MIA > Archive > Foster > Syndicalism
The Syndicalist movement is a labor union movement, which, in addition to fighting the every-day battles of the working class, intends to overthrow capitalism and reorganize society in such a manner that exploitation of man by man through the wages system shall cease. The latter phase of this triple task — the establishment of a society worthy of the human race — is the real goal of Syndicalism and the end for which all its efforts are finally spent. Consequently, an understanding of the manner in which the new society shall be organized is a matter of first importance to Syndicalists and they have given it much thought
Anti-Statism.— At this early date, though many of the minor details of the organization plan of the new society can only be guessed at, many of its larger outlines are fairly clear. One of these is that there will be no State. The Syndicalist sees in the State only an instrument of oppression and a bungling administrator of industry, and proposes to exclude it from the future society. He sees no need for any general supervising governmental body, and intends that the workers in each industry shall manage the affairs of their particular industry; the miners shall manage the mines; the railroaders manage the railroads, and so on through all the lines of human activity.
Current Syndicalist Theory.— Just how the workers shall be organized to manage their industries has been a matter of much speculation. The current Syndicalist theory is that the labor unions in the various industries will each take over the management of their particular industry; that “the fighting groups of today will be the producing and distributing groups of tomorrow.”
This theory, while based on the correct principles, that the State is incompetent to administer industry, and that the most competent bodies possible to do so are the workers actually engaged in the industries, is in all probability incorrect in itself. There are other organizations of workers, overlooked by the formulators of the above theory, that are far more competent to carry on industry than are the labor unions. These are the shop organizations of modern industry.
Shop Organizations.— By the shop organization of an industry is meant the producing organization of workers in that industry. It includes every worker in that industry, whatever his function may be. All industries, including the professions, etc., have such shop organizations more or less well developed. To carry on production of any kind without a shop organization is impossible.
The superiority of these shop organizations to the labor unions for the administration of industry is manifest. They have been especially constructed to carry on production in all its phases, and are daily doing so; while labor unions are simply fighting organizations of workers, knowing, as such, nothing about the operation of industry. These shop organizations will not perish with the fall of capitalism, but, barring some initial confusion, due to the revolution, will continue on in much their present shape into the future society. To try to replace these highly developed and especially constructed producing organizations by the labor unions — which have been built for an entirely different purpose — would be as foolish as unnecessary. There will be no need to change the fighting groups of today into the producing and distributing groups of tomorrow."[3] These producing and distributing organizations already exist. The labor unions will serve a very different purpose in the future society, as will be shown later.
Autonomy of Shop Organizations.— In the future society the shop organizations will be perfectly autonomous — each automatically regulating its own affairs and requiring no interference from without. The producing force of society will be composed of autonomous units — each industry constituting a unit. The beginnings of this industrial autonomy are seen in the more highly monopolized industries of today. These industries are becoming automatic in their operation. Chance and arbitrary industrial dictatorship are being eliminated from them. The whole industrial process is becoming a matter of obeying facts and figures. In a monopolized industry the national demand for its product flows inevitably to it and it regulates its production automatically to conform to this demand. In the future society all industries will be monopolized and each will regulate its production according to the demands placed upon it by the rest of society. The relations between the various industries will be simply the filling of each other’s orders for commodities.[4]
This principle of autonomy will extend to the component parts of the various industries, as arbitrariness in an industry is as detrimental as between industries. This principle is also being more and more recognized and accepted in modem industry. The recent breaking up of the Harriman railroad system into five autonomous sub-systems is proof of this.
As the activities of the autonomous shop organizations will extend over all social production, including education, medicine, criminology, etc., there will be no need for a general supervising body to administer industry — be it the State or the labor unions. And as there will be no slave class in society and no ownership in the social means of livelihood, the State will have lost the only other reasons for its existence — the keeping of the working class in subjection and the regulation of the quarrels between the owners. of the industries.
Initiative.— The statist, while admitting, perhaps, that a certain amount of autonomy is necessary between the industries and also between then component parts, and that, to a certain extent, they will automatically regulate themselves, will, nevertheless insist that very many instances occur in which these autonomous bodies are incapable of carrying on the multiple functions of society, and that they must submit to legislative bodies. He will pose the question of initiative: “Who, in the new society, will decide on the adoption of far-reaching measures, such as the creation of new industries, reorganizing of old ones, adoption of new industrial processes, etc., which will affect all society?” And he himself will quickly answer: ”The majority of the representatives of all society in the government.”
But this conclusion is entirely fallacious and at variance with the laws of modern production, as the following typical example taken from modern industry, will show: Suppose steel costs $10.00 per ton to produce and a new process is invented, by which steel can b« produced for $8.00 per ton. The question of the adoption of this new process — surely one affecting all society — is merely a question of whether or not it will pay interest on the cost of its installation. IT IS PURELY A MATTER OF FIGURES AND IS SETTLED IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY ALONE. SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS NOT CONSULTED. THE STEEL INDUSTRY DICTATES TO THE REST OF SOCIETY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE STEEL INDUSTRY. And this is perfectly logical, even from an idealist standpoint, as it is manifest that the workers in the steel industry are the most competent of all society to decide on matters relating to the steel industry.
There is nothing democratic in this procedure; but it is that of modern industry. And it has been so successful in the development of the industries under capitalism that it is very unlikely it will be changed in the future society. And why should it be? Suppose for instance, the scientifically organized medical fraternity, from experience and figures at hand, decided that a certain hygenic measure, such, for example, as vaccination, to be necessary for society’s welfare, would it be logical for a rational society to submit such a proposition to a referendum vote of a lot of shoemakers, steel workers, farmers, etc, who know nothing about it, or to a government of their representatives equally ignorant? Such a procedure would be ridiculous. Even under capitalism the incompetence of governments to decide such questions is being recognized, and the decisions of specialists of various kinds are being more and more taken as the basis of laws regulating their particular social functions. In the future society these decisions, coming from thoroughly organized specialists — doctors, educators, etc. — who then will have no interest to bilk their fellow beings, as they now have — will be the social laws themselves governing these matters, even as the decision of the steel industry is now social law in matters pertaining to the production of steel. This undemocratic principle will be applied to all the industries.
The fear that one industry might impose arbitrary measures upon the rest of society is groundless, as the same impulses for the improvement of the industries, though in a different form, will exist then, as now. In the unlikely event of such arbitrariness on the part of one industry, the use of direct action tactics on the part of the other industries would soon make it reasonable again.
Selection of Foreman, Superintendents, Etc.— In the future Syndicalist society the ordinarily unscientific custom of majority rule will be just about eliminated. It will be superseded by the rule of facts and figures. Not only will the industries be operated in the undemocratic manner above outlined; but, the responsible positions in them will be filled in a manner all at variance with democratic principles. The foremen, superintendents, etc., will be chosen on the score of their fitness; by examination, instead of on the score of their ability to secure the support of an ignorant majority, through their oratorical powers, good looks, influence, or what not, as is the ordinary democratic procedure. Syndicalism and democracy based on suffrage do not mix.
The question of the system for the division of the social product in the new society has not been the subject of much discussion by Syndicalists. However, they very generally accept the Anarchist formula: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” They will abolish all ownership in the social means of livelihood and make them free for each to take what he needs.
They believe that when all are free to help themselves from the all-sufficing products of society they will no more misuse their opportunity than people now misuse the many enterprises under capitalism — streets, roads, bridges, libraries, parks, etc. — which are managed according to the Anarchistic principle of each taking what he needs. The prevailing code of ethics will prevent would-be idlers from taking advantage of this system.
Syndicalists generally repudiate the Socialist formula: “To each the full social value of his labor” and its accompanying wages system of labor checks. They assert, with justice, that it is impossible to determine the full value that individual workers give to society, and that if this is tried it will mean the perpetuation of social aristocracies.[5]
[2] “Syndicalism” is the French term for labor unionism. It is derived from the word “syndicat,” or local labor union. To distinguish themselves from conservative unionists, French rebel unionists call themselves revolutionary Syndicalists. The former are known as conservative Syndicalists. In foreign usage the French meaning of the term Syndicalism has been modified. It is applied solely to the revolutionary labor union movement.
[3] C. G. T. convention, Amiens, 1906.
[4] For the fundamental idea of this paragraph — the automatic operation of industry — the authors are indebted to J. A. Jones of New York.
[5] For fuller and very interesting details on a probable system or division of the social product, as well as that or the division of labor, in the future society, the student is recommended to read Kropotkin’s “The Conquest of Bread,” procurable from Mother Earth Publishing Company, 55 West Twenty-eighth street, New York City. Price, $1.00.
Last updated on 20 March 2023