Socialism and Democracy in Europe Part 10

1. It is disheartened with Socialism because, it says, Socialists have lost their ideals in the race for political power. Law-making is useless, because no laws can emanc.i.p.ate the workingmen. It therefore despises governments and abjures parliaments. But its ideals are Socialistic; it believes "in reorganizing society on a communistic basis, so that, with a minimum of productive effort, the maximum of well-being will be obtained."[26]

2. But repudiating governments and parliaments, they say, does not make them Anarchists. Syndicalists believe in local or communal government. Their state is a glorified trade union whose activities are confined to economic functions, their nation is a collection of federated communal trade societies. When I went among them they were especially solicitous that they should not be regarded as "mere Anarchists."

3. Syndicalism is not trade-unionism pure and simple, because its method is violence and its ideal the industrial unit, not the trade or craft unit. The weapon of Syndicalism is the general strike. A circular issued by the executive committee in 1898 defined the general strike as "the cessation of work, which would place the country in the rigor of death, whose terrible and incalculable consequences would force the government to capitulate at once. If it refused, the proletariat, in revolt from one end of France to the other, would be able to compel it." Sorel says that "revolutionary Syndicalism nourishes in the ma.s.ses the desire to strike, and it can thrive only in places where great strikes, occupied with acts of violence, have taken place."[27] The strike committee of the C.G.T. in 1899 proclaimed the general strike as "the only practical method through which the working cla.s.s can fully liberate itself from the capitalistic and governmental yoke." The general strike includes the boycott, _sabotage_, and all kindred forms of violence.[28]

4. Syndicalism revives the old revolutionary methods of conspiracy, of a dominant minority swinging the ma.s.ses into line; "a conscious minority, which, through its example, sets the ma.s.ses in motion and drives them on."[29] There are plots, underground manoeuvers, and sudden outbursts. An air of mystery pervades their spectacular uprisings. In order to accomplish their purpose there must be a solidarity of labor. But this unity is the result of the energy of the "conscious few," not of the a.s.sertive many.

5. Finally, Syndicalism proclaims that democracy is a "fraud"

perpetrated upon the workingmen by the property-owning bourgeois; representative government and majority rule is to them merely a polite form of tyranny, and patriotism a farce. Potaud says: "Patriotism can only be explained by the fact that all patriots without distinction own a part of the social property, and nothing is more absurd than a patriot without a patrimony."

"We workingmen will have none of these little fatherlands! Our country is the international world!" cried Yvetot to the post-office strikers in Paris.

They regard the soldiers with enmity. At the national congress at Amiens, 1906, they resolved that the "anti-military and anti-patriotic propaganda should be promulgated with the greatest zeal and audacity."[30]

Syndicalism is the extreme pessimism of the laboring cla.s.s. It reached its height about 1907-1908. Portions of France were terrorized, more by its extravagant language than by its overt acts. There was no limit to their superlatives. "Rip up the bourgeois!" "Turn your rifles on your officers!" "Cut b.u.t.tonholes in the skins of the bourgeois!" were familiar battle-cries. There was so much talk about putting vitriol into coffee, ground gla.s.s into bread, pulling the fire-plug out of engines, that finally language came to mean nothing.

The "new commune" thought it was coming into reality with the post-office and railway strikes. We have seen how these outbreaks were met by a Radical government. Since then their ardor has cooled, and their adjectives grown flabby. They are now devoting themselves to organization.

Anti-militarism does not mean merely opposition to standing armies.

All Socialists are opposed to the maintenance of armaments.

Anti-militarism is opposition to all force used by the state to a.s.sert its sovereignty. This includes the police and constabulary as well as the army, and courts and parliaments as well as the navy. Since soldiers and policemen are servants of the state, and since the state is the expression of nationalism, the anti-militarist concludes that his supreme enemy is the nation, the master of the soldier.

Anti-militarism is the forerunner of anti-patriotism.

In 1906 this doctrine was so rampant that, on May Day, an uprising was feared in Paris. A prophet had arisen, proclaiming the most extreme doctrines of anti-patriotism. This was Gustave Herve, a teacher of history from Auxerre. He had spoken the suitable word, and became famous overnight: "The French flag arose from dirt!"; and to the peasantry he shouted, "Plant your country's flag in the barnyard dung-heaps!" He came to Paris and started a daily paper, _La Guerre Sociale_. Syndicalists and Socialists flocked to his standard, and even Jaures was compelled to acknowledge his influence.[31]

Herve has a simple remedy for militarism: "The way to stop war is to refuse to fight." He exhorts his fellow-Socialists to join the army, but fire on their commanders, not on their comrades. He was arrested several times for these utterances and the overt acts that they aroused. Some years ago a Parisian workingman was arrested for an offense against public morals. He protested his innocence and, when released, in revenge killed a policeman. He was promptly executed.

Herve used the occasion for an onslaught upon the government in his paper. He said: "If the working cla.s.s would display one-tenth of the energy that this workman displayed, the social revolution would not be long in coming." For his imprudence he was imprisoned for a term of four years.[32] His influence is waning, but the words he and his following have planted in the hearts of the conscripts may bear some strange fruit.[33]

VI

While the French Socialists have been prolific in the developing of factions and theories, they have been slow at achieving practical results. As early as 1887 they acquired considerable power in Paris.

They contented themselves with establis.h.i.+ng a labor exchange and extending a few munic.i.p.al charities.

The local program, as outlined at Lyons, included: the feeding of school children; an eight-hour day and a fixed minimum wage for munic.i.p.al employees; the abolition of the "_octroi_"; sanitary regulations for workshops and factories; abolition of private employment bureaus; establishment of homes for the aged; maternity hospitals; free medical attendance for the poor; free public baths; sanitaria for children of workmen; free legal advice for workingmen; pensions for munic.i.p.al employees; and the publication of a munic.i.p.al bulletin giving record of all the votes cast by the councilors.[34]

In 1892 a number of important cities were won by the Socialists, and in September of that year the first convention of Socialist munic.i.p.al councilors was held at Saint-Ouen. The discussions were filled with revolutionary phraseology. In a few years the ideas of violence were discarded for more practical issues. In 1895, when the munic.i.p.al convention met at Paris, the time was largely given over to the question of organizing the munic.i.p.al public service, public hygiene, etc.

In Lille the Socialists began their administration of local affairs by raising the budget from 740,000 francs in 1897 to 1,019,000 francs in 1899. Free industrial education was established for the working people; a munic.i.p.al theater was opened; school children were fed and clothed; and an attempt was made to regulate the length of the working day and fix a minimum wage for munic.i.p.al employees. At Dijon the feeding and clothing of school children was regulated by the amount of wages earned by the parents. Free medical aid was provided, and a drug-store was induced to sell medicines to the poor at reduced cost.

The local labor exchange was voted an appropriation from public funds.

These ill.u.s.trations show the general trend of munic.i.p.al Socialism in France. The results are not numerous. But the French Socialists justify their meager practical results by pointing to the centralized system of administration which enables the prefect and other administrative officers to veto many of the acts of the munic.i.p.al councils. The first thing that the Socialists attempted to do in their towns was the readjustment of the finances for the benefit of the working cla.s.ses. Their acts were vetoed on the ground that they were _ultra vires_. The attempt to fix a minimum wage for munic.i.p.al employees met the same fate. Then the munic.i.p.alities pet.i.tioned the central government for greater financial autonomy. This was denied. In Roubaix the opening of a munic.i.p.al drug-store was disallowed by the prefect on the ground that the corporations act does not grant that power to munic.i.p.alities. Munic.i.p.al bakeries met the same fate. During the last few years, however, the rigor of the central administration has relaxed and the towns are allowed greater liberty in munic.i.p.al affairs.

Under the circ.u.mstances it is perhaps little wonder that French munic.i.p.al Socialism is a poor housekeeper. You look in vain for the high ideals of the Socialist evangelist. If you visit the towns where Socialism abounds you will be told that the Socialists have spent more money on the poor than their predecessors. You will find better nurseries for the babies of the working mothers, meals and stockings doled out to school children of the poor, here and there a physician or a lawyer retained by the town to render free service to the working people. On inquiry you will find that the soldiers are drawing increased pensions, the widows and orphans of the workingmen are especially provided for, and that bread is delivered to the needy at the door so they need not go ask for it, need not be beggars.

You are impressed that these proletarian town governments are trying to destroy poverty. Their ideal is n.o.ble, but some of their efforts are very crude.

The French Socialists are not by any means a unit on the munic.i.p.al question. In 1911 it was the princ.i.p.al question discussed at their national convention at Saint-Quentin. Professor Millhaud of the University of Geneva, in a very clear and able speech, pointed out the merits of munic.i.p.alization, citing the owners.h.i.+p of street railways, gas, waterworks, garbage plants, and other public utilities of European and American cities. He included munic.i.p.al drug-stores, the feeding and clothing of school children, the establis.h.i.+ng of playgrounds, and many other munic.i.p.al activities familiar to American practice, in his local Socialistic program.

His exposition met with the approval of the Jaures faction. But the Guesdists were not satisfied. "Who would benefit by cheap munic.i.p.al gas?" cried a delegate from the rear of the hall. "The rich man, for he needs a great deal of gas to light up his big house. But what laboring man needs gas? When has he time to read? In the evening he is too tired, and he gives no receptions." Guesde maintained with great vehemence that munic.i.p.al owners.h.i.+p and state owners.h.i.+p are not Socialism; they may be a step toward Socialism, but often result in subst.i.tuting the tyranny of the state for the tyranny of the private employer.

The convention adopted a munic.i.p.al program after a prolonged discussion that brought out clearly the fact that the Guesdists are not devoted to state or munic.i.p.al owners.h.i.+p as a principle, but only as a means to a greater end.

During the last few years a very important movement has been taking place among the peasantry of southern France. Under the leaders.h.i.+p of Compere-Morel, a gardener and member of the Chamber of Deputies, Socialism is spreading rapidly among these small and independent landowners. There are several million of these thrifty peasants in France, and their acquisition to Socialism will mean, not only a great increase in political power, but a modification of their theory of property. The Socialists are luring the small land-holder by telling him that they are with him in his fight against the large estates.

They a.s.sure the peasant that they have no designs upon his small holdings. It is the _great_ property, not merely property, that is the object of their hostility.[35]

There are other evidences that French Socialism is mellowing. Most of its leaders are bourgeois. Of the seventy-six united Socialists in the present Chamber, only thirty are workingmen, or trade-union officials; eight are professors in the University or secondary schools; seven are journalists; seven are barristers; seven are farmers; six are physicians; three are school teachers; and two are engineers. This does not suggest cla.s.s war.

Socialism is a power in French politics. An observer who moves among the middle cla.s.s wonders how much of a power it is in French life. The Radical Party would be considered Socialistic in England or the United States; half of it calls itself Socialist-Radical. It rules the Republic from the Chamber of Deputies. Everywhere you hear the people talking about collectivism, the nationalization of railways, of mines, of vineyards, of docks, and ultimately of wheat-fields and market-gardens.

But the French are a nation of small farmers and shopkeepers who cling to their property while they argue and vote for their radicalism and Socialism. This is the duality of their temperament; they love possessions and they love philosophical speculation. They keep their fields and their little shops, and speculate about the new to-morrow.

They vote and debate with imaginative fervor; they pay taxes with stolid commonplace silence. In measuring the strength of French Socialism it is necessary to keep this in mind. Not that the Frenchman does not take Socialism seriously. He takes it as seriously as he takes monarchism or republicanism, and much more seriously than he takes religion. There is only one thing he takes more seriously--his property.

That is why the Socialists number among their adherents all cla.s.ses and all conditions of men, from Anatole France, most fastidious of literary aristocrats, to gaunt and hungry proletarians who infest the cellars and garrets of ancient Paris.

The French are, after all, the greatest of realists. They speculate in dreams and delicate theories; but they never lose their grip on their little farms and their little shops and the gold bonds of Russia.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] GEORGES WEIL, _Histoire du Mouvement Socialiste en France_, Paris, 1904, p. 220.

[2] Other groups--the word party is hardly applicable in the French Chamber of Deputies--are the reactionary Right; the republican Conservatives, or Center; the Radical Left, or Liberals.

[3] WEIL, _supra cit._, p. 276.

[4] In France, when any one candidate for the Chamber of Deputies fails to receive a majority of the votes cast, a second ballot is taken, for the two receiving the highest number of votes

[5] Quoted by ENSOR, _Modern Socialism_, pp. 48-55. See also a collection of Millerand's speeches, _Le Socialisme Reformiste Francais_, Paris, 1903.

[6] See "Manifeste 14 Juillet," 1899.

[7] See _V^{me} Congres General des Organisations Socialistes Francais tenu a Paris du 3 au 8 Decembre. Compte-rendu stenographique officiel_, 1900, p. 154 ff.

[8] A partial report of the debate of the Bordeaux congress is given in ENSOR'S _Modern Socialism_, pp. 163-184.

[9] See A. LAVY, _L'Oeuvre de Millerand_, Paris, 1902, a sympathetic account of his work; contains also extracts from his speeches and state papers.

[10] See the _Contemporary Review_, August, 1906, for a brief abstract of this debate.

[11] One of the first laws pa.s.sed with the aid of the Socialist vote was the "day of rest" law, commanding one day of the week as a day of rest. It met the obstinate opposition of the Conservatives. The operation of the law is of interest, and instructive. The workmen naturally rejoiced over this increased leisure. The employers, on the other hand, found themselves paying wages for hours in which no service was rendered. They lowered the wages; the workmen resisted.

Finally the law was so amended as virtually to annul its effect, in certain trades. The Socialists became irritated to the verge of breaking their _entente_ with the Radicals.

[12] Proceedings Chamber of Deputies, March 19, 1909.

[13] During this agitation the teachers of the public schools, who had formed a great number of a.s.sociations, joined in the demand of the Syndicalists. One of their number who had signed a vitriolic circular was dismissed by M. Briand, the Minister of Education, and for a time a strike of schoolmasters was threatened, but it did not materialize.

[14] _L'Humanite_ is the leading Socialist daily of Paris. Briand had written editorials for it in his "red" days.