of which he spoke would constitute an irrevocable transformation, and that it would mark an absolute separation between two historical eras; he often returned to this idea, and Engels has endeavoured to show, by means of images which were sometimes a httle grandiose, how economic enfranchisement would be the point of departure of an era having no relationship with the past. Rejecting all Utopias, these two foimders of modem Socialism renounced all the resources by which their predecessors had rendered the prospect of a great revolution less formidable; but however strong the expressions which they employed might have been, the effects which they produced are still very inferior to those produced by the evocation of the general strike. This conception makes it impossible for us to ignore the fact that a kind of irresistible wave will pass over the old civihsation.
There is something really terrifying in all this; but I believe that it is very essential that this feature of Socialism should be insisted on if the latter is to have its full educational value. Socialists must be convinced that the work to which they are devoting themselves is a serious, formidable, and sublime work; it is only on this condition that they will be able to bear the innimierable sacrifices imposed on them by a propaganda, which can procure them neither honours, profits, nor even immediate intellectual satisfaction. Even if the only result of the idea of the general strike was to make the SociaUst conception more heroic, it should on that account alone be looked upon as having an incalculable value.
The resemblances which I have just established between Marxism and the general strike might be carried still further and deeper; if they have been overlooked hitherto, it is because we are much more struck by the form of things than by their content; a large number of people find great difficulty in believing that there can be any parallehsm between a philosophy based on Hegelianism and the constructions made by men entirely devoid of higher culture. Marx had acquired in Germany a taste for very condensed formulas, and these formulas were so admirably suited to the conditions in the midst of which he worked that he naturally made great use of them. When he wrote, there had been none of the great and numerous strikes which would have enabled him to speak with a detailed knowledge of the means by which the proletariat may prepare itself for the revolution. This absence of knowledge gained from experience very much hampered Marx's thought; he avoided the use of too precise formulas which would have had this inconvenience of giving a kind of sanction to existing institutions, which seemed valueless to him; he was therefore happy to be able to find in German academic writing a habit of abstract language which allowed him to avoid all discussion of detail.i No better proof perhaps can be given of Marx's genius than the remarkable agreement which is found to exist between his views and the doctrine which revolutionary Syndicalism is to-day building up slowly and laboriously, keeping always strictly to strike tactics.
Ill For some time yet, the conception of the general strike will have considerable difficulty in becoming acchmatised in circles which are not specially dominated by strike tactics. I think it might be useful at this point to enquire ^ I have elsewhere put forward the hypothesis that Marx, in the penultimate chapter of the first volume of Capital perhaps wished to demonstrate the difference between the evolution of the proletariat and that of middle-class force. He said that the working class is disciplined, united and organised by the very mechanism of capitalist production. There is perhaps an indication of a movement towards liberty, opposed to the movement towards automatism which will be discussed later when we come to consider middle-class force {Saggi di criiica. pp. 46-47).
IS4 REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE into the motives which explain the repugnance felt by many intelligent and sincere people who are disturbed by the novelty of the Syndicalist point of view. All the members of the new school know that they had to make great efforts in order to overcome the prejudices of their upbringing, to set aside the associations of ideas which sprang up spontaneously in their mind, and to reason along lines which in no way corresponded to those which they had been taught.
During the nineteenth century there existed an incredible scientific ingenuousness which was the direct outcome of the illusions that had aroused so much excitement towards the end of the eighteenth century. ^ Because astronomers had managed to calculate the tables of the moon, it was believed that the aim of all science was to forecast the future with accuracy; because Le Verrier had been able to indicate the probable position of the planet Neptime — which had never been seen, and which accounted for the disturbances of observable planets — it was believed that science could remedy the defects of society, and indicate what measures should be taken to bring about the disappearance of the impleasant things in the world. It may be said that this was the middleclass conception of science: it certainly corresponds very closely to the mental attitude of those capitahsts, who, ignorant of the perfected appliances of their workshops, yet direct industry, and always find ingenious inventors to get them out of their difficulties. For the middle class science is a mill which produces solutions to all the problems we are faced with: ^ science is no longer con- 1 The history of scientific superstitions is of the deepest interest to philosophers who wish to understand Socialism. These superstitions have remained dear to our democracy, as they had been dear to the beaux esprits of the Old Regime; I have touched on a few of the aspects of this history in Les Illusions du progris. Engels was often under the influence of these errors, from which Marx himself was not always free.
• Marx quotes this curious phrase from Ure, written about 1830: " This invention supports the doctrine already developed by us: if sidered as a perfected means to knowledge, but only as a recipe for procuring certain advantages.^ I have said that Marx rejected all attempts to determine the conditions of a future society; too much stress cannot be laid on this point, for it shows that he took his stand outside middle-class science. The doctrine of the general strike also repudiates this science, and many professors consequently accuse the new school of having negative ideas only; their own aim, on the other hand, is the noble one of constructing universal happiness. The leaders of social democracy, it seems to me, have not been very Marxian on this point; a few years ago, Kautsky wrote a preface to a somewhat burlesque Utopia.^ I believe that among the motives which led Bernstein to part from his old friends must be counted the horror which he felt for their Utopias. If Bernstein had lived in France and had known our revolutionary Syndicalism, he would soon have perceived that the latter was on the true Marxian track; but neither in England nor in Germany did he find a working-class movement which could guide him; wishing to remain attached to realities, as Marx had been, he thought that it was better to carry on a policy of social reform, pursuing practical ends, than to lull himself to sleep to the soimd of fine phrases about the happiness of future himianity.
The worshippers of this useless pseudo science did not allow themselves to be stopped by the objection, legitimate in this case, that their methods of calculation were entirely inadequate of their means of determination. Their conception of science, being derived from astronomy, supposes capital enlists the aid of science, the rebel hand of labour always learns how to be tractable " {Capital, Eng. trans., vol. i. p. 188, col. 2).
* To use the language of the new school, science was considered from the point of view of the consumer and not from the point of view of the producer.
* Atlanticus, Ein Blick in den Zukunftsstaat. E. Seilli^re reviewed this book in the DSbats of August 16, 1899.
IS6 REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE that everything can be expressed by some mathematical law. Evidently there are no laws of this kind in sociology; but man is always susceptible to analogies connected with the forms of expression: it was thought that a high degree of perfection had been attained, and that already something had been accomplished for science when — starting from a few principles not offensive to common sense, which seem confirmed by a few common experiences — it had been found possible to present a doctrine in a simple, clear, and deductive manner. This so-called science is simply chatter.^ The Utopists excelled in the art of exposition in accordance with these prejudices; the more their exposition satisfied the requirements of a school book, the more convincing they thought their inventions were. I believe that the contrary of this belief is the truth, and that we should distrust proposals for social reform all the more, when every difficulty seems solved in an apparently satisfactory manner.
I should like to examine here, very briefly, a few of the illusions which have arisen out of what may be called the little science?' which beUeves that when it has attained * " It has not been enough noticed how feeble is the reach of deduction in the psychological and moral sciences...Very soon appeal has to be made to common sense, that is to say, to the continuous experience of the real, in order to inflect the consequences deduced and bend them along the sinuosities of life. Deduction succeeds in things moral only metaphorically so to speak " (Bergson, Creative Evolution, p. 224). Newman had already written something similar to this, but in more precise terms: " Thus it is that the logician for his own purposes, and most usefully as far as these purposes are concerned, turns rivers, full, winding and beautiful, into navigable canals...His business is not to ascertain facts in the concrete but to find and dress up middle terms; and, provided they and the extremes which they go between are not equivocal, either in themselves or in their use. Supposing he can enable his pupils to show well in a viva voce disputation,...he has achieved the main purpose of his profession " {Grammar of Assent, pp. 261-262). There is no weakness in this denunciation of small talk.
clarity of exposition that it has attained truth. This little science has contributed a great deal towards creating the crisis in Marxism, and every day we hear the new school accused of delighting in the obscurities of which Marx has so often been accused, while French Sociahsts and Belgian Sociologists, on the contrary,...!
Perhaps the best way of giving an accurate idea of the error committed by these sham scientists against whom the new school is waging war will be to examine the general characteristics of some social phenomena, and to run through some of the achievements of the mind, beginning with the highest.
A. (i) The positivists, who represent, in an eminent degree, mediocrity, pride, and pedantry, had decreed that philosophy was to give way before their science; but philosophy is not dead, and it has acquired a new and vigorous lease of life thanks to Bergson, who far from wishing to reduce everything to science, has claimed for the philosopher the right to proceed in a manner quite opposed to that employed by the scientist. It might be said that metaphysics has reclaimed the lost ground by demonstrating to man the illusion of so-called scientific solutions, and by bringing the mind back to the mysterious region which the little science abhors. Positivism is still admired by a few Belgians, the employees of the Office du Travail,^ and General Andr6; ^ but these are people who count for very little in the world of thought.
(2) Religions do not seem to be on the point of disappearing. Liberal Protestantism is dying because it 1 This is the ofl&ce of the Minister for Labour, and is principally occupied with the Syndicates. It gives itself a certain socialistic air in the hope of duping the workmen.
* A few years ago, this illustrious warrior (?) was instrumental in blocking the candidature for the Collige de France of Paul Tennery (whose erudition was universally recognised in Europe) in favour of a positivist. The positivists constitute a lay congregation which is ready for any dirty work.
tS8 REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE attempted, at all costs, to give a perfectly rationalistic exposition of Christian theology. Auguste Comte manufactured a caricature of Catholicism, in which he had retained only the administrative, hierarchical, and disciplinary machinery of that Church; his attempt obtained success only with those people who like to laugh at the simpHcity of their dupes. In the course of the nineteenth century, CathoUcism recovered strength to an extraordinary degree because it would abandon nothing; it even strengthened its mysteries, and, what is very curious, it gains ground in cultivated circles >^ere the rationaHsm which was formerly in fashion at the University is scoffed at.^ (3) The old claim made by our fathers that they had created a science of art or even that they could describe a work of art in so adequate a manner that the reader could obtain from a book an exact aesthetic appreciation of a picture or of a statue, we look upon nowadays as a perfect example of pedantry. Taine's efforts in the direction first mentioned are very interesting, but only as regards the history of the various schools. His method gives us no useful information about the works themselves. As for the descriptions, they are only of value if the works themselves are of small aesthetic value, and if they belong to what is sometimes called literary painting. The poorest photograph of the Parthenon conveys a hundred times as much information as a volume devoted to the praise of the marvels of this monument; it seems to me that the famous Frilre sur I'Acropole, so often praised as one of the finest passages in Renan, is a rather remarkable example of rhetoric, and that it is much more likely to render Greek art unintelligible to us than to make us admire the Parthenon. Despite all his enthusiasm for Diderot * Pascal protested eloquently against those who considered obscurity an objection against Catholicism, and Bruneti^re was right in looking upon him as being one of the most anticartesian of the men of his time {Etudes critiques, 4« s6rie, pp. 144-149).
(which is sometimes comical and expressed nonsensically), Joseph Reinach is obliged to acknowledge that his hero was lacking in artistic feeling in his famous Salons, because Diderot appreciated most of all those pictures which offered possibihties of literary dissertation,^ and Bruneti^re could say that Diderot's Salons were the corruption of criticism, because he discussed works of art in them as if they were books.* The impotence of speech is due to the fact that art flourishes best on mystery, half shades and indeterminate outlines; the more speech is methodical and perfect, the more likely is it to eliminate everything that distinguishes a masterpiece; it reduces the masterpiece to the proportions of an academic product.
As a result of this preliminary examination of the three highest achievements of the mind, we are led to beUeve that it is possible to distinguish in every complex body of knowledge a clear and an obscure region, and to say that the latter is perhaps the more important. The mistake made by superficial people consists in the statement that this second part must disappear with the progress of enlightenment, and that eventually everything will be explained rationally in terms of the little science. This error is particularly revolting as regards art, and, above all, perhaps, as regards modem painting, which seeks more and more to render combinations of shades to which no attention was formerly paid on account of their lack of stabiUty and of the difficulty of rendering them by speech.* B. (i) In ethics, the part that can be expressed easily, « Bruneti^re, Evolution des genres, p. 122. Elsewhere he calls Diderot a philistine, p. 153.
» It is to the credit of the impressionists that they showed that these fine shades can be rendered by painting; but some few among them soon began to paint according to the formulas of a school, and then there appeared a scandalous contrast between their works and their avowed aims.
i6o REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE in clearly reasoned expositions, is that which has reference to the equitable relations between men; it contains maxims which are to be found in many different civilisations; consequently it was for a long time believed that a resume of these precepts might form the basis of a natural morality appHcable to the whole of humanity. The obscure part of morality is that which has reference to sexual relationships, and this part is not easily expressed in formulas; to imderstand it thoroughly you must have lived in a country for a great number of years. It is, moreover, the fundamental part; when it is known the whole psychology of a people is understood; the supposed uniformity of the first system in reaUty then conceals many differences; almost identical maxims may correspond to very different appUcations; their clearness was only a delusion.
(2) In legislation, everybody sees immediately that the law regulating contracts and debts constitutes the obvious part, that which is called scientific; here again there is great uniformity in the rules adopted by different peoples, and it was believed that it was eminently desirable to draw up a common code founded on a rational revision of those which existed, but in practice it is again foimd that, in different countries, the courts generally attach different meanings to these supposed common principles; that is because there is something individual and particular in each maxim.
The mysterious region is the family, which influences all social relationships. Le Play was very much struck by an opinion of Tocqueville on this subject: "I am astonished," said this great thinker, "that ancient and modem publicists have not attributed a greater influence on the progress of human affairs to the laws of inheritance. These laws, it is true, refer to civil private affairs, but they should be placed at the head of all political institutions, for they have an incredible influence on the THE PROLETARIAN STRIKE i6t social state of peoples, of which state the pohtical laws are only the expression/' ^ This remark governed all the researches of Le Play.
This division of legislation into a clear and an obscure region has one curious consequence: it is very rare for people who are not members of the legal professions to undertake any discussion of equity; they know that it is necessary to have an intimate knowledge of certain rules of law, in order to be able to argue about these questions: an outsider would run the risk of making himself ridiculous if he were to venture on an opinion; but on the question of divorce, of paternal authority, of inheritance, every man of letters beheves himself as learned as the cleverest lawyer, because in this obscure region there are no well-defined principles, nor regular deductions.
(3) In economics, the same distinction is, perhaps, still more evident; questions relative to exchange can be easily expounded; the methods of exchange are very much aUke in the different countries, and it is hardly Ukely that any very violent paradoxes will be made about monetary circulation. On the other hand, everything relative to production presents a complexity which is sometimes inextricable; it is in production that locsd traditions are most strongly maintained; ridiculous Utopias regarding production may be invented indefinitely without revolting the common sense of readers. Nobody denies that production is the fimdamental part of any economic system; this is a truth which plays a great part in Mcirxism, and which has been acknowledged even by authors who have been unable to imderstand its importance.* 1 Tocqueville, Dimocratie en Amirique, tome i. chap. iii. Le Play, Reforme sociale en France, chap. xvii. 4.
* In my Introduction d I'economie moderne I have shown how this distinction may be used to throw light on many questions which had C. Let us now examine how Parliamentary assemblies work. For a long time it was believed that their principal function was that of arguing out the most important questions of social organisation, and, above all, those relating to the constitution. In such matters it is possible to proceed from first principles by way of deduction to clear and concise conclusions. Our forefathers excelled in this scholastic type of argument, which forms the luminous part of political discussions. Now that the question of the constitution is scarcely ever discussed, certain great laws still give rise to fine oratorical tournaments; thus on the question of the separation of the Chruch and the State, the professional expounders of first principles were heard and even applauded; it was the opinion of all that the debates had rarely reached so high a level, and this was because the question was one that lent itself to academic discussion. But when, as more frequently happens, commercial laws or social measures are discussed, then we see the stupidity of our representatives displayed in all its splendour; ministers, presidents, or rapporteurs de commissions} speciaHsts, vie with each other in displays of stupidity; the reason for this is that we are now dealing with economic questions, and the mind is no longer guided by simple rules; in order to be able to give an opinion worthy of consideration on these questions, one must have had a practical acquaintance with them, and our honourable members cannot be said to possess this kind of knowledge. Among them may be found many representatives of the litUe science; on July 5, 1905, a well-known speciaHst in venereal diseases * till then remained exceedingly obscure, and notably to show the exact value of certain important arguments used by Proudhon.
1 [Laws in France are discussed by a committee elected by the Chamber; they alter the text of the law, and it is the duty of the rapporteur, named by the committee, to defend the amended text in open discussion in the Chamber. — Trans. Note.]
* Doctor Augagneur was for a long time one of the glories of that declared that he had not studied political economy, having " a certain mistrust for that conjectural science." We must doubtless understand from this that it is more difficult to argue about production than it is to diagnose syphiUs.
The little science has engendered a fabulous number of sophistries which we continually come across, and which go down very well with the people who possess the stupid and mediocre culture distributed by the University. These sophistries consist in putting very different things on the same plane from a love of logical simplicity; thus sexual morality is reduced to the equitable relations between contracting parties, the family code to that regulating debts and agreements, and production to exchange.
Because, in nearly every country and in every age, the State has undertaken to regulate circulation, both of money and of banknotes, or has laid down a legal system of measures, it does not by any means follow that there would be the same advantage in entrusting to the State, for mere love of imiformity, the management of great enterprises: yet this argument is one of those which appeal most strongly to many medical students and nurslings of the School of Law. I am convinced that Jaur^s'is even now imable to understand why industry has been abandoned by lazy legislators to the anarchical tendencies of egotists; if production is really the base of ever5rthing, as Marx says, it is criminal not to place it in the front rank, not to subject it to a great legislative action, conceived on the same lines as those parts of legislation which owe their clearness to their abstract character, ix. not to order and arrange it so that it rests class of Intellectuals who looked upon Socialism as a variety of Dreyfusism; his great protests in favour of Justice have brought him to the governorship of Madagascar, which proves that virtue is sometimes rewarded.
on great principles analogous to those which are brought forward when constitutional laws are discussed.
Sociahsm is necessarily very obscure, since it deals with production, i.e, with the most mysterious part of human activity, and since it proposes to bring about a radical transformation of that region which it is impossible to describe with the clearness that is to be found in more superficial regions. No effort of thought, no progress of knowledge, no rational induction will ever dispel the mystery which envelops Sociahsm; and it is because the philosophy of Marx recognised fully this feature of Socialism that it acquired the right to serve as the starting-point of Socialist inquiry.
But we must hasten to add that this obscurity lies only in the language by which we endeavour to describe the methods of realising Sociahsm; this obscurity may be said to be scholastic only; it does not in the least prevent us picturing the proletarian movement in a way that is exact, complete, and striking, and this may be achieved by the aid of that powerful construction which the proletarian mind has conceived in the course of social conflicts, and which is called the " general strike." It must never be forgotten that the perfection of this method of representation would vanish in a moment if any attempt were made to resolve the general strike into a sum of historical details; the general strike must he taken as a whole and undivided, and the passage from capitalism to Socialism conceived as a catastrophe, the development of which baffles description.
The professors of the little science are really difficult to satisfy. They assert very loudly that they will only admit into thought abstractions analogous to those used in the deductive sciences: as a matter of fact, this is a rule which is insufficient for purposes of action, for we do nothing great without the help of warmly-coloured and clearly-defined images, which absorb the whole of oiu* attention; now, is it possible to find anything more satisfying from their point of view than the general strike? But, reply the professors, we ought to rely only on those reaUties which are given by experience: is, then, the picture of the general strike made up of tendencies which were not obtained directly from observation of the revolutionary movement? Is it a work of pure reason, manufactured by indoor scientists attempting to solve the social problem according to the rules of logic? Is it something arbitrary? Is it not, on the contrary, a spontaneous product analogous to those others which students of history come across in periods of action? They insist, and say that man ought not to let himself be carried away by his impulses without submitting them to the control of his inteUigence, whose rights are unchallenged; nobody dreams of disputing them; of course, this picture of the general strike must be tested, and that is what I have tried to do above; but the critical spirit does not consist in replacing historical data by the charlatanism of a sham science.
If it is desired to criticise the basis of the idea of the general strike, the attack must be directed against the revolutionary tendencies which it groups together, and shows as in action; by no other method worthy of attention can you hope to prove to the revolutionaries that they are wrong in giving all their energies to the cause of Socialism, and that their real interests would be better served if they were politicians; they have known this for a long time, and their choice is made; as they do not take up a utilitarian standpoint, any advice which you may give will be in vain.
We are perfectly well aware that the historians of the futiue are bound to discover that we laboiu"ed under many illusions, because they will see behind them a finished world. We, on the other hand, must act, and nobody can tell us to-day what these historians will know; nobody can furnish us with the means of modifying our motor images in such a way as to avoid their criticisms.
Our situation resembles somewhat that of the physicists who work at huge calculations based on theories which are not destined to endure for ever. We have nowadays abandoned all hope of discovering a complete science of nature; the spectacle of modem scientific revolutions is not encouraging for scientists, and has no doubt led many people, naturally enough, to proclaim the bankruptcy of science, and yet we should be mad if we handed the management of industry over to sorcerers, mediums, and wonder-workers. The philosopher who does not seek to make a practical application of his theories may take up the point of view of the future historian of science, and then dispute the absolute character of present-day scientific theses; but he is as ignorant as the present-day physicist when he is asked how to correct the explanations given by the latter; must he therefore take refuge in scepticism?
Nowadays no philosophers worthy of consideration accept the sceptical position; their great aim, on the contrary, is to prove the legitimacy of a science which, however, makes no claim to know the real nature of things, and which confines itself to discovering relations which can be utilised for practical ends. It is because sociology is in the hands of people who are incapable of any philosophic reasoning that it is possible for us to be attacked (in the name of the little science) for being content with methods founded on the laws that a really thorough psychological analysis reveals as fundamental in the genesis of action, and which are revealed to us in all great historical movements.
To proceed scientifically means, first of all, to know what forces exist in the world, and then to take measures whereby we may utilise them, by reasoning from experience. That is why I say that, by accepting the idea of the general strike, although we know that it is a mjrth, we are proceeding exactly as a modem physicist does who has complete confidence in his science, although he knows that the future will look upon it as antiquated. It is we who really possess the scientific spirit, while our critics have lost touch both with modem science and modem philosophy; and having proved this, we are quite easy in our minds.
CHAPTER V I. Use made of the syndicates by politicians — Pressure on Parliaments— The general strike in Belgium and Russia.
II. Differences in the two currents of ideas corresponding to the two conceptions of the general strike: class war; the State; the aristocracy of thought.
III. Jealousy fostered by politicians — War as a source of heroism and as pillage — Dictatorship of the proletariat and its historical antecedents.
IV. Force and Violence — Marx's ideas about force — Necessity of a new theory in the case of proletarian violence.
Politicians are people whose wits are singularly sharpened by their voracious appetites, and in whom the himt for fat jobs develops the cunning of Apaches. They hold purely proletarian organisations in horror, and discredit them as much as they can; frequently they even deny their efficacity, in the hope of alienating the workers from groups which, they say, have no future. But when they perceive that their hatred is powerless, that their abuse does not hinder the working of these detested organisations, and that these have become strong, then they seek to turn to their own profit the forces which the proletariat has created.
The co-operative societies were for a long time denoimced as useless to the workers; since they have THE POLITICAL GENERAL STRIKE i6g prospered, more than one politician has cast languishing eyes on their cash-box, and would like to see the party supported by the income from the bakery and the grocery, as the Israelite consistories in many countries live on the dues from the Jewish butchers.^ The syndicates may be very useful in electoral propaganda; a certain amount of skill is needed to utihse them profitably, but politicians do not lack lightness of finger. Gu^rard, the secretary of the railway syndicate, was once one of the most ardent revolutionaries in France; in the end, however, it was borne in upon him that it was easier to play with poUtics than to prepare for the general strike; 2 he is to-day one of those men in whom the Direction du Travail has most confidence, and in 1902 he went to a great deal of trouble in order to secure the return of Millerand to Parliament. There is a very large railway station in the constituency which the Socialist minister sought to represent, and, without the support of Gu^rard, Millerand would probably have been defeated. In the Socialiste of September 14, 1902, a Guesdist denounced this conduct, which seemed to him doubly