Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, and Socialism

Preface

In December, 1912, and January, 1913, by invitation of one of the Brooklyn branches of the Socialist Party, I delivered a series of five lectures on Syndicalism. Some of the lectures I repeated in a number of other places.

It had long been in my mind to discuss some of the more important phases of Syndicalist philosophy and tactics from the point of view of a Marxian Socialist who holds to the policies of the international Socialist movement, so that the invitation to deliver the lectures was welcome because it afforded a convenient opportunity for fulfilling my plan.

By way of introduction to this little volume, I cannot do better than add to the foregoing account of its history the brief apologies with which I prefaced the first lecture.

“As will presently appear, I am not a believer in Syndicalism. Much of my life has been spent in combating its principles. For that reason I shall be the more careful to keep all taint of partisanship from my statement of its principles and aims, however much I may afterward assail them. I trust that the statement of the Syndicalist position which I shall make will satisfy most thoroughly of all the thoughtful Syndicalist, who knows just why he is a Syndicalist, and is not merely a victim of the glitter of new phrases. I shall impute nothing to my Syndicalist friends which is not frankly set forth in their own literature. My own interest, not less than theirs, requires a perfectly true and balanced account of the essentials of Syndicalism and a disregard for non-essentials imposed upon it by individual idiosyncrasies. This is not easy of attainment, for Syndicalism is in the formative stage. Its doctrines are not fully developed, its philosophy is rather chaotic. But I shall try to state the case for Syndicalism more clearly and consecutively than has yet been done in English, with a determination to be scrupulously fair.

“To attain this result a sympathetic understanding of the movement is essential. So I shall try to view it, not with the cold detachment of the entomologist dissecting a beetle, but with the sympathetic interest of one dealing with a life which he has closely touched and shared. For I have faced the same problems as my Syndicalist brother, shared his struggles, his hopes and his fears. For I am of the proletariat, bone of its bone and blood of its blood. Strike, lockout, blacklist, overwork, unemployment, homelessness and hunger are all familiar phenomena to me. I have borne them in my person. They have shaped— and marred—my life. No Syndicalist has seen more clearly the difficulties, obstacles and dangers of parliamentary Socialism. I have both preached and practiced sabotage. I have looked with awe and fear upon the long road of pacific evolution by political methods, and found my courage and faith taxed to the uttermost. At such times I have listened with eager and hungry heart to the Siren voice offering an easy way to the shores of the Promised Land. Sometimes I have almost decided to follow the call. So I feel that I can understand those who decide to try the way of ‘direct action.’ The Siren’s form is fair and her voice is sweet. But she is a Siren, nevertheless, and those who follow her call are doomed.”

My thanks are due to the good comrades who arranged for the delivery of the lectures in Brooklyn. I have many pleasant memories of the live evenings and trust that some of my friendly auditors derived as much pleasure and benefit as I myself did.

John Spargo

Old Bennington, Vermont.

January, 1913.

What Is Syndicalism?

The definition of new movements is proverbially difficult. Whenever a new movement appears, or an old movement enters upon a new phase of its development, the issue between the old order and the new is generally distorted. Hence controversies arise, and the controversial temper impairs the mental vision. Exaggerated claims are made by the friends of the new order, exaggerated fears expressed by the defenders of the old.

This truth is illustrated at the present time by the furious discussion of Syndicalism, which is a new development of an old movement, challenging us with problems which appear new though they are in reality only old problems in a new dress. The stormy discussion is as reckless as the autumn gale that strips the trees. Definition is rarely attempted, notwithstanding that it is the greatest need of all. For no matter whether we belong to those who march under the new banners and shout the new watchwords, to the defenders of the old order who cling to the battle-stained banners and shout the old watchwords, or to the greater host of wavering and undecided souls, we all need a clear and authoritative definition of the issues and problems involved in the conflict. The most important step toward the determination of any controversy is its proper definition.

The word “Syndicalism” is, in popular usage, the French equivalent of the English term “trade unionism.” In English the word “syndicate” is used to describe a combination of capitalists to promote some particular enterprise or speculation. In France the word is more widely applied and denotes any association of persons formed to promote special interests held by those comprised in the association. Thus our English term “trade unionism” is translated into French as “syndicates ouvriers,” that is, syndicates, or associations, of workers. Etymologically, therefore, the French word “Syndicalisme” connotes the system or policy of any kind of syndicate. But in popular use it is applied almost exclusively to labor unionism. We may say, then, that Syndicalism is only the French name for labor unionism.

It is very obvious, however, that outside of France the word is not used as a synonym for labor unionism, at least, not the labor unionism with which we are all familiar. If it means labor unionism to us it must mean a particular type of unionism, essentially different from the type we have long known. For the most ardent labor unionists are the most bitter enemies of Syndicalism and are, in turn, most abused by the Syndicalists. What is the explanation?

In transplanting the word “Syndicalisme” to the English vocabulary we have neglected the adjectives with which it is associated in France. There, standing by itself, it connotes the simple fact of unionism. But in France, as elsewhere, there are unions and unions. Some unions are conservative. Their policies are characterized by moderation and a tacit recognition of the equal rights of employers and employees as parties to a bargain. Other unions are radical. Their policies are aggressive and characterized by a fierce insistence that the employers are parasites, and that the interests of the workers alone are worthy of consideration. The former are sometimes designated “yellow” and sometimes “conservative.” The latter are sometimes designated “red” and sometimes “revolutionary”. In our English use Syndicalism always refers to the “red” or “revolutionary” form of labor unionism.