Excerpt from the article published in the Anarchist Encyclopedia.
Pierre Besnard via Archives Autonomies || Today, we desperately need to return to this sound conception of syndicalism. The principle of the general strike was also accepted almost unanimously with an important clarification whose value remains total today.
The general strike, like the partial strike, is a conflict of an economic nature, and if, after the Trade Unions, the idea was propagated by revolutionary political groups, which accept the decisions of the Workers’ Congresses instead of fighting them, they nevertheless retain a character of purely trade union struggle.
The Congress did not, however, make acceptance of this principle a formal and absolute condition for admission to the CGT
Tours marked a significant step forward compared to previous Congresses. Much remained to be done to translate its theoretical work into practical application.
This was the work of the Montpellier Congress in 1902. In the meantime, the two organizations (the Exchanges and the Unions) coexisted, each maintaining its own distinct identity, often quarreling and distrustful of the other. The Federation of Exchanges clearly dominated, under the admirable leadership of Pelloutier. It frequently expressed its fears of being absorbed by the CGT. At its Toulouse Congress in 1897, it appeared strengthened and active, eager to extend its reach to rural and maritime communities, whose crucial role in the economic revolution Pelloutier had foreseen.
The Congress of Trade Unions, though less important, also attempted to define the roles and representation of the two bodies within the CGT.
Toulouse was an attempt at unification which should logically have continued in Rennes in 1898. The opposite happened.
This Congress in Rennes effectively resulted in the separation of the two Confederal sections. There can be no doubt about this when one reads this significant passage in the adopted resolution:
The two bodies constituting the Confederation (National Committee and Federations of Stock Exchanges) only meet in the event of unforeseen events that clearly require an agreement.
Although the idea of Unity remained, it was no less in decline in terms of its realization.
In short, the CGT was merely a kind of moral link between the two organizations that comprised it. Activists immediately saw the danger of such a situation. “We’ll be forced to bring them together again,” said Braun (Metalworkers’ Federation). “The Rennes Congress didn’t do a good job.” The question of a vote was also raised at the 10th National Trade Union Congress. It settled on the system of a single vote per union, regardless of its size. This question would, moreover, resurface at subsequent congresses. It has continued to be raised and will continue to be for a long time to come.
At that time, we were in the midst of the Dreyfus affair, and the trade union movement strongly felt the shocks of the agitation caused by this Dreyfus affair as well as by the industrial crises that occurred at the time.
As soon as the Rennes Congress ended, the strike of the Seine navvies, joined by a large number of construction workers, was in full swing. At least 50,000 workers were on strike. The moment seemed opportune to launch the struggle and call a general strike.
The Federations of Metalworkers and Railway Workers were very enthusiastic about this movement. It was especially from the Federation of Railway Workers that the signal for this movement was expected, from which much was anticipated because of the political and economic effect it was sure to produce, on the eve of the Universal Exhibition in Paris (1900).
The Government having intercepted the strike orders of the Railway Workers, the failure was complete in this corporation and, by extension, in all the others.
Lagailse, secretary of the CGT and deputy secretary of the Railway Workers, resigned.
On the other hand, the Building organizations, and they alone, obtained significant improvements which were subsequently to contribute greatly to the development of trade unionism in this important industry.
The turmoil surrounding the Dreyfus Affair divided the working class into two groups. While some supported a review of the case, including those who followed Jaurès and Allemane into the Socialist Party, others remained neutral. The anarchists, for their part, actively participated in the Dreyfusard movement, with Sébastien Faure at the forefront of the struggle.
The culmination of this campaign was the triumph of the left-wing coalition and Millerand’s entry into the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry, alongside Galiffet, the butcher of the Communards. A strange symbol indeed, which would later take on its full meaning when Millerand reached the pinnacle of power.
It was at this time that what came to be known as the Millerandist period began, its aim being to regiment the working class to support a faltering state power. The Millerandist program was presented in Saint-Mandé in 1901 by its author.
Although skillful, this calculation did not have the results expected by the liberals flanked by Millerand-the-Renegade.
All of Millerand’s predictions were destroyed and his hopes were dashed by the great Creusot strike which forced 3,000 workers into exile and resulted in the denial of trade union rights in the region subject to Schneider’s whims.
The bloody incident that occurred during a strike in Martinique definitively turned the workers away from Millerandism.
Meanwhile, the Stock Exchange Congress took place in Paris in 1900, where 34 organizations were represented. The question of relations with political parties was again raised, but without success for those who advocated a merger with socialist groups.
After a fine demonstration by Pelloutier condemning the disastrous effect that would result from this merger, the Congress unanimously adopted the following motion from the Constantine Stock Exchange
Considering that any interference by the Bourses du Travail (Labor Exchanges) in the political sphere would be a source of division and would divert trade union organizations from the sole objective they must pursue: the emancipation of workers by the workers themselves, it was decided that under no circumstances should the Federation of Bourses du Travail join any political group. However, on the other hand, driven by a feeling that is difficult to explain otherwise, by a fear of a deviation that would have nullified all the action and propaganda of the Federation of Bourses, it rejected fuller affiliation with the CGT (General Confederation of Labour).
“These two organizations,” said the delegate from Lyon, “must work together and each do its job, but without merging.”
The unfinished work in Rennes was not completed. The CGT Congress was also held in Paris, from September 10 to 14, 1900. 236 organizations were represented there by 171 delegates.
The issue of industry federations was raised there without finding a solution. It remains unresolved at present.
The most important decision made by the Congress was the publication of a trade union newspaper, La Voix du Peuple (The Voice of the People ). Subscription to this newspaper was mandatory. It was part of what was called the Confederation’s triple obligation.
Lagailse was replaced at the Confederal Secretariat by Renaudin (of the Leather and Hide Workers), who remained in office for only a few months and was himself replaced by Guérard (of the Railway Workers). The two Trade Union Congresses (Exchanges and Federations) were held one after the other, but not in the same city.
The Bourses Congress was held in Nice on September 17, 1901. Pelloutier, who had died in 1900, had been replaced by Yvetot. Niel, who was later to be appointed to the Secretariat of the CGT and who represented the Bourse du Travail of Montpellier at this Congress, concluded in his report on the question of Unity that the two major national organizations should be united immediately.
This is incompatible with workers’ unity, he said; it creates an antagonism of ideas and people. Therefore, one of the two must disappear as a central organization and merge into the other.
And in his opinion, what may surprise those who are unaware of Niel’s ideas, was that the Federation of Stock Exchanges had to disappear or at least renounce its leadership role.
The Congress did not heed this message and did not follow Niel. Yvetot opposed the merger as conceived, and following his intervention, the Congress voted in favor of “a more in-depth study” of the Niel project.
However, the desires and needs for unity were truly considerable. They would soon become decisive. The 6th Confederal Congress was held in Lyon from September 23 to 27, 1901.
The Niel project was brought back into discussion. The plan of the delegate from Montpellier was thus outlined: at the base, the Union; above, the Bourse du Travail; after the Bourses, the Federations; finally, to crown the union edifice, the CGT, synthesis of workers’ action.
Overlapping groupings still existed, but they were considerably reduced.
The project was submitted and referred to the Congress of 1902 which was held in Montpellier from September 22 to 27. A new explosion of strikes, the vote on the 10-hour law (Colliard-Millerand), and the resulting incidents prompted the activists to put an end to it.
The Congress of Stock Exchanges, meeting in Algiers the previous week, had recognized the need for unity. A proposal was adopted to this effect, and Niel was entrusted with the task of presenting it to the Confederal Congress.
Montpellier was the true Congress of Unity. It was dominated by this essential question and the concern to give it a status.
Only one union, the Reims Masons’ Union, expressed some reservations. The agreement was reached almost unanimously. The coordination of the confederation’s forces was achieved. The CGT took on its true form in Montpellier.
Maxime Leroy, in the Workers’ Custom, defines the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) resulting from the Montpellier Congress as follows:
The General Confederation of Labour (CGT) is not a group operating independently of the Unions, Exchanges, and Federations, like an executive power superimposed on and supplementing the various political or administrative mechanisms of the Republic. Nor is it comparable to a kind of “superior Union,” the “Union of Unions,” as Mr. Allou called it in the Senate during the debate on the 1884 law. It is not, moreover, an association of individuals; it does not have an autonomous existence; it has neither a general assembly nor individual members.
This demonstration is accurate. It shows the impossibility for the current regime to incorporate the CGT into its legal framework. While it doesn’t explicitly define its role or purpose, it nevertheless expresses it through the application of the theory of opposites. We will see this by first examining the Montpellier resolution and then the Charter of Amiens. From now on, the CGT will represent the common grouping of the two sections: Labor Exchanges and Federations, merged within it. It is a third-tier organization; the basic grouping being the trade or industry union, the secondary grouping taking the dual form of the National Federation or Labor Exchange, and the CGT grouping together establishes the link that they themselves form between the unions.
One might think that this dual organization, from the bottom up, is inflexible, that there are still overlaps, that the unity is incomplete. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, such an organization ensures the autonomy of the groups and the coordination of efforts, provided that neither of the two secondary organizations attempts to encroach upon the responsibilities of the other.
Article 3 of the statutes of Montpellier, which would be amended several times, notably in 1918 after the Congress of Paris, gives the decisive reason for this constitution and sets out the powers and obligations of the bodies.
Below is the text of this essential article:
No trade union may be a member of the CGT unless it is nationally federated and affiliated with a Bourse du Travail (Labor Exchange) or a local, departmental, or regional Union of Trade Unions representing various professions. However, the General Confederation of Labour will consider the case of trade unions located too far from the headquarters of a local, departmental, or regional Union that request to join only one of the two groups mentioned in Article 2.
Furthermore, within one year, it must engage and then formally demand that the Trade Unions, Labour Exchanges, local, departmental, or regional Unions, and various Federations follow the clauses stipulated in the first paragraph of the preceding article.
No organization can be confederated unless it has at least a one-year subscription to La Voix du Peuple .
This text outlines what has been called the triple Confederal obligation, which is still in effect. Thus, through this dual system of secondary bodies, each union is affiliated with the CGT through its union exchanges and federations.
Firstly, it is decentralized in the social sphere, and secondly, centralized in corporate and professional matters. The centralized organization is self-explanatory. It stems from the need to strengthen, as much as possible, the bond that unites, through the Federation, the unions of the same industry, whose professional interests are identical.
The decentralized organization also raises no objections. The CGT cannot and should not operate from the top down, from the top down. Its activity, its propaganda, its social action, are the work of all its local branches. The unions, and especially the labor exchanges, are the agents of implementation and action. They propel the CGT forward while simultaneously acting independently. To the ideas of “craft unionism,” that is, corporatism, it opposes the principle of a more robust, more active organization: the system of industrial unionism, or industrial action as the basis of social action.
The Federations section is represented by an office and a committee composed of one representative per Federation. The secretary of this section was also the secretary of the CGT.
As for the scholarships, they were managed by a Federal Scholarship Committee headed by a secretary.
In fact, the CGT does not give orders, it does not decide anything. It is under the permanent control of the two Federal Committees (Trade Exchanges and Federations) which are responsible for implementing the decisions of the Congresses.
The Confederal Bureau registers, facilitates the exchange of correspondence, and prepares statistics.
This remained the case at least until 1912, at the Congress of Le Havre, which significantly altered the Confederal structure. Whatever the Confederal activists (CGT or CGTU) may say, both CGTs are now centralized, and decentralization is no longer a reality, no longer in effect. This partly explains the series of crises that unfolded from 1914 to 1925, with no end in sight. The Federations’ control over the Confederal body, and the even stronger control of the Confederal Bureau over the entire CGT (Unions, Unions, Federations), have effectively placed the CGT in the hands of a few men who give orders, execute directives, and make decisions, without sufficient oversight.
Undoubtedly, all of this is only possible because the activists, the unions, the federations, and the confederations do not frequently enough monitor their offices, councils, and committees, and because most of the time they simply record decisions instead of discussing and expressing their will. As a result, they are subjected to tactics and methods that they should condemn. The successive deviations of unionism all stem from this complete deficiency, this lack of oversight. Having gained approval because they were able to have their viewpoints adopted, their conduct endorsed, and their attitudes ratified, the federal and confederate activists, the latter influencing the former, have gradually but surely abandoned, often without realizing it, the essential principles of unionism. There are no other union-related reasons for the crisis. The others are political in nature and can be found in every period of labor history.
Since the Montpellier Congress in 1902, the CGT held five Congresses before the war: Bourges (1904), Amiens (1906), Marseille (1908), Toulouse (1910), Le Havre (1912). A sixth was being prepared in Grenoble when war broke out in 1914.
The Bourges Congress of 1904 was immediately of great importance. Its purpose was to determine the Confederation’s course of action. Would it be reformist and conciliatory, or revolutionary and direct? These were the two questions posed to the Congress. While the Book, Tobacco, and Railway sectors favored the former, the others, notably the Building and Metalworking sectors, etc., favored the latter.
The first viewpoint was supported by Keufer du Livre, who expressed himself thus: “We do not admit,” he said, “that social transformation will occur through a sudden revolution; other means are needed to lead us towards the ideal to which each of us aspires; a long mental preparation is necessary, a moral modification of individuals is necessary.”
Violence is not the best way to achieve satisfaction, and the revolutionary method is dangerous in that it will inevitably lead to reprisals of which the workers will be the victims. That is why we maintain our opinion, our preference for the reformist method, without taking away the freedom of other organizations that advocate revolutionary action; they will carry it out at their own risk and peril.”
It is worth noting the difference between reformism and the class collaboration that prevails today. While Keufer advocated caution, Jouhaux now enters government bodies and deliberates with the capitalists he should be fighting, in accordance with the principles of syndicalism.
The majority – at the time the revolutionaries – spoke a different language. What did they say?
They proclaimed that syndicalism is the expression of a struggle between two very distinct and irreconcilable classes: “on the one hand, those who hold capital, on the other the producers who are the creators of all wealth, since capital is constituted only by a levy made at the expense of labor.”
After this observation of a permanent antagonism, they declared that “it is an illusion for workers to rely on the rulers to achieve their emancipation,” given, according to the terms of the preliminary declaration inscribed at the beginning of the standard statutes of the CGT, that the improvement of our lot is inversely proportional to the power of the government.
And Jouhaux concludes in his work “Syndicalism and the CGT”, pages 134-135
“Therefore, a double affirmation of anti-capitalism and anti-statism, from which the authors drew the formal conclusion that workers, powerless if they remained isolated, must first unite in the trade union and through it in the CGT to lead the struggle against the oppressors themselves.”
Thus, revolutionary syndicalism asserted itself as the organization of the proletariat for the struggle against capital to abolish wage labor. It declared itself hostile to any permanent agreement between capital and labor, and it proclaimed the principle of continuous action against employers, distrust of the state, and the necessity of direct action, of immediate pressure from producers. It did not reject improvements in working conditions or social reforms, but it recognized their true value only insofar as they diminished the power of capitalism and tended to increase the emancipatory force of the proletariat. Finally, it believed that these reforms could only be effectively achieved through the workers’ own activity.
It’s a safe bet that Jouhaux and his friends wouldn’t support such a thesis today. And yet, he was among the 825 who voted against the 369 who, in 1904, supported Keufer’s thesis. Proportional representation, championed by Keufer and his associates, was also rejected. Here again, trade unionism was breaking with democracy. It was in Bourges in 1904 that the campaign for the eight-hour day was first considered, a campaign that would find workers ready to impose this demand through a general strike in 1906. After the demonstrations of 1889 and the massacres at Fourmies and La Ricamarie, the eight-hour day ceased to be a theoretical concept and became the goal of workers’ efforts.
Here, in this regard, is the agenda that was adopted by the Congress of Bourges:
The Congress, considering that workers can only rely on their own action to improve their working conditions; Considering that agitation for the eight-hour day is a step towards the work of complete emancipation;
The Congress mandates the Confederation to organize intense and growing agitation so that on May 1, 1906, workers will voluntarily cease working more than 8 hours.
The real action for the 8 o’clock race in France dates back to Bourges.
This decision was not followed by all the Federations. The newspaper Le Livre, in particular, supported the nine-hour day, which significantly hampered the propaganda and activities of the CGT.
The Bourges Congress was of enormous importance, which Griffuelhes, then Secretary of the CGT, – who, like Pelloutier, was to mark this entire era with his tireless activity and enlightened energy, – emphasized as follows:
“What emerges from the Congress is the very clear feeling among French activists that they are leading a completely free movement, subordinating their action to their own needs, creating the struggle independently of any external force, and never concerning themselves with anything but the interests of the workers.”
And it was the Amiens Congress in 1906 that was to brilliantly confirm the decisions of Bourges. It was indeed in Amiens that the true Charter of trade unionism was established, around which, in 1925, all the doctrinal debate and discussions on the reconstitution of Unity revolved.
Having been defeated in previous congresses, the politicians — Guesdists — the Marxists of that time, attempted a final offensive. It was skillfully led by Renard du Textile, who was to repeat it, again without success, in 1908 in Marseille, in Toulouse in 1910, and in Le Havre in 1912. There were trade unionists then; alas! today, there are far fewer.
Let’s see how the Guesdists attempted in Amiens to have their point of view prevail. Let us reproduce the text of their resolution, which has been too often forgotten:
Considering that it is important not to disregard laws aimed at establishing protective labor legislation that would improve the social condition of the proletariat and thus enhance the means of struggle against the capitalist class;
The Congress invites union members to use the means at their disposal – (the ballot) I add and emphasize – in order to prevent the opponents of social legislation protecting workers from coming to legislative power.
Considering that the elected representatives of the Socialist Party have always proposed and voted for laws aimed at improving the condition of the working class and achieving its definitive emancipation;
While pursuing the improvement and liberation of the proletariat on different fronts, it is in the interest of establishing relations between the Confederal Committee and the National Council of the Socialist Party, for example, for the struggle to be waged in favor of the 8-hour day, the extension of trade union rights to customs officers, postal workers, teachers and other state officials; to bring about understanding between nations and their governments, for the reduction of working hours, the prohibition of night work for workers of all sexes and ages; to establish minimum wages, etc., etc.
Congress decides;
The Confederal Committee is required to reach an agreement, whenever circumstances demand it, through intermittent or permanent delegations, with the National Council of the Socialist Party in order to more easily achieve the main social reforms.
Renard proposed nothing other than the famous Action Committees that we hear so much about today and which are meant to allow the Communist Party to take power.
It was around this text that a very vigorous campaign was launched throughout the country before the Congress. The Socialist Party wanted to triumph in Amiens at all costs. We saw the same offensive before the founding Congress of the CGT in Saint-Étienne in 1922.
But with this difference: in Amiens the politicians were soundly defeated, whereas they triumphed in St Etienne 16 years later.
It was Merrheim, from the unitary faction in Roubaix, who at that time was called to the secretariat of the Federation of unitary factions, who gave him the reply, and what a reply it was!
“You wanted,” Merrheim said, “to make the union an inferior group, incapable of stepping outside the bounds of legality. We affirm the opposite. It is a group of total revolutionary struggle and its function is to break the legality that stifles us, to give birth to the new law that we want to see emerge from our struggles.”
Naturally, as today, the speakers of the Renard tendency denounced the action carried out by the revolutionary syndicalists as an anarchist action.
This led them to say: “We’ve talked too much,” declared one of them, “as if there were only socialists and anarchists. We’ve forgotten that there are mostly trade unionists.”
Trade unionism is a new social theory, a distinct doctrine. We must, together with the delegates, take a position on it. They must declare that this doctrine is independent of both socialism and anarchism.
The General Secretary of the CGT, Victor Griffuelhes, speaking last, declared
“In reality, on one side there are those who look towards the government, and on the other those who want complete autonomy from both employers and the government. How could this agreement, based on mutual concessions, be established between a Party that reckons with the government because it is subject to its influence, and those of us who live outside of it? Our considerations would not always be those of the Party, hence the impossibility of establishing the required relationship.” Nothing has changed. Today, the same obstacles arise.
By making such statements, Griffuelhes announced the total divorce of trade unionism from the Bourgeoisie and the Power.
Keufer, from the Book, presented a mixed thesis which, in a rather singular paradox, became that of his then-adversaries, the current leaders of the CGT
Speaking on behalf of the reformists, Keufer advocated for trade union autonomy from all political parties and conceived of trade union organization or action according to the English trade-union method, the corporatist method which committed the union to pursuing only corporatist improvements.
He also asserted that parliamentary action should be carried out in parallel with trade union action. Neither Renard’s nor Keufer’s thesis was successful. The resolution presented by Griffuelhes, which became the Charter of Amiens, obtained 824 votes against 3 for Renard’s motion.
Below is this famous charter:
The Amiens Confederal Congress confirms Article 2 of the CGT’s founding statutes, which states: “The CGT unites, outside of any political school, all workers conscious of the struggle to be waged for the abolition of wage labor and the employer class. ” The Congress considers this declaration to be a recognition of the class struggle which, on the economic front, pits workers in revolt against all forms of exploitation and oppression, both material and moral, implemented by the capitalist class against the working class.
The Congress clarifies this theoretical assertion with the following points:
In its daily work of making demands, syndicalism pursues the coordination of workers’ efforts, the increase in the well-being of workers through the realization of immediate improvements, such as the reduction of working hours, the increase in wages, etc… But this task is only one side of the work of syndicalism; it prepares the complete emancipation of workers with, as a means of action, the general strike, and it considers that the trade union, today a group of resistance, will in the future be the group of production and distribution, the basis of social reorganization.
The Congress declares that this dual task, daily and future, stems from the situation of wage earners which weighs on the working class and which makes it a duty for all workers, whatever their opinions or political or philosophical tendencies, to belong to the essential group that is the trade union;
As a consequence, with regard to individuals, the Congress affirms the complete freedom of the union member to participate, outside the corporate group, in any form of struggle corresponding to his philosophical or political conception, merely asking him, in reciprocity, not to introduce into the union the opinions he professes outside.
With regard to organizations, the Congress declares that in order for syndicalism to achieve its maximum effect, economic action must be exercised directly against employers, the confederate organizations not having to concern themselves, as union groups, with parties and sects which, outside and alongside, can pursue social transformation in complete freedom.
It is around this charter, whose obsolescence politicians are now proclaiming, that the most terrible battles have been fought for the past 5 years between collaborationist reformists, revolutionary syndicalists and communists.
The impact of this resolution, which marked the advent of trade unionism as the sole revolutionary force of the workers, was considerable. It dominated, and still dominates, all conflicts between workers and politicians. Griffuelhes had seen clearly, accurately, and far ahead.
Not only does the Charter of Amiens proclaim the neutrality of trade unionism with respect to political parties, but it also demands this neutrality of union members within the union. It states very clearly that membership in a party or philosophical group can be neither a cause for privileged admission nor a cause for special expulsion by the union. It thus places the producer at the forefront, above the citizen. And this is just, because the worker is an everyday reality, unchanging in their condition as well as their desires, while the citizen is a fleeting entity. The citizen can change their opinions, becoming, through the process of evolution or involution, the adversary of what they vehemently defended yesterday, whether out of conscience or self-interest; the worker, however, remains the same; as a wage earner, they suffer the double exploitation and double oppression of capitalism and the state. Only after having economically secured his class defense against the capitalists of all political and philosophical schools, united in a compact class bundle, does the worker have the right and the possibility to engage in politics and philosophize at his leisure.
He also clearly states that while philosophizing cannot harm, and on the contrary can benefit, his education and social activity, it would be infinitely preferable for the worker to refrain from participating in political struggles where he is often called upon to act, on this particular level, alongside and in agreement with some of his class adversaries: so-called liberal bosses, but bosses first and foremost.
If workers refrained from associating with promising or complacent political groups, there is no doubt that trade unionism would long ago have been the sole class organization for all workers, uniting them all under its banner. The triumph of trade unionism, which, since Amiens, has broken with Power, whether democratic or not, with the Bourgeoisie and all its political and economic institutions, to assert its role and its mission for the future, would have long since been a fait accompli.
The trade union, by virtue of the Charter of Amiens, is not only an instrument of struggle in present-day society, it becomes, in its conception, the very organ of social transformation, the basic cell of the society to come, the latter being organized by it in the fields of production and distribution.
The neutral stance of trade unions towards political parties is more than just a distrust of electoral and parliamentary struggles. If it were otherwise, it would only be a temporary position and therefore subject to revision. This is not the case.
From this neutrality stems, in reality, the idea that trade unionism operates and functions on a very different level from political parties, and that political and trade union action are exercised on two very distinct terrains. Such was the masterful work accomplished in Amiens.
We will have the opportunity to return to the value of this charter when we examine the struggles which pit the now dispersed factions of the French trade union movement against each other.
However clear the Charter of Amiens may be, it did not succeed in dispelling all ambiguities or preventing disputes. And today, more than ever, it is around this very charter that the debate unfolds.
Shortly after Amiens, the confederation movement was to face yet another peril. This was the era of “Hervéism,” and Gustave Hervé—who, since then…—imagined for a moment that he had won over the trade union movement to his theories. The Congresses of Marseille in 1908 and Toulouse in 1910 shattered his illusions.
It was not in vain that trade unionism had defined its own doctrine and activity.
The Charter of Amiens was reaffirmed in 1912 at the Congress of Le Havre, the last pre-war congress. After a long, often very heated, discussion on the direction of the trade union movement, the Congress adopted the following resolution:
The Congress, on the eve of resuming and intensifying the confederate agitation aimed at reducing working hours, wishes once again to reiterate the characteristics of syndicalist action, as well as to define the position of the syndicalist movement;
Syndicalism, an offensive movement of the working class, through its representatives, gathered in Congress of the CGT, the only ones authorized, affirms itself once again determined to preserve its autonomy and independence which have been its strength in the past and which are the guarantee of its progress and development;
The Congress declares that, as yesterday, it is resolved to distance itself from problems foreign to its proletarian action, which may weaken its hard-won unity and diminish the power of the ideal pursued by the proletariat grouped in the revolutionary unions, Bourses du Travail, the corporative federations, of which the CGT is the natural representative;
Moreover, the Congress, in recalling the battles faced and the struggles endured, draws from them the certainty of its action, the confidence in its future, at the same time finding the reason for its ever-improvable organization;
Therefore, in the present circumstances, it confirms the moral constitution of the organized working class, contained in the confederal declaration of Amiens (Congress of 1906).
The confederation’s actions were also directed against militarism, patriotism, and war. The Congress of Marseille (1908) in particular passed a motion that had some impact.
The Confederal Congress of Marseille, recalling and clarifying the motion of Amiens:
Considering that the army is increasingly tending to replace striking workers in factories, fields, and workshops, when its role is not to execute them, as in Narbonne, Raon-l’Étape, and Villeneuve Saint-Georges;
Considering that the exercise of the right to strike will be nothing but a deception as long as soldiers agree to replace civilian labor and consent to massacre workers;
The Congress, standing on purely economic ground, advocates the education of young people so that, from the day they put on the military livery, they are well convinced that they remain nonetheless members of the working family and that, in conflicts between labor and capital, they have a duty not to use their weapons against their fellow workers;
Given that geographical borders can be changed at the whim of the wealthy, workers only recognize economic borders, separating the two enemy classes: the working class and the capitalist class.
The Congress recalls the formula of the International:
Workers have no country; that consequently, every war is nothing but an attack against the working class, that it is a bloody and terrible means of diverting attention from its demands;
The Congress declares that, from an international point of view, workers must be educated so that in the event of war between powers, workers will respond to the declaration of war with a declaration of a revolutionary general strike.
This thesis, already submitted to the other National Federations during international conferences, was never accepted by the Germans, who refused to acknowledge anti-patriotism and anti-militarism as issues relevant to trade unionism. This demonstrates the fundamental difference between the French labor movement and all other movements, which, with the exception of some in Spain and Italy, were based on social-democratic principles. It was from this misunderstanding that the impotence of the trade union movement in all the belligerent countries in the face of war would stem.
The meeting between Jouhaux and Legien in Brussels at the end of July 1914 confirmed this impotence. It was an even more brutal repetition of the Griffuelhes-Legien meeting in Berlin in 1906, on the subject of the first Moroccan conflict, which is now resurfacing for the third time and threatens to plunge the world into bloodshed.
When I examine the international activities of the French labor movement here, I will describe in detail the nature of the International Conferences and Congresses. We now find ourselves on the eve of war. The general strike has not been declared, and yet war breaks out. Jaurès is killed by Villain on July 31, 1914, and mobilization is decreed on August 2.
What will the CGT do? Unable to trigger a general strike, will it remain neutral, waiting for the moment of its possible intervention against the scourge, or on the contrary, will it follow in the footsteps of the government?
This is where dramatic incidents occurred. The Confederal Bureau decided to flee to Spain. To this end, they chartered a ship to take them from La Rochelle to San Sebastián.
But the government has caught wind of what is being planned. It knows that if the CGT office leaves France, it is to launch a vigorous campaign against the war from abroad. The Minister of War, Messimy, wants to immediately implement the list of suspects known as “Carnet B”.
Malvy, the Minister of the Interior, stalled while Viviani, the President of the Council, fearing a riot following the assassination of Jaurès, a riot which would make mobilization impossible, issued a proclamation to the People, calling for calm and promising the punishment of the guilty party.
All these events are unfolding at breakneck speed. For the government, the CGT remains a mysterious entity.
It was then that Malvy had a brilliant, yet malevolent, idea. He delegated to the Confederal Bureau a lawyer who until then had been considered an extreme left-wing revolutionary socialist, very knowledgeable about workers’ issues, who we are assured – without being able to confirm it – is Mr. Pierre Laval, Minister of Public Works, at the time I am writing these lines (which is likely to strengthen our conviction).
This lawyer informs the Confederal Bureau that the government is aware of his plans to embark and that it is decided, through immediate arrest, to prevent their execution.
The Confederal Committee met immediately. It made no decision. The Bureau was left to its own devices and lost its way. It went to see Malvy and yielded to his arguments. From then on, it would support the Government. It would participate, along with the entire CGT, in the national unity… Jaurès was buried on August 2nd. Jouhaux attended the funeral. Speaking on behalf of the CGT, he said: “How can we find the words? Our minds are clouded by grief and our hearts are gripped by sorrow. It is still in his memory that we will draw the strength we need.”
On behalf of the trade union organizations, on behalf of all the workers who have already joined their regiments and those – including myself – who will leave tomorrow, I declare that we are going to the battlefields with the will to repel the aggressor: it is hatred of imperialism that drives us.”
Jouhaux didn’t leave. I don’t blame him for that. What I do blame him for, however, are the words he spoke without a mandate, in the name of workers who hadn’t been consulted. – The CGT supported the war.
It’s over. It’s a surrender. The B List is not being enforced. Malvy has won. However, it’s important to be fair, especially when one is being harsh. If the Confederal Bureau failed in its duties, it received no support. Everywhere, there was only abdication, enthusiasm for this war of justice (?). Instead of the cries of “Down with the war!” that should have been heard, it was “To Berlin!” that resounded. A huge wave of chauvinism swept across the country.
And since recovery is so difficult, the abdication soon worsened. After Charleroi and the rush on Paris, came the flight of the Confederal Bureau to Bordeaux, along with the Government; then came the Parisian laborers, the unemployed hired by Gallieni to defend Paris. What sad events!
To read the full article by Pierre Besnard, see the website dedicated to the Anarchist Encyclopedia
