in the immediate consequences which the heated imagination is sure to draw from such advice.
It is not alone Socialists of penetration and maturity who see this, but Syndicalists themselves lift a warning finger. Lagardelle is now reported by Kautsky to be dismayed at the exhaustion which this destructive passion has brought with it. The possibilities of the strike and sabotage (as one weapon in its armory) are as sacred to him as ever, but he sees the havoc of any general popularizing of such a force. This vigorous propagandist of syndicalism said in 1907:
"If socialism consists wholly of the class struggle, socialism is as a matter of fact entirely contained within syndicalism, for outside of syndicalism there is no class struggle."
He objects to the Anarchists because they make too light of the class struggle or are merely muddle-headed about it. It is to him the greatness of Syndicalism that it has shown the proletariat to be the only section of society to which we may look for salvation. Nothing is to be hoped from political democracy, because it is engaged in the ignoble trickery of binding the classes closer together. The break, he says, must be absolute. Then and then only can we hope that "not one thing traditionally esteemed will survive destruction."
The disastrous folly of a teaching like this is the more amazing when we recall what it is that Syndicalism sets before us. It is "to capture the machinery of production." From the inside, where the millions are toiling, they are to "take possession" of trans-
