not afraid of pension funds, and those like the printers, who have sick and strike funds, are in the "reformist" branch in France. Vigorous sections of textile, mine, tobacco workers and even railroad men are definitely reformist. The revolutionaries fight these cautious measures for the obvious reason that they are one and all the natural basis of agreements with employers' associations or with current political reforms. Such history of the syndicalist General Federation as is accessible shows clearly that a small and energetic minority hate the referendum appeal to large majorities. A leading "Reformist," A. Keufer, has from the start fought for the "collective contract," which assumes coöperation with employer and with politics.
All this inner struggle raises the question—Can Syndicalism develop permanent and constructive energies? This is inconceivable unless it affiliate with the main currents of existing social and reform legislation. The great tasks are no longer to be met except through endeavors that are organic and disciplinary. To this the anarchist temperament refuses to submit.
If the coöperative spirit triumph in the movement, it can come only through those inclinations that find their satisfaction in resolute team work. With competitive habits as old as the race struggle, this disposition to work helpfully together is created only as other habits are created. This is no more a moral test than it is an industrial test. By it Syndicalism as a constructive movement will stand or fall.
It may be doubted if any movement in existence is more calculated by its practical methods to defeat and to delay the coöperative temper and habit than
