Syndicalism in FranceLorwin, Lewis L. (Lewis Levitzki)
History
Syndicalism in France
Lorwin, Lewis L. (Lewis Levitzki)
Labor unions -- France -- History; Syndicalism -- France
Without any pretense of doing full justice to the subject, three
essential points may be indicated which perhaps sufficiently prove that
"neo-Marxism" has drifted so far away from Marx as to lose touch with
his "spirit." These three points bear upon the very kernel of Marxism:
its conception of determinism, its intellectualism, and its emphasis on
the technical factors of social evolution.
The Marxian conception of social determinism is well known. The social
process was thought of by Marx as rigidly "necessary," as an organic,
almost as a mechanical process. The impression of social necessity one
gets in reading Marx is so strong as to convey the feeling of being
carried on by an irresistible process to a definite social end.
In M. Sorel's works, on the contrary, social determinism is a word
merely, the concept back of it is not assimilated. M. Sorel speaks of
the general strike and of Socialism as of possibilities or
probabilities, not of necessities. In reading him, one feels that M.
Sorel himself never felt the irresistible character of the logical
category of necessity.
The difference in the second point follows from the difference in the
first. Marx never doubted the possibility of revealing the secret of the
social process. Trained in the "panlogistic school," Marx always tacitly
assumed that socialism could be scientific, that the procedure of
science could prove the necessity of social evolution going in one
direction and not in any other. It was the glory of having given this
proof which he claimed for himself and which has been claimed for him
by his disciples.
M. Sorel is expressly not "true to the spirit" of Marx in this point.
"Science has no way of foreseeing,"[173] says he. His works are full of
diatribes against the pretention of science to explain everything. He
attributes a large rôle to the unclear, to the subconscious and to the
mystical in all social phenomena. A sentence like the following may
serve to illustrate this point. Says M. Sorel:
[173] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_, p. 54.
Socialism is necessarily a very obscure thing, because it treats of
production--that is, of what is most mysterious in human
activity--and because it proposes to realize a radical
transformation in this region which it is impossible to describe
with the clearness which is found in the superficial regions of the
world. No effort of thought, no progress of knowledge, no
reasonable induction will ever be able to dispel the mystery which
envelops Socialism.[174]
[174] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 201-2.
This, according to Sorel, is just what "Marxism has recognized": M.
Sorel, certainly, "knows his Marx."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account