What prospect is there of French labor insisting on intervention in Spain?

What was the driving force back of last year’s sit-down strikes? Why has a country with such a militant working class adopted compulsory arbitration?

A recognized authority on European labor movements deals with these important questions.

The latter part of May, 1936, the world was startled by an epidemic of strikes in all industries all over France. Unexpectedly and spontaneously millions of workers had revolted against unbearable conditions which had been continually and gradually worsening ever since the World War, undermining and demoralizing the spirit of that once proud, militant, and revolutionary French proletariat.

The amazement of the world was due not so much to the suddenness and the extent of the strikes, as to the new methods adopted and employed by the strikers. “Striking on the job” was put into effect on an unprecedently large scale and with telling effect.

The workers came to the decision that the means of production were no longer to be considered as the exclusive property of the masters, but that they by right belonged as much, or even more, to the workers whose lives and well being depended on these instruments of production and distribution; for, without the workers industry could not exist, and, without access to industry, the working class would perish. So the strikers had decided that in that fight, instead of abandoning the struck factories, shops, mines, railroads, department stores, etc., they were going to remain in them, and make themselves at home in them until the termination of the conflict. “La Greve sur le Tas” (striking on the job) was maintained throughout their extensive struggle.

To be sure, the “new” method employed by the French strikers, was not altogether new. The I.W.W. has propagated and practiced the principle of “striking on the job” ever since it was first organized. The French syndicalists themselves practised it occasionally even before the birth of the I.W.W. And in America, too, the WPA workers have been indulging in it sporadically for the last few years. But it was the strikes of May-June, 1936, in France, that definitely fixed the “sit-down strike” as a regular weapon in the armory of the working class.

By this departure from the ordinary, the strikes in France became first page news for the capitalist press of the world. Well known correspondents wrote the strikes up as “foreign news”, and the Brass Chock press thus unwittingly spread the idea among workers of all lands. The idea was taken up everywhere, even in these United States as we just witnessed in the General Motors strike. This weapon has no legal standing as yet; on the contrary, politicians and jurists seem to be unanimous in outlawing it as a breach of the sacrosanct right of capitalist property. Even the French Popular Front composed of communist, socialist, and radical bourgeois parties, and its government headed by comrade Leon Blum, have declared “sitting strikes” illegal, to be resisted by all the forces of the government.

But, what of it? Have not peaceful strikes and picketing been considered illegal for centuries? They came to be tolerated only when and where the workers were able to muster sufficient force to assert their “rights”.

Was the strike a success? The answer depends on who answers it. The strikes did not aim at revolutionary objectives, they were an explosion of the discontent of the masses. The demands have all been granted and these exceeded by far the expectations of the leaders of the labor unions, who, by the way, had no responsibility in starting these strikes. Briefly the gains were:

1. —‘Collective bargaining and collective contract;
2. —Right of electing shop and job delegates to represent the workers on the job and to adjust grievances and disputes with their employers; the employers not to fire delegates on account of their job delegate activities and the delegates to re¬ ceive their regular wages for time spent negotiating with the employers or their agents;
3. —The 40-hour work week;
4. —Vacations with full pay;
5. —Increase in wages from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, the lowest paid workers to receive the largest increase.

To American members of the I.W.W. these attainments will not appear very imposing and certainly not revolutionary; old-time French syndicalists appreciate these gains in the same way as the Wobblies would. Furthermore they contend that the enforcement of these gains will depend entirely on the strength of organization and the pressure workers will be able to exert, that otherwise the gains will be lost or forgotten. That these fears are justified will appear later in this article.

These same revolutionary unionists, however, unanimously agree that the strikes were a great victory for the working class, quite apart from the gains enumerated above. The working class of France has re-discovered itself, it has regained its former self-reliance and besides it forged for itself a new, efficient weapon, which it will never relinquish, and therefore it is ready to go places. Not since 1906, when after two years preparation the eight-hour day was won by great struggles, including several general strikes, have the masses of the French workers manifested such militancy.

It should be understood that the strikes of last year were not planned, or called by the unions through their regular channels. Most of the leaders of the unions were at the time engrossed with the political schemes of the Popular Front which had just won out in the elections and was busy forming its own government. Strikes of any magnitude would have embarrassed their political business. Small strikes broke out spontaneously in different parts of the country, and the time being ripe for it—the workers’ dissatisfaction having reached its climax—these small strikes spread. The movement got beyond the control of the union leaders— since the bulk of the striking workers were not members of the unions—and it became general. The masses not only took possession of the industrial establishments of France, but of the unions as well. They flocked into the unions so fast that in a few months the membership of the General Confederation of Labor increased from one million to five million members.

The reason why the masses had kept away from the unions is a long story and we can give only a few brief details. Up to the World War, the French Confederation of Labor (C.G.T.) was the outstanding revolutionary working class organization of the world. It was one of the sources of inspiration for the founders of the I.W.W. It was also actively anti-militarist. It commanded the respect and loyalty of the great majority of workers of France whether union members or not. It was a power of the first magnitude in France.

On the eve of the World War the C.G.T. proposed to the German Trade Unions that a general strike be called in France and Germany to prevent mobilization and war. The proposal was coldly turned down. “When the Fatherland is at war, the German worker is a German first of all” was the answer. As a reaction to this many of the influential leaders of the C.G.T. became favorable to defending their country against invasion and from then on they filled somewhat the same role for the French government that the A.F.L. did for the Wilson administration. The best militants, those who remained true to their anti-war principles were jailed or sent to the front line trenches to be murdered. By the tactics of class collaboration and with the aid of the government the C.G.T. grew numerically, but its principles got diluted and its morale weakened, losing its former militant, revolutionary character. The leaders thereafter no longer relied on the organized strength and combativeness of the membership, but rather on bickering with politicians, with the government and with the Labour Bureau of the League of Nations.

After the war, communism too, appeared, creating the usual confusion in the ranks, and after a couple of years of bitter internal struggle the C.G.T. split into two separate confederations (C.G.T. and C.G.T.U.), the latter affiliated with the Red International following the well known zig-zag lines laid down by Moscow. The other (affiliated with the I.F.T.U.) became more and more reformistic and closer to the socialist and radical bourgeois political parties and cliques.

For sixteen years the main activity of the two confederations consisted of fighting each other. Strikes under the reformist C.G.T. were generally disrupted by communists, injecting their senseless slogans such as, “Hands of China” etc. and bitterly attacking the people in charge of strikes, thus creating distrust and defeatism in the midst of strikes. After a strike would be lost or ended with doubtful success, as the result, at least in part, of such meddling, the communists would use that as fresh arguments of the treachery of the “social-fascist” leaders.

On the other hand, the communists kept on calling “political general strikes” in rapid succession until their movement became an object of contempt and ridicule with the great mass of workers. The labor world was thus kept constantly irritated and disgusted with these senseless fights and meaningless strikes. That is why workers, in ever increasing numbers, were dropping away from the unions and their activities.

On account of the fight between the two federations, several large industrial union federations pulled out of them and remained autonomous. Besides, the anarcho-syndicalists, feeling at home in neither of the above groupings, formed their own Confederation, the C. G. T. S. R. (Revolutionary Syndicalist General Confederation of Labor) and affiliated with the I.W.M.A.

The membership of the two confederations dwindled and their influence on the working class approached the vanishing point. The employing class thus got a free hand to deal as it liked with its slaves, and used this unscrupulously over the weakened proletariat.

The French workers are akin in mental makeup to Spanish workers; as a rule they are class-conscious and have a high sense of class solidarity. They finally grew tired of their miserable conditions; tired of waiting for the two confederations to be done with their mutually exterminating struggle and to again take the lead, as formerly, in their struggle against the masters. They began to bring pressure from the outside on the unions to quit their foolishness and create a united labor movement. Invited to meetings, non-members were able to exert this pressure. So strong became the pressure that in spite of past bitter struggles, a Unity Convention was held in January, 1936, and the two confederations and the autonomous federations merged into a single body and affiliated with the I.F.T.U. The anarcho-syndicalist C.G.T.S.R. remained out of the merger.

With unity accomplished it appeared that a new era would begin for French labor. But another difficulty got in the way. Due to the danger of a fascist coup, an agreement was established between the socialist and communist parties, to drive back the fascist attacks. Later this was enlarged to take in the left-liberal bourgeois parties and establish what is known as the Popular Front. Just before the strikes we are considering, the Popular Front won a majority in the French parliament and proceeded to form a government with the Socialist leader, Leon Blum, as the chief.

Even before the new government could began to function the “sitdown” strikes broke out. Most of the important officials of the C.G.T. are members of either the Socialist or Communist parties and as they were busy with political scheming and log-rolling, an extensive strike movement was very inconvenient and greatly embarrassed them.

The workers, however, sensed that that was precisely the opportune time to strike. The Popular Front government, just come into power, could have hardly afforded to use the army of the Garde Mobile against the strikers. They were right. Instead, the government stepped in offering its good offices for mediating peace “among all classes,” as Blum said. The socialist and communist officials of the unions got busy inside the unions to dampen the spirit of the workers and to persuade them against “unreasonable” demands and to lessen the effects of the strikes. With the aid of the government, compromises were effected, and some temporary agreements drawn up. Details were to be settled later by negotiation and arbitration.

Here is where trouble starts anew. Arbitration has been in bad repute with the French workers for as far back as we can remember. Traditional direct actionists, they are suspicious even of voluntary arbitration. In the settlement of last year’s strike it was tried and it did not work. It appears that the workers accepting it always get the short end. Consequently, sit-down strikes broke out afresh in places where disputes were thought of as settled. The socialist Minister of Interior, Salengro, lost his patience and threatened to throw the striking comrades out of the factories by military force.

Voluntary arbitration systems not filling the bill, the socialist-communist government passed a compulsory arbitration law. As with all laws pertaining to labor relations, this, too, is vague. In effect it says, that if an agreement cannot be reached between the workers and employers, and they cannot agree as to a supreme arbiter, the government shall appoint the arbitrator, and the finding of that gentleman shall be binding on both parties to the dispute. Blum blames the necessity for this law on the stubborness of the employers and wants the workers to think that the law is passed as a favor to them. He also hints that as long as he is the government chief, the arbiter will be a member of the C.G.T. But how about when the communist-socialist government of Blum will be followed by a reactionary government? What kind of arbiters will a conservative government appoint to render binding awards in labor disputes? There is plenty of dissatisfaction and turmoil around this business, and plenty of opposition. Blum will find that the French workers are just as unyielding in the matter as the employers.

There is also a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way the government is acting towards the Spanish fight against the fascist invasion. In spite of the merger of the different groups of unions into one, the old fight is continuing just as bitterly as ever before. The masses were able to exert pressure on the two confederations from the outside. They got inside but there they find the fight unequal with the politicians entrenched in strategic functions of the unions. The mass pays its dues but its wishes are defeated by the well oiled machine.

And here we revert to the affiliate of the I.W. M.A., the anarcho-syndicalist C.G.T.S.R. For years past it was a small organization composed mostly of dogmatic anarchists. Before the Unity Convention, syndicalists of different schools could find place for themselves in the two confederations and in the autonomous unions. If dissatisfied with the one, he could transfer his allegiance to the other group and not have to join with the sectarian anarcho-syndicalists. But since unity was accomplished, the same political clique is ruling the entire outfit. Therefore, it is expected that hereafter large numbers of dissatisfied C.G.T. members will flock to the C.G.T.S.R. whose prestige increased greatly among the French workers on account of its close connection with the C.N.T. of Spain. With new elements entering it, it will soon lose its exclusively anarchist characteristic, and there is a good chance that it will eventually play the same role in France as the C.N.T. in Spain, with the C.G.T. in the role of the U.G.T. for the great body of the French working class will not long allow politicians to rule their economic organization, nor lead it into the rut of parliamentary politics.

Transcribed by Juan Conatz

It is about time that someone wrote another “One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs”. In place of horrifying details of sandpaper on your toothbrush, this book should deal with the one hundred million workingclass guinea pigs who in America, past and present, have been dished out an infinite variety of adulterated remedies to keep them sick but satisfied,—all substitutes for the real thing.

The material to select from is wide and varied, for in no realm of human relations are there to be found more substitutes, fake claims, and harmful products than in the field of sociology. For every measure that could possibly aid in the thorough housecleaning of our society, a spurious substitute is offered and pushed before the public. The phenomenon of Fascism alone affords a vast field for fertile study, for Fascism is the grand devil of them all in the black art of adulterated substitution. Its sample wares include such choice items as “national socialism” for socialism, “labor front” for independent labor unionism, race or national struggle for class struggle, to mention a few of the more important ones.

However, since we only suggested the book and are not writing it, let us confine ourselves to one instance in current America that might provide a significant chapter for the proposed volume. We have reference to the current attempt to substitute the C.I.O. for an industrial union movement long championed by the I.W.W.

The C.I.O. emerged upon the scene a little more than a year ago. Why? Back in the “horse and buggy” days the mighty onsurge of solidarity on the part of the workers through the Knights of Labor was stopped by the appearance of the A. F. of L. “The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.” Is the C.I.O., the child of the A. F. of L., coming to the fore to run bona fide industrial unionism into the ground?

The employers’ art of spurious substitution in the labor commodity market was at first exercised entirely on their own initiative in America by those pariahs of the people, the John D. Rockefellers, as an outgrowth of the terrible and magnificient strike of the Colorado coal miners in 1913-14. The Rockefellers, after witnessing fifteen months of heroic struggle on the part of the miners that even wholesale murder of their women and children at Ludlow could not stifle, brought in W. L. MacKenzie King, later premier of Canada, to form the first “company union” in the United States, the Rockefeller Industrial Representation Plan. In subsequent years the “company union” has served with varying success as a substitute for labor unionism in countless industrial establishments of America.

However, since the gaping dent put into Capitalism by the “crash” of ’29, a general awakening of the American working class has occurred. After an interim of stunned stumbling, the workers commenced to organize in earnest.

The unemployed, no longer pleading recipients of charity, organized and clamored for more bread and shelter. Several plants in the mass production industries went out on unorganized but bitterly contested strikes, notably the Briggs body plants in Detroit. The craft-bound A. F. of L. witnessed a large influx of members into its unworkable federal unions. The I.W.W. made some serious inroads into the automobile industry during and immediately following the Briggs strike. The latter organization also conducted a large agricultural strike for higher wages in the martial law-patrolled Yakima Valley of Washington, as well as conducting a construction workers’ strike at Boulder Dam, a seamen’s strike on the Gulf, building strikes in Philadelphia, etc. In addition, several independent unions of a bona fide working class nature were springing up everywhere, such as the M.E.S.A., the Wisconsin Industrial Union, the Union of All Workers in Minnesota, and others.

Against such an arousing working class the employers were beginning to find the camouflage of “company unionism” rather thin.

With the introduction of the NRA, the Government started playing around with the A.F. of L., but found that the rock-ribbed craft structure of the A. F. of L. was so utterly outmoded as to be unfit for the Judas role of old. The piratical prerogatives of the international craft unions upon the federal locals were causing the new recruits to go through the A. F. of L. like a green light. The distressing spectacle of the lumber workers in the West deserting the safe haven of the A. F. of L. for the industrial unionism of the I.W.W., clearly proved the impotence of even “doctored” craft unionism to embrace the aroused workers of America and run them-into the “safe and sane” channels of the A. F. of L. Such experiences early led Generalissimo Johnson of the NRA to declare for industrial unionism. Today this blustery strike-buster is the blatant advocate of the C.I.O., much to the distress and protestation of weary Willy Green. Shocked and offended Mr. Green may not be able to understand why the good General is taking such an attitude, but the General does.

The laissez faire capitalism of old is day by day being pushed into the background. The day of unrestricted “individual enterprise” is fast disappearing. Through governmental pressure the days of suicidal, unplanned production with its disastrous “booms” and “over-production” (as well as rather amateurish handling of labor problems) are diminishing. More and more, despite temporary setbacks, “monopoly”, “regulations”, “standards”, are being introduced into American economic life. A very real “One Big Union” of capital is being evolved in this country in an effort to ‘stabilize” capitalism and secure to the present beneficiaries of capitalism their powers and privileges at the expense of the working class as heretofore. The capitalist system in America is steadily tending towards one gigantic corporation to displace the present big and little corporations.

With the “corporate” trend of capitalism, and its sometimes startling changes in governmental and business procedure from the days of “laissez faire”, it readily can be seen that an industrial union movement growing out from this can be merely a corresponding change in the form of “company unionism”. For the individual “representation plan” of the individual corporation must be substituted a nation-wide “representation plan” to serve the interests of the newly evolving “corporate state”. A One Big Company Union of labor to match the new One Big Corporation of capital!

Is the C.I.O. being groomed as this “One Big Company Union”?

That the C.I.O. may be bitterly fought by some employers does not in the least contradict this question. These employers are still confident that they can go on in the old laissez faire way. They are yet opposed to merging into the “One Big Corporation of Capital”. But, eventually they will see the arrangement as of benefit to them and as their lone salvation, much as an individual worker in a factory being organized by the I.W.W. may at first resist attempts to organize him, only finally to see the point. These employers are conservatives of the old school. Their ranks will continue to diminish, much as their political expression, the Republican Party, is rapidly decaying and is even now practically moribund as far as national politics is concerned.

Another element accounting for the misleading antagonism of some employers to the C.I.O. may well be the ambition of some of the leaders of this latter movement. Capitalism is not in a precisely enviable position at present. It is endangered on the one hand by the stupidity of some of its sections and on the other by the threat of genuine organization on the part of the working class. In order to get personal considerations, would ambitious “labor leaders” be averse to holding the working class for ransom? As it were, blackmailing the capitalist class into assuring them worthy rewards in power and privilege? After all, both Mussolini and Hitler were pretty blustery and did not strike a bargain until they were assured of their perogatives.

For these reasons, and because the substitute must be plausible, the C.I.O. certainly will not fall into the unimaginative routine of a “company union” or a fascist “labor front” until a full-fledged bargain is struck. Furthermore, rank and file impetuosity will provide from time to time certain flare and color to the whole procedure. However, this rank and file activity will become increasingly rare as Mr. Lewis and his lieutenants come to understandings with the various industrial concerns.

Already the chief outcome of the General Motors strike1 is the agreement on the part of the union to outlaw any job action until all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted, meaning conferences between Lewis and the management. When the time comes that Mr. Lewis wins the checkoff and the right to bargain for all the workers in a company’s employ, the rank and file will be caught between the two mill-stones of Mr. Lewis and the employer. The worker, individually and collectively, will find himself helpless in fighting both the employer and the union. A double chain will be around his neck.

Universally organized into the C.I.O., will the American worker find himself bound hand and foot to the system that exploits him? Freedom a myth, will he be an industrial serf forever in his place and receiving such fruits of labor as his masters may in their benevolence choose to bestow upon him?

The socio-economic basis of fascism is the corporate or totalitarian state—one hundred per cent organized industry and parallel industrial organization of the workers. Industrial unionism lends itself very easily to the corporate plans of fascism. Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was guided in his formulation of the fascist state by his experience with the wide-spread “syndicalism” of Italy. He discovered that industrial unionism can be turned upon its head and become industrial bondage.

An industrial union movement can be an instrument of social advancement and happiness for mankind and a bulwark against fascism only if it is thoroughly saturated with a rank and file spirit and adhere in form and practice to democratic control. What is more, it must be based foursquare on the principle of irreconcilable economic antagonism between the employing class and the working class, for only class-consciousness can counteract the totalitarian appeal of fascism. How does the C.I.O. measure up to any of these requirements? Is it a suitable substitute for the I. W. W.?

Will the members of the American working class offer themselves as “One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs”?

Transcribed by Juan Conatz

• 1•NOTE: The conduct and the settlement of the General Motors Strike indicates that the General Motors Corporation represents an employer group that is taking a watchful “on the fence” attitude to the “corporate” tendencies of American capitalism. Despite the heroic determination of the gallant Flint sit-downers, the small percentage of union organization in the G. M. plants would not have prevented the company from engaging in physical efforts to break the strike unless a question of broad social policy were not in the background of the affair. In an ordinary economic struggle the organization of the strikers was much too weak to seriously intimidate the Company, particularly with the support of the Flint Alliance and the old- line A. F. of L. on the side of the corporation.—T. C.