The Revolutionary Crisis of 1918-1921 in Germany, England, Italy and France/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV
THE WAR BETWEEN REDS AND YELLOWS
IN FRANCE
In France the after-war revolutionary crisis reached its greatest intensity during the general strike of May, 1920. This wide-spread movement shook French society to its foundations. It started as a general strike of railroadmen, but soon developed into a nation-wide walkout of transport workers, miners, electricians, gas workers, etc. The ruling class understood the agitation as a direct attempt at revolution and treated it accordingly. They victimized thousands of the workers in various ways, and jailed scores of the more militant leaders, charging them with conspiring at revolution. Eventually the upheaval was crushed, chiefly because of he inefficiency and cowardice of the reformist trade union officials. By the loss of the great strike French Labor suffered the severest defeat in its history.
The Origin Of Syndicalism
Before examining the course of the famous May strike and the bitter intra-union war resulting of it, we should glance briefly at the history of trade unionism generally before the strike. Originally the French labor unions, like those of nearly every other country, were in the hands of reformists, men who saw in them merely instruments for protecting, or possibly raising somewhat, the standard of living of the workers under capitalism. The two branches of the avowedly revolutionary movement—the Socialists and the Anarchists—had very little understanding or appreciation of the trade unions. About all that the Socialists used them for was as vote-catching machines for their political parties, and as for the Anarchists, they despised them altogether.
This general attitude of the revolutionists towards the trade unions persisted pretty much from the latter's origin in the early '70s down to the middle '90s. Then an epoch-making change took place. Suddenly the Anarchists, under the intellectual and practical leadership of such able men as Kropotkin, Pelloutier, Pouget, Pataud, etc., realized that their policy of isolating themselves in little groups was ineffective. They decided to propagate their ideas in the mass organizations of the workers, and in order to do so, made their famous "raid" on the trade unions. In a few years' time, grace to their extreme militancy, they succeeded in breaking the power of the conservative and Socialist leaders in the trade unions and in winning almost complete control themselves.
But during the struggle the trade union Anarchists changed: their own philosophy and tactics profoundly. Casting aside many of their old individualistic notions, they came to adopt the conception of the class struggle. They also saw in the trade union the sole means of working class emancipation, and in its method, the strike, the great revolutionary weapon. In a word, their movement gave birth to the modern philosophy of Syndicalism. This doctrine came clearly to light for the first time during the General Confederation of Labor (C. G. T.) Convention at Amiens in 1906. Then was written the famous "Charte d' Amiens," which still serves as the classic statement of Syndicalism. It says:
"In the daily struggle for betterment, Syndicalism seeks the coordination of the workers' efforts, the increase in well-being of the toilers by the realization of immediate benefits such as the decrease of working hours, the increase of wages, etc. But this work is only one side of the task of Syndicalism: it also prepares for integral emancipation, which can only be realized by the expropriation of the capitalists: it indicates the general strike as the means of action, and it considers that the trade union, which today is the group of resistance, will be in the future the group of production and distribution, the base of social reorganization."[1]
With its new and vigorous leadership and its inspiring philosophy, the C. G. T. developed the greatest activity and militancy ever displayed by a labor movement. It waged strike after strike, most of them succssful and many of them spectacular enough to attract the attention of the whole world. The organization became very powerful—it was rightly said at the time that its 500,000 members were much more of a factor in the life of France, than were the 2,500,000 members of the German Socialist unions in the affairs of their country.
The Leaders Turn Yellow
This era of militancy lasted practically up to the outbreak of the world war in 1914, when it ended with a crash. Almost overnight hundreds of the seemingly revolutionary leaders, especially the officials grouped around Leon Jouhaux, general secretary of the General Confederation of Labor (C. G. T.), became ultra-patriotic. Instead of countering the war declaration by calling a general strike, as the C. G. T. was pledged to do, they fell in line with the war plans of the ruling class, echoing all its chauvinistic slogans and using the labor movement chiefly as a means to inject the germs of war-hysteria in the minds of the workers. The supposedly revolutionary Syndicalists of France plunged into the war almost as unresistingly as the reformist Socialists of Germany.
Naturally the French ruling class appreciated this. They made much of their labor allies, even as the German exploiters had done theirs under similar circumstances. Jouhaux and the others were feted and dined and given high political preferment. Most of their time they spent hobnobbing with the capitalists and sleek bourgeois politicians, or running about the world on war business for the Government. Of course, they were spared the dangers and hardships of serving in the trenches. For their treason to the workers, the erstwhile despised C. G. T. leaders suddenly blossomed forth as "big" men of France. On the other hand, those militants who, like Pierre Monatte, still remained true to the old ideals of the C. G. T., were harried and persecuted. Most of them were rushed off to the firing line forthwith, even as their similars had been in Germany.
This reactionary attitude of the trade union leaders did not cease at the end of the war: if anything it was intensified. Jouhaux, Merrheim, Dumoulin, et al, who a few years ago advocated the most extreme doctrines, now gave up the very principle of the class struggle and adopted that of class cooperation. They fought radicalism energetically and acted generally as the defenders of bourgeois society against the threatening wave of Bolshevism.
These tactics greatly embittered the revolutionists in the C. G. T. The latter came to look upon their officials as traitors to the cause, as agents of the capitalist class. Hence, they decided to oust them and to bring the organization back to its revolutionary basis. To this end they restarted their independent journal "La Vie Ouvriere" (suppressed during the war), and commenced to reorganize the famous militant minority which had done such good work in the trade unions during the Anarchist "raid" and the struggle against the Socialist politicians. The new war between the red and yellow Syndicalists was on.
The Big May Strike
It was in the midst of such an unfavorable atmosphere, with the red rank-and-filers warring against the yellow leaders, that the great strike of May, 1920, took place. The upheaval centered around the railroad industry. During the war and the period just following it, the Federation of Railroad Workers,[2] had jumped in membership enormously—the increase was from 23,000 in 1918, to 235,000 in 1920. Feeling its new power, the organization surged restlessly all during the war under the shameful tyranny of the horde of parasites, Government and otherwise, exploiting the railroad workers. And no sooner had the war finished than this discontent began to express itself in a series of strikes. Progressively these took on more and more extent, until finally the movement of revolt culminated in the big clash of May 1st.
The immediate impulse to this great struggle was given in the preceding February. At that time a railroad official refused a leave of absence to a worker whom the union had given road duties to perform. Therefore, he stayed away from his work of his own accord. The company then tried to discipline him, with the result that protest strikes broke out in many places and spread rapidly over almost the entire railroad system of France, state-owned as well as privately-owned. At first the movement was unauthorized, but after a few days the union took it in charge and negotiated a settlement of the grievance.
Hardly had the men gone back to work, however, than the companies flagrantly violated their agreement. This caused intense resentment among the railroad workers, and they called a special convention to decide upon a course of action. Realizing that the exploiters had determined to test out the strength of the union, the workers were eager for the fray. The yellow leaders, cleverly sensing the revolutionary mood of the convention delegates and not daring to oppose it openly, vied with the radicals in demanding drastic action. Consequently the convention went strongly on record for a general strike to realize the following four demands: "(1) Nationalization of the railroads, (2) Immediate reinstatement of all discharged workers, (3) Abandonment of legal prosecution of strikers, (4) Recognition of trade unionism."[3] The strike date was set for May 1st, a few days thence, and an agreement was made with the heads of the C. G. T. that that organization should back up the railroadmen with its full striking strength.
These momentous events created wide-spread agitation throughout France—the ruling class could see the dreaded revolution in the offing. But they had little cause for real alarm: their protectors, the yellow trade union leaders, were at hand to see that nothing serious happened. Even as their likes had done in the great crises in Germany, England, and Italy, so the French reformist labor officials desperately feared a revolutionary struggle and worked ceaselessly to prevent it. Immediately after the general strike was decided upon (which had been forced upon the reformists by the revolutionary situation) they set out to make it ineffective. This they succeeded in doing completely by passively sabotaging the movement to its ruin. As the precious pre-strike days slipped rapidly by, days that should have been devoted to intense preparation, the trade union leaders quibbled and equivocated, doing nothing to educate, enthuse, and organize the masses for the coming battle.
The plan agreed upon was that the railroaders should strike first. Then, at intervals of a day or two each, the miners, transport workers, and other strategically situated trades were to follow suit. Capitalism was to have been paralyzed by "waves" of general strikes. It was a big program, and one that presupposed an alert and disciplined labor movement. But the workers, neglected by their leaders, were unable to rise to its requirements. They hardly knew what the whole thing was about. Even the railroad men were confused and unprepared. Their strike, on May 1st, was only about 50% effective. And the strikes of the miners, transport workers, electricians, and gas workers, which followed in the next several days, were even worse. The great tie-up failed to materialize and the consequence was that after a few days the supporting trades had to go back to work. On May 22nd, similar action was taken by the railroadmen, who were thoroughly beaten. Thus passed the after-war revolutionary crisis in France. The movement was a complete fiasco; it was ruined by its own leaders.
The great May defeat was followed by the usual dire consequences. Taking the offensive, the employers smashed many unions and discharged great numbers of active workers. In the railroad industry over 25,000 militants lost their jobs and were blacklisted. Scores of revolutionary leaders were thrown in jail and charged with attempting to overthrow the Government. But worse than all, the rank and file of the membership became disheartened and quit the unions in droves. Since the end of the strike the C. G. T. has decreased in membership from about 2,000,000 to 600,000. Thus French Labor paid dearly for having reformists at its head during the revolutionary crisis.
Reds Against Yellows
This sad debacle intensified the hatred and opposition of the revolutionaries against the yellow trade union leaders. They extended their minority organization and redoubled their efforts to win control of the unions. The reformist officials replied by declaring war to the knife against them. They denounced the revolutionaries as responsible for the loss of the strike, and practically cooperated with the Government by sustaining its contention that the affair was a revolutionary attempt directed from Moscow. In the railroad workers' union they shamefully ousted the militants from the national executive board. While these militants were still in jail the conservatives, led by Bidegarray, held a meeting, deposed them from the board, and elected new members of their own stripe. Nine members of the new executive board were actual scabs, men who had refused to obey the general strike call. Even the American labor movement, with all its unsavory incidents, can hardly show anything worse in its history than the actions of Bidegarray and his clique. The eventual result was a bad split in the Federation of Railroad Workers and a great embitterment of the general conflict between the reds and yellows throughout the entire trade union movement.
In the midst of this destructive internal turmoil the C. G. T. held its 1920 Convention in Orleans. It resulted in a big defeat for the revolutionaries, as they polled only 658 votes against 1,485 for the reformists. Their program was overwhelmingly beaten. The old officialdom, victorious, were exultant. Pessimism and discouragement seized hold of the militants. The defection of their leaders, the betrayal of the great strike, and the complete defeat at Orleans were almost too much for them. Their minority organization was brought face to face with the deadly peril of dual unionism. A considerable faction, largely influenced by the propaganda of the American I. W. W. advocated that the revolutionists quit the old unions and found a new movement patterned after their own principles. They also brought about a number of splits, notably in Marseilles, and launched a dual union of the usual "scientific" type.
For a time this separatist movement menaced the organization of the militants in the old unions. But eventually the clearer thinkers, headed by Pierre Monatte,[4] overcame it. They understood and pointed out the danger of dual unionism: how it separates the militants from the masses and leaves the latter to the tender mercies of the reactionary bureaucracy. While not blinking the difficulties that confronted their own program, they by no means considered them insurmountable. During their extensive experience in the past they had learned much of the power that may be exercised by militants when they are organized in the unions, and it convinced them that the same policy, vigorously prosecuted, would again result in the downfall of the reformist leaders. Therefore, swayed by this practical, realistic reasoning, the great body of the rebels rejected the proposed dual unionism and decided to fight out the issue in the old unions. They laid elaborate plans to win control of the C. G. T. at its 1921 convention.
Noyautage
The minority organization of the French trade union militants is the Revolutionary Syndicalist Committee, or C. S. R. as it is more popularly known. It is composed of the various revolutionary elements, including left-wing Socialists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, and Communists. Its political conceptions and policies vary from place to place and industry to industry, according as one or another of its groups predominate. In the main, however, the Syndicalists control it and map out its activities. The alliance of the four groups in the minority organization is one of expediency; they all have a common interest in standing together to overthrow the yellow bureaucracy. This necessitates that they bury their differences and get along together as best they can. The tendency is to suppress the doctrinal and tactical points upon which they do not agree and to concentrate on those policies which all hold in common. Nevertheless, considerable jangling goes on, notably between the Syndicalists and the Communists. This is serious, and unless it is kept in check it may eventually result in destroying the revolutionary minority bloc, which of course would amount to a great victory for Jouhaux and his coterie.
The C. S. R. is a practical organization. It has no cartwheel chart (such as American industrial unionists dote upon) according to which it must reorganize the labor movement. Its breath of life is to meet issues as they crop up in the daily struggle and to solve them according to general revolutionary principles—not to work arbitrarily according to some intellectual’s blue print. Characteristically, Monatte says:
"Do not be mistaken, my friends; I have no plan in my pocket for the redistribution of the old unions into new federations; no miraculous formula for local and national union constitutions capable of bringing us the masses all at one blow, of winning all strikes, and of making the revolution in five seconds."[5]
The method of the C. S. R. is intensified organization of the militants throughout the whole labor movement. In French labor parlance the system is known as noyautage.[6] The militants' organization corresponds with every stage of the trade union structure, industrial and geographical. In every local union there is a noyau, or organized knot of revolutionaries. In every national union there is likewise a general revolutionary committee, composed of delegates from all the local noyaux in the industry. And in every central labor council there is a general committee of noyateurs from all the local unions in a given district. The whole movement is topped off and linked together nationally by a large committee, the C. S. R. proper, which consists of representatives of all the general noyaux in the national unions and central labor councils.
Originally this intricate network of interior organization rested solely upon the principle of the voluntary affiliation together of individuals and noyaux. But of recent months large numbers of unions, influenced thereto by the noyaux within them, have affiliated directly to the C. S. R. and pay it a regular per capita tax—whence a big fight, as we shall see later on. The organization maintains an elaborate headquarters in Paris. It also keeps up an extensive system of journalism, there being noyau papers in many localities and industries to carry the rebel message to the rank and file. The general national organ of the movement is "La Vie Ouvriere," a weekly.
The C. S. R. noyaux, identical in many respects with the Russian Communist Party's yatchaykas, use the latter's method of the preliminary caucus. That is, before every labor gathering, be it a local union meeting, a national union convention, or a C. G. T. congress, the noyaux always meet together beforehand, map out their policies, and organize to make them prevail. The result is a general line-up everywhere between the forces of reaction and revolution; the organized militants wage their battle for progress effectively in every nook and corner of the labor movement. The French militant minority is the best organized of any in the capitalist world.
Exclusion And Disruption
After it had passed its crisis of dual unionism in the fall of 1920, the C. S. R. made rapid headway and soon won over large sections of the trade unions. This startled the yellow bureaucrats and they renewed their offensive against it. Seeing that the militants would not oblige them by quitting the unions voluntarily, they decided to throw them out. Hence, the executive committee of the C. G. T., upon the motion of Dumoulin, himself formerly a militant, declared for the expulsion of every organization having direct affiliation with the C. S. R. The pretense was that the latter body, especially because of its per capita tax system, constituted a rival to the C. G. T., a dual movement in fact. One after another, the national unions endorsed the actions of the C. G. T. and finally even the Amsterdam International of Trade Unions took a hand in the matter by blessing the campaign of expulsion. Then began the great struggle of the conservatives to expel the revolutionists, and of the latter to say in the unions.
This struggle, which is still going on, has become so intense that the issue now is "shall the French trade union movement be split, or not?" The yellows say, "Yes," and the reds, "No." The former realize fully that they are doomed if the revolutionists are allowed to remain among the masses. Therefore, they are determined to get rid of them, even if they have to wreck the labor movement in order to do so. And by the same token, the revolutionists know that their strategic place of advantage is in the mass organizations, and they are equally determined not to be driven out into sterile isolation. The capitalist press and all the crooked politicians in the country are openly on the side of the reformists in their efforts to split the C. G. T.
The first guns in the actual campaign of expulsion were fired by the national unions of agricultural workers and clerks. Together they excluded five of their locals for affiliation with the C. S. R. Immediately thereupon, the revolutionists made a big issue of the matter. They started a great agitation throughout the whole movement, denouncing the outrage to the workers. As a result they gained large additions to their strength and struck terror to their opponents, who stopped the exclusion policy at once. The situation suddenly got so bad for the latter that, to prevent the whole labor movement from falling into the hands of the militants, they summoned the C. G. T. convention two months in advance of the regular date. In the period just past these worthies had publicly deplored the fact that they had not split the trade unions the year before at Orleans; and now they advised all and sundry that the same mistake would not be repeated at Lille.
But the Lille Convention, held in July, 1921, was a great blow to the reformists. When the votes cast on the vital issue were finally counted, the revolutionaries polled almost half of them—1348 against 1556 for the reformists. This represented an increase of over 100% in the rebels' strength during one year. Their showing was especially significant inasmuch as their votes were drawn entirely from live, aggressive organizations, while the conservatives got a large portion of theirs from "paper unions," which were kept in existence by the bureaucratic officialdom. The Lille Convention demonstrated clearly that the militants, by their policy of noyautage in the old unions, had secured the support of the masses of organized workers.
The Convention struggle, which was very bitter, surged mostly around general tactical questions. The militants' aims, briefly stated, were, "(1) To frustrate the confederal leaders' program of splitting the labor movement, (2) to bring the C. G. T. back again to the principles of the class struggle, (3) to break with the (League of Nations) bureau of Albert Thomas, (4) to affiliate with the trade union International of the revolution."[7] The reformists dared not meet directly the issue of expulsion, so they cleverly evaded it by seating, unopposed, the delegates of the five expelled local unions. Under the circumstances. the best they could do was to get through a vague resolution, upholding in a general way the authority and discipline of the C. G. T.
Undeterred by their failure to find a favorable opportunity at Lille to divide the labor movement, however, the reformists are now going ahead with their criminal enterprise more vigorously than ever. They can see no way for themselves to maintain even a shred of control except by forcing the conservatives into one union and the radicals into another. They hope that in such an event the ruling class will favor the conservative labor movement and carry on a relentless warfare against the revolutionary body. Thus they expect to profit.
With this idea in mind, the Jouhaux group are deliberately forcing a split. Moreover, for obvious reasons, they are doing their level best to lay the blame therefor at the doors of the revolutionaries. "Discipline in the organization" is their slogan. They have misconstrued the Lille resolution into a justification of their disruptionist policy, and are expelling C. S. R. local unions all over the country.
On the other hand, the revolutionaries are more than careful to see that the onus for the seemingly inevitable split is not fastened upon them. They are contesting every inch of the ground, and are sticking in the old organization despite the greatest provocation. Throughout France, they are carrying on a great campaign in the unions, exposing the old officialdom as a gang of irresponsible disruptionists. The consequence is that one union after another is coming in to their ranks. They now control a majority of the central labor councils (which are important bodies in France), and nearly all the larger national unions.
At present writing a split appears unavoidable. It may be that the combined bloc of left-wing Socialists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, and Communists, through their ceaseless efforts, will be able to prevent it. They are doing all possible to that end: some even proposing that the C. S. R. drop its much-criticised system of accepting the affiliation of local unions, and henceforth confine its membership entirely to individuals. But the minority leaders doubt that even this measure would help, as the conservatives are inexorable in their determination to wreck the labor movement.
So critical is the situation now that before this booklet is in print the French trade union organization will be probably split in two. Should this calamity happen, it may be depended upon that the revolutionists will get the better of the division. Their policy of noyautage has succeeded incomparably better than a policy of dual unionism could have done. They have won the hearts and minds of the best and most intelligent sections of the organized workers. If the break must and does come, the masses will surely go with them. The yellows will be left with only the shell of an organization. Split or no split, the French labor movement will continue irresistibly on its march towards revolution.
- ↑ Kritsky, "L'Evolution du Syndicalisme en France," P. 384.
- ↑ This is practically an industrial union, including as it does all categories of workers in the railroad industry. In 1917 it absorbed the last important craft union when it amalgamated with the railroad engineers.
- ↑ Jean Brecot, "La Grande Greve de Mai," P. 28.
- ↑ Monatte is editor of "La Vie Ouvriere" and the central figure among French trade union revolutionaries. Originally an Anarchist, he became a Syndicalist during the historic "raid" on the unions elsewhere described. Af the outbreak of the war he was a member of the national executive committee of the C. G. T. But he resigned in protest when that body refused to participate in a Copenhagen, December, 1914, conference to end the war. Shortly afterward he was drafted into the army and sent to the front, where he remained until the close of the war.
- ↑ "Reflexions Sur L'Avenir Syndical," P. 13.
- ↑ Derived from the French word noyau, signifying core, heart, or interior group.
- ↑ "La Vie Ouvriere," July 29th, 1921.