly disappointed it was! Examination of the 1884 law on trades
unions was the touchstone issue at the congress. This law, only recently
implemented, was gone over with a fine-tooth comb. It was established
that the unions had not at all waited for its promulgation before
expanding and that its only justification was a capitalist desire for
self-preservation and an ulterior notion that the trades union movement
might prove susceptible to be channelled through it.
Then it was decided that a nationwide Federation of trade unions should
be launched to marshal trades bodies on a class struggle basis against
the powerful organisation of the bourgeoisie, for the purposes of
offence and defence.
But, considerable though they were, the ravages of politics were not
yet, in everyones mind, sufficiently plain for any thought to be given
to preventive action against their repetition. No prophylactic steps
were taken and so the trade union Party which tended to make its stand
outside of the various schools of socialism continued to come under fire
from that quarter and the trade unions remained in thrall to those
schools. However, in spite of the climate of the Federation of trade
unions being still heavy with the miasma of politics, the thinking
peculiar to syndicalism was hatching and gathering weight there. Thus,
at its third congress, held in Bordeaux in 1888, the principle of the
general strike was passed: another motion, also passed, committed “the
workers to separate from the politicians.. and to organise trades
councils on a firm footing (these) alone will make up the great army of
social demands.” Again the following congress (Calais, 1890) enjoined
the workers, as of 1 May 1891, to “report to the factory as normal and
then to walk out, after eight hours on the premises, whether the boss
likes it or not.”
These trends in economic action were to grow, in spite of the opposition
mounted by the socialist (Guesdist) school of thought which at that time
was in the majority in the trade union Federation: this can be seen
plainly at the congress of Marseilles in 1892: in spite of the pressure
from the Guesdists, the efficacity of the general strike was again
affirmed and the futility of seeking public position proclaimed.
One blemish — a product of the preeminence afforded by the trade union
Federation to political concerns — ruled out adaptation of that
organisation to the needs of syndicalism which were becoming plainer and
plainer. It was a body connecting the trade unions only singly, so that
they remained isolated within the umbrella group (which was a federation
in name only) and it neglected to establish between these single unions
the links that were essential at local level as well as within each
trade. Now, since “the function creates the agency”, it was inevitable
that a grouping suited to the unions needs would be launched.
The Bourses du travail were already in existence, coordinating the trade
union forces at local level: trades federations too were already in
existence, linking the unions within the same trade right across France.
But these agencies were, if not isolated from one another, then at least
without regular contact with one another.
In 1892 the establishment of the Federation of Bourses du Travail went
half-way to meeting the unions requirements: although it grouped only
the Bourses du Travail or Local General Trades Unions, it quickly gained
considerable influence. This was because it addressed the aspirations to
economic union and turned a blind eye to political opinions. These
trends towards economic cohesiveness surfaced at the trade union
congress sponsored by the Federation of Bourses and held in Paris in
July 1893. The resolution below which was adopted there posed once and
for all and with clarity the fundamental status of class agency that the
General Confederation of Labour (CGT) would turn out to be:
“All labour unions must, with all possible urgency:
1) Affiliate to their trade Federation or, should none exist, launch
one: band together into a Local Federation or Bourse du Travail,
whereupon these Federations and Bourses du Travail ought to set
themselves up as National Federations:
2) The National Trades Federations, once in place, will have to come to
some accommodation with the Federations abroad and establish
International Federations. ”
In an effort at conciliation, the congress expressed the wish that the
Federation of Bourses du Travail and the Federation of trade unions
might amalgamate into a single organisation. Such an amalgamation was to
be attempted at the Nantes congress in 1894: but instead of the
rapprochement that was aimed at, there was a definitive split. It could
scarcely have been otherwise: the outlook of the tendencies present made
the falling-out predicable. The issue of the general strike was the
touchstone: a wide-ranging debate proved the theoretical and tactical
irreconcilability between political-parliamentary action and economic
action: the vote that endorsed the latter gave the victory to those who
went on to become the syndicalists: 67 votes were cast in favour of the
general strike and 37 against.
That spelled the end for the trade union Federation and the congress
realised that, so much so that it decided that a National Labour Council
would be launched. It vegetated for a year, up until the Limoges
congress in 1895.
The falling-out at the Nantes congress went considerably further than
merely severance from the political elements: it involved a final breach
with the capitalist regime. The working class was to create its own
autonomous agencies which, for the time being, would be combat
organisations and, in the future, would garner enough revolutionary
strength to stand up to the bourgeoisies political and administrative
institutions and to destroy them or take them over as the need might be.
At the Limoges congress the launching of the General Confederation of
Labour (CGT) did not proceed without some resistance. Article one of the
confederations charter laid down the principle that was to breathe life
into trade union associations: the personnel making up the Confederation
must stand outside of all schools of politics. This triggered heated
arguments. In spite of everything, it was passed by a huge majority: out
of 150 votes cast, 124 were in favour and only 14 opposed.
Those arguing for pride of place to be given to political actions moved
that only the Confederation as such was obliged to keep out of politics:
as for the component unions, it would be up to them to make their own
decision. This argument was rejected. In practice, though, all too
often, this was the principle that was adopted. The congress had laid
down guidelines, but no one could — and no one tried to — enforce
obedience through authority. This itself was an indication of the
consciousness of the workers.
The important thing was to affirm the necessity for organising on the
economic terrain and eliminating all preoccupation with politics. As for
the germination and development of this principle, that was left to the
passage of time and to the initiative of the militants.
Over the following five years, the CGT remained stalled at the embryonic
stage. Its activities were virtually nil and most of its time was spent
on underlining a regrettable antagonism that had developed between
itself and the Federation of Bourses du Travail. This latter
organisation, which was at that time autonomous, was a rallying point
for all of the revolutionary activity of the trade unions, whilst the
CGT (which by this point was only an umbrella for the trades
Federations) was in a state of vegetation.
Over this period of time, the Confederation took its lead and its
guidance from elements which have since tended to be labelled as
reformist. Since the politicians were unable to take the organisation
over, they looked down their noses at it: some of their disciples were
part of the majority within it, however, but, irritated by the congress
of Limogess decision, they were unable to engage in proper politicking
and, lacking any real belief in the value of economic action, they did
not to encourage development of the Confederation.
It was only following the trades congress held in Paris in 1900, when
the Confederations own mouthpiece (La Voix du peuple) was launched and
when revolutionary elements flooded into and gained the upper hand
within the Confederation, that under this dual stimulation, that body
graduated from its larval stage.
From then on, it never looked back. In 1900, at the opening of the Paris
congress, it embraced only 16 national federations and 5 different
organisations: by September 1904, and the opening of the Bourges
congress, it embraced 53 trades federations or national unions, plus
fifteen single unions. Moreover, under the sway of revolutionary
elements, a sort of moral unity was created between the Federation of
Bourses du Travail and the CGT, and this was vital for the struggle and
was a prelude to what has since been termed “labour unity”. The
Montpellier congress in 1902 proclaimed the need for just such unity and
made it a reality by knitting together the Federation of Bourses du
Travail and the Federation of national trades federations (which is what
the CGT had amounted to up until then).
And so, nine years on, the motion passed by the trade union congress
held in Paris in 1893 was fleshed out, organisationally.
Since the Montpellier congress, the General Confederation of Labour
(CGT), the organisational structure of which seems to have settled ..
with only a few minor adjustments, as the need arises — has expanded
normally: from then on it was a force with which bourgeois society had
to reckon: it made its stand against capital and the State, determined
not merely to render them less harmful but to lay the groundwork for and
encompass their final ruination.
In the brief historical survey above, we have seen trades associations
banding together to establish an organism genuinely free of all tutelage
and tailored to the revolutionary task at which they work. Such a
panoramic overview is more revealing about the power of the Party of
Labour than doctrinal affirmations and shows that the economic approach
of the unions is no fleeting phase but rather the logical outcome of the
development of worker consciousness.
The new partys programme is concise: article one of the Confederations
statutes offers a summary of them:
The CGT embraces — outside of all of the schools of politics — all
workers cognizant of the struggle to be waged for the elimination of
wage-slavery and the employer class. That brief statement of principle
encapsulates the entire essence of syndicalist doctrine: it is the very
definition of it. As for the other articles of the CGT statutes, they
mirror the moment and are thus subject to amendment just as they would
be in any living organism. They are not to be taken as a prerequisite
framework, but rather as the labouring masses form of cohesion, the form
best suited to the demands of the current struggle. The Party of Labour
does not owe its power to its statutory framework: its strength arises
from the individuals who are its component parts and from the intensity
of the spirit of rebellion by which they are driven.
What sets syndicalism apart from the various schools of socialism — and
makes it superior — is its doctrinal sobriety. Inside the unions, there
is little philosophising. They do better than that: they act! There, on
the no mans land of economic terrain, personnel who join, imbued with
the teachings of some (philosophical, political, religious, etc.) school
of thought or another, have their rough edges knocked off until they are
left only with the principles to which they all subscribe: the yearning
for improvement and comprehensive emancipation. Which is why — without
erecting any doctrinal barriers, and without formulating any credo —
syndicalism looms as the quintessential practice of the various social
doctrines.
For it is not in theory only that the Party of Labour has a profile of
its own: its tactics and methodology are peculiar to itself and, far
from drawing inspiration from the democratic idea, they are the negation
thereof. But tactics and methodology are so natural that the workers,
even those most imbued with democratism, once they enter the trades
organisations, are subjected to the influence of their surroundings and
act just like all their colleagues do, as syndicalists.
The modalities of syndicalist action are not the expression of the
consent of the majority manifesting itself through the empirical
procedures of universal suffrage: they draw their inspiration from the
means by which, in nature, life in its many forms and aspects manifests
itself and develops. Just the way that life appears first at one point,
in one cell: just as, with the passage of time, there is always one cell
that is the agent of ferment and change; so, in a syndicalist context,
the first move comes from the conscious minorities who, through their
example, their thrust rather than through authoritarian injunctions)
draw the most frigid masses into their orbit and sweep them into action.
This tactical approach is Direct Action in action! From it flow all of
the modes of trade union action. Strikes, boycotts, sabotage, etc., are
all merely translations of Direct Action.
THE CONFEDERAL ORGANISM — The network of the confederal organisation
that binds the unions one to another is as straightforward as can be,
given the demands of propaganda and of the struggle with which they have
to contend.
The CGT is made up of two sections: that of the trades Federations and
that of the Bourses du Travail.
Through affiliation to the Bourse du Travail (or Local Union of trade
unions) the various trades unions gain a facility of propaganda within a
city or specific region: this is a task that they would find difficult,
if not impossible, to tackle if they were to slide into a pernicious
isolation. That mainly educational undertaking consists of establishing
new unions and of honing the consciousness of the unionised so as to
draw the largest possible numbers of workers into the trade union orbit.
To this end the Bourse sets up reading rooms and lays on classes, helps
with anti-militarist propaganda by welcoming young barracked troops
under its wing, offering legal advice, etc.
Affiliation to the national trade Federation addresses, rather, the need
for combativeness and resistance. These Federations are an umbrella for
the unions belonging to the same trade or industry and they encompass
the whole of France, which makes them energetic fighting associations:
should a dispute arise anywhere, the solidarity of the masses is
mobilised to defeat the employers. Thus, the strength of a given union
is magnified by moral and material backing from its federated unions
right across France.
The only thing was that if the Bourses du Travail remained isolated one
from another and if the trades Federations did likewise, the
cohesiveness of labour, stopping at the mid-way mark, could never attain
a generalised strength, given that the local bodies would not be able to
reach beyond the boundaries of their own regions and the national bodies
would not see any further than the boundaries of their own trades. In
order to attain to a greater power, these several bodies federated with
one another, in accordance with their natures: the trades Federations
with trades Federations and the Bourses du Travail with other Bourses du
Travail.
It was at this level of the trade union organism that the General
Confederation of Labour (CGT) arose: it comprises both sections — the
section made up of trades Federations and that made up of the Bourses du
Travail. Each of these federal wings is topped by a Committee made up of
delegates from each affiliated organisat ion: these delegates are
subject to recall at all times: as a result, they remain in ongoing
liaison with the association from which they receive their mandate,
which is at liberty to replace them at any time.
The Federations wing and the federated Bourses du Travail wing are each
autonomous bodies.
Finally, at the last level we have the National Confederal Council: it
is made up of a coming-together of the delegates from both wings, and
within its remit fall general propaganda matters of relevance to the
working class as a whole. Thus, to cite some examples of the tasks that
fall within its remit, we need only note that the campaign agitating
against the placement bureaux and the eight hour day agitation campaign
were taken in hand by special commissions appointed by it to do the
needful.
Such, in broad outline, is the confederal organism: it is not a
leadership body but a body that co-ordinates and amplifies the working
classs revolutionary activity: it is therefore the very opposite of the
democratic agencies which, by dint of their centralisation and
authoritarianism, stifle the vitality of their component parts. Inside
the CGT, there is cohesion but not leadership: federalism prevails
throughout: at every level, the various bodies — from the individual,
through the trade union, the Federation or the Bourse du Travail, up as
far as the confederal wings — are all autonomous. Herein lies the secret
of the CGT powers of projection: the initiative comes, not from the top
down, but from anywhere and the vibrations of it are passed on by means
of a ripple effect through the masses of the Confederation.
CONGRESSES. — Every two years, the CGT organises a national congress
with the participation only of delegates from its affiliated trade
unions. The Congress is the equivalent of what the general assembly
would be at the level of the trade union: thanks to these meetings,
trade union members are brought into contact with one another and a
useful fermentation follows: currents of opinion emerge and guide-lines
are defined.
International solidarity. — The activity of the Party of Labour is not
confined within artificial boundaries: most of the trades Federations
are affiliated to an international Federation linking the various
national organisations and with ramifications everywhere. Moreover, the
Confederation is affiliated to the International Trade Union Federation
based in Amsterdam, which keeps the “confederations” around the world in
contact with one another. Thus is established and developed a living
network which materialises the International Workers Association more
firmly than ever.
This quotation, like the next one, is lifted from the Circular issued by
the Jura Federation congress held in Sonvilier (Switzerland) on 12
November 1871. The signatories included one Jules Guesde who
subsequently ... In return for his attempts at domesticating the
workers, Barberet was appointed (sometime around 1880) the mutualist
great Manitou at the Interior ministry. At the Paris congress in 1918,
an overhaul of the statutes abolished the Federation of Bourses du
Travail which was replaced by a section made up of Departmental Unions,
as Article 2 of the CGT statutes attests:
Article 2 — The General Confederation of Labour (CGT) is made up of:
1. National industrial Federations
2. The Departmental Unions of the various trade unions
And the make-up of the Confederal Committee was amended as follows:
Article 9 — The National Committee is made up of a coming together of
delegates from the Federations and the Departmental Unions. It meets
thrice each year, in March, July and November, and, extra-ordinarily, at
the invitation of the Steering Commission and the Bureau.
It is the executor of decisions made by national congresses. It takes a
hand in every aspect of worker life and pronounces upon matters of a
general order.