SYNDICALISM.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143839, 13 July 1912, Page 7

SYNDICALISM.

ITS RELATION TO TRADE UNIONISM AND SOCIALISM. (By J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P.) It is in vain that one searches in English dictionaries tor the word Syndicalism. It is a French stranger iu our language, with no registered abode as yet. Had it not been an ugly word it would probably never have been brought over, and if it could only think for itself it would be in a great state of mental perturbation, for in France it is an innocent thing, meaning nothing more or less than trade unionism. There are two wings ol trade unionism iu Franco, however —the .syndicalist reformist and Hie syndicalist rcvolutionaire; and Syndicalism lias come to indicate in the English tongue the ideas and policy of the latter alone. In that narrow sense 1 am to try and explain 'what it means. It ought to be made clear, however, that the syndicalist reformist commands the conlidenco of the greater part of French trade unionists, and follows a policy similar to that of our own Labour Party. It lias an organ of its own, La Revue Syndicalisio, edited by Albert Tlioulas, a member of. the Chamber of Deputies. TO END THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.i Syndicalism is a programme of trade union action aimed at tho ending of tho present capitalist system. Its, organisation is exactly the .same as that of our own trade societies. It asks the workmen to organise in unions, to unite the local brandies of those unions in trades councils, and to federate the national organisations iu an all-com-prehending central body, which in Franco is the famous Confederation Gene rale du Travail, commonly known by its initials, the C.G.T. Syndicalism might have borrowed all tins part of its system from the old-fashioned British unions before- they co-operated with any other section of tho community. Like'tTibm, it is willing to work for increases of wages, reductions in hours, and improvements in conditions. Although it is opposed to political aci tiou, as 1 shall show presently, it is 1 willing to accept legislation beneficial to workmen. But such changes are not its goal, they are not its vital purpose. They are incidents in the way. An unbending Syndicalist of the Left would Eav they are the apples thrown by the existing State at the foot of Labour to impede it in its race. This shows what it lias in common with, and what it holds in addition to, our own oldfashioned trade unions. Besides, I must point.out that both these movoraonto regard the strike as the workman's most reliable and effective weapon. ' From what I have written it will be seen that Syndicalism has something iu common with Socialism as well. Its goal is a State in which the producers own tho tools with which they work. For the moment it says that the workmen in each industry should control the machinery of the industry—tho railway men the railways, the minora the mines, and so on—but this is really not essential to Syndicalism. At present tho Syndicalist is opposed to nationalisation, because tho State authorities are still capitalist, and no he argues; “If the railways were nationalised tho workers on them would still be under capitalist conditions. Therefore, X do not want the State, but the organised workers themselves, to own them.” THE SELF-GOVERNING "WORK- . SHOP. Curiously enough, this is only a reiteration of tho cuscrodited doctrine of ksdividualUt labour co-partnership which used to dream of “the self-gov-erning workshop.” But the Syndicalist really has in his'mind tho control of the moans of production by a working class State, because be is always careful to explain that industrial macliiuery, thotigb owned, by those who work it, would'bo used for the benefit of all. Hence, tho fact that the Syndicalist founds his community on common property in the means of production used for common convenience and benefit gives Him, without being a Socialist, a right to stand on a small bit of tho same ground as tho Socialist. The Syndicalist, however, is polos asunder from the Socialist in method, ail'd method counts for everything in the process of social change. The Socialist believes in a -combination of political and trade union action; the Syndicalist believes in trade union action alone. The Socialist- appeals to tho Whole body of public opinion; the Syndicalist considers the working classes only. The Socialist brings about his changes by legislative moulding, he uses the organic State to transform itself by making such alterations in its own mind and circumstances as must precede all permanent change; tho Syndicalist., cutting himself off from these organic formative influences, has to fall back upon force (either the passive force of social paralysis or the active force of riots) to effect his changes with revolutionary suddenness. No one who has the least knowledge of Syndicalism on the one hand and of Socialism on the other cap, ever mix up the two. In fact, Syndicalism is a revolt against Socialism Socialism must bo parliamentary or no thing. And there is nothing more gall ihg to enthusiastic reformers, to whom the alluring vision of human perfection is very near as in a dream, than the heavy, lumbering coach of parliamentary progress, whether it is rolling creakingly along in London, in Paris, in Rome, or in Berlin. Moreover, when a Socialist party gets into Parliament, it gets into trouble. Will it make blocs? Will it keep Governments in office and Oppositions out of office? Will it take long views of its responsibilities, or .will it say “Sufficient unto the day is the Bill, or the resolution, or the amendment thereof?” x\)l that is tribulation and vexation of spirit. They have been in this land of storms and of dust for many years in France. They have formed blocs and put Millerand in a M inistry; and that has brought difficulties. They have washed themselves clean of compromise, and, like Brahmins, have purified themselves after their contact with bourgeois parties; and that has not brought peace. A PROGRAMME OF ACTION. Meanwhile, men have contrasted this apparent confusion with the promises of decisive, direct action. A combination, a united demand, a_ strike! On paper, what can stand against such action? Look what happens in everyday experience- Men lay down their tools, workshops are thrown idle, employers have to surrender, wages are forcSd up, hours arc.brought down. It-'is all done swiftly, and when finished the gains are definite. This is a method of change rival to that of political action. That is the appeal. “Workmen,” says Sorel, tho loading figure amongst the French revolutionary Syndicalists, “believe in the experience of a comrade who has never demanded anything from you, and who has seen too closely into men to bo taken in by more ap-

poarances. Occupy yourselves , with your own. affairs—that ia to say, organise your unions and your co-opera-tive undertakings, federate yourselves with your fellow-countrymen to discuss practical questions, leave tho politicians to injure themselves to the full." That is the ground plan of Syndicalism. Essentially and characteristically a programme of action, it is being preached to revive trade unionism or the old kind, and to draw workmen away from politics ns a means of social amelioration. In explaining and defending itself, it raises many questions to which everyone interested in the movement of Labour should be prepared with some answer. Certain sections iiv this country seek to exaggerate its importance. The fact is, it is wqak here* and it is strong nowhere. In .Franca a literature, partly philosophical and partly critical, but of no little importance, has been published on the subject. Unfortunately, .the only book that has as yet appeared in English is practically worthless. Some of the contentions of Syndicalism are, however, sound, and must not be overlooked; others, if unsound, are remarkably interesting and suggestive, and I shall try in an examination of tho movement to detach it from the stuttering fury iu which .its British Conservative critics have approached it, and explain somewhat better than they have done why it has excited so much interest not merely amongst the workmen, but amongst tho thinkers of tho Continent. —Daily Chronicle.