💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › pierre-besnard-syndicalism-and-authority.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:13:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Syndicalism and Authority Author: Pierre Besnard Date: May 1928 Language: en Topics: syndicalism, authority, anarcho-syndicalism, anti-authoritarianism Source: Retrieved on 3rd January 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/syndicalism-authority Notes: Sourced from the Fondation Pierre Besnard. Translated by S-K. Thanks to Shawn Wilbur for assistance.
Is syndicalism authoritarian or libertarian? This is the question that
Louvet[1] asks me to treat.
Without a doubt, it is first necessary to define what is meant by
syndicalism; and to declare that here it refers only to federalist
syndicalism, the principles of which constitute the basis of the CGT-SR.
From my point of view, syndicalism is a movement that groups workers,
through the way of associations (local, regional, federal, national and
international), from the same locality, the same region, the same
profession or industry, of the same country, of all of the countries,
with a view to the common defence of their immediate and future
interests, material and moral, professional and social.
Of syndicalism, a standard form and really concrete kind of free
association, it may be said that it has, in truth, always existed in
primitive and diverse forms since, at all periods of history, men – like
animals, minerals and plants – have gathered by “family”, by affinity,
by species, in order to defend, collectively, against the natural
perils; first against the animals who dispute their right to life; later
against other men, when force, then trickery, create power and property,
making of men slaves and masters, lords and serfs, the poor and the
rich, capitalists and workers.
It can therefore be affirmed without fear of error, that federalist
syndicalism is a movement of natural order, that groups of men are as
natural as herds of free animals, forests of oaks and pines, deposits of
coal.
It is the great law of universal attraction that allows the unity of the
molecules of a body, then two bodies of the same stature, to create a
life proper to all the bodies of the same family: animals, plants,
minerals, only influenced by the climates and the seasons.
It is the same for man. Like other living beings, he also undergoes the
law of integration; he is called to be part of a whole that is called
here: society. He is an integral part of everything. He fulfils the
function to which his aptitudes and his knowledge dispose him, render
him the most apt. Just as the heart, the kidneys, the brain, all the
organs, ensure the life of the human body in complete natural
association, in total independence, men assure the life of the society,
in the exact sense of the word, at the same time as they assure their
own lives.
It is not audacious to declare that there can be no society without men,
no men without society.
Wanting to separate the man of the society by pretending that he can
perfectly live alone – always in the exact sense of the word – would be
equivalent to wanting to live alone: a brain, a heart, et cetera,
separating them from the body that unites them, and without which they
have no role and their existence impossible. It is the same for the
society. Of course, to make it disappear, depriving it of the
contribution of a single man would not be sufficient, but it is evident
that the absence of a category of men, playing within it the role of the
heart, the brain, et cetera, would put it in danger and would likely
provoke its momentary dispersion.
Federalist syndicalism, the fullest expression of association, can
therefore have only solidarity and mutual aid as its moral basis, which
excludes the idea of authority and imposes those of equality and
freedom, at the same time.
The syndicalist groups: syndicates, local unions, federations, regional
unions, CGT, international federations of industry, internationals, all
operate according to the contract of association drawn up by the members
(individuals and collectives) that they are made of. This, in
syndicalists terms, is called the statutes.
These statutes are drawn up, at the formation of the association, by the
whole of the participants. They must receive the agreement of all,
whether they accept them at first sight, or whether they only agree
after careful consideration.
It is evident that after its adoption, the contract, freely accepted by
all, becomes the charter of the association, that all must respect and
uphold.
The contract includes, of course, obligations and rights. Its purpose is
to fix, under specific conditions, what the associate must give to the
group and, in return, what the group must guarantee to the associate.
It is quite normal that the group requires the individual to fulfil his
obligations; it is no less normal that the associate also requires the
group to fulfil their own.
This contractual reciprocity, a practical form of solidarity and mutual
aid, cannot cease without placing in peril the very existence of the
association, the grouping.
An associate who purports to receive without giving anything would no
longer have a place in the association. Logically, he should leave on
his own. If his conscience does not impose this decision upon him, then
the association must compensate for his conscience’s moral deficiency.
This is what we call today, with a certain horror, exclusion. Nothing is
more normal, however, on the condition that that the defensive measure
of the association is fully justified.
And, by getting to the bottom of the question, we realise that
exclusion, on these grounds, is an anti-authoritarian act in the first
place.
What would happen, indeed, if, contrary to the articles of the contract
that were accepted – let’s not forget – by the concerned party himself,
it was permitted that an associate could take without giving? This: he
would immediately come across imitators, a clique would be formed: this
clique would have at their disposal a force that gives them the
potential to impose their authority, their dictatorship, over the
association; dictatorship and authority that, one day, could be easily
concentrated in the hands of one man.
Respect for the contract of association must, therefore, be absolute. It
must be kept in mind that this contract creates “rights” and “duties”
that, for the individual who associates with his peers, entails a
certain abandonment of his rights. That’s right. We can even say,
without fear, that this abandonment is certain, that his “personality”
blends with “the environment”, that his liberty is “conditional”. All
this is obvious.
I take notice, first of all:
service for service and give more to him than he can leave to them.
These principles, which are those of federalist syndicalism, are only
found today in a still limited application, in the internal solidarity
and defensive action of the syndicates.
But there is no doubt that they have the potential, thanks to a true
social revolution, to spread to a whole community, to society.
I even add that practically, they are the only ones humanly capable of
giving birth to a social system in which man would not be crushed by
society, and where the latter would possibilities of life, of normal and
rational evolution, natural development.
In fact, it is in nobody’s mind, at the beginning of an association, to
“legislate” for eternity, to forge a “straitjacket” for future
generations.
The contract, inviolable for the duration of its application, is not
unchangeable, in its letter or in its spirit.
Wishing to refuse to modify it according to the necessities, the
teachings of life, the progress of science made, would be silliness of
the worst sort.
On the contrary, it is important that the associates be constantly
concerned with the improvement of the contract, to diminish the
obligations, to augment the rights, in all domains.
As the modifications impose themselves on the associates, they should
carry them out.
Will unanimity be required for the modification of the original
contract? Admittedly, it will always be preferable for the changes to be
made by way of general and mutual consent. But, if there is a minority
of “retardants”[2], the association will have the duty to break through.
It will be the same if, under the pretext of moving forward, a minority,
well inspired but little concerned with the balance necessary, wanted to
go further than the intellectual development of the associates and their
capacity for economic achievement would logically allow.
A minority of “retardants” will be absorbed by the bulk of the
association; an advanced minority will attract to it – if there is a
real reason – the association as a whole, until the moment when this, in
turn, gives birth to minorities of the same nature as before. It is the
inflexible law of evolution.
The contract therefore may be modified according to the principles of
the law of number [majority rule].
I know all the objections that can be made against the application of
such a law. I will not go into them; furthermore, there’s no point in
holding on to them. Currently, and for a long time, still – perhaps
forever – it is not possible to escape this law…
This is only possible if it can be shown that the individual can live
alone, that he is capable for providing for all his needs, that he could
do so completely and in all circumstances aid his fellows.
This demonstration remains to be made. It is not certain that it will
one day be made.
Until it is made, federalist and revolutionary syndicalism seems to me
to be the best form of grouping the workers for their defence, at this
moment, and, later, for the organisation of social life with the maximum
freedom.
Constant and vigilant interpreter of all the manifestations of life,
containing inside the heart of the associations, all the forces that
contribute to the perpetuation of life in all fields, forces that are
uniquely: manpower, technique and science, syndicalism appears as the
true doctrine of emancipation and well-being of all men accepting life
in society.
Rejecting the conception of the general interest in the bourgeois regime
that characterises exclusively reformist syndicalism, the federalist
syndicalists do not accept the doctrine of statist syndicalism making
the revolutionary syndicalist movement the appendage of a party. They
reject likewise the idea of syndicalism, the class party, assuring in
the name of this class, the collective dictatorship of the proletariat
and the functioning of the proletarian state.
They accept only the syndicalism where individuals and groups are free,
according to the terms of the contracts to which they subscribe and
commit to respect.
This syndicalism excludes coercion and authority. At its base is freedom
and consensual discipline. Only it is capable of realising the phrase:
wellbeing and freedom.
[1] Likely Louis Louvet (1899–1971), French anarchist militant.
[2] French: “retardaires”, as in the English “flame retardants”.