Each large -scale social conflict sees the general strike watchword resurface. This idea, which appeared at the end of XIXe century, the object of lively debates between revolutionary trade unionists and socialists were subject. Miguel Chueca publishes a collection of texts from the time which makes it possible to restore the challenges of this intellectual and political controversy.
The general strike remains in various ways in collective and militant memory. Each large -scale social conflict and each mass manifestation see the watchword of general strike, sometimes transformed into “ general dream »As during the anti-Cpe From 2006. However, notes Miguel Chueca, the publisher of this work, many of those who call for the general strike “ surely ignored the importance of his in the creation of French workers’ unionism (P. 7). The changes in capitalism at work for thirty years, the repression of the workers’ question of the public debate and the process of rehabilitation of the company which coincided with the “ farewell to the proletariat Many Marxist intellectuals have helped make this notion of general strike incomprehensible and exotic.
The interest of this book is to offer a return to sources by presenting the various opinions issued on the general strike in the heyday. Starting from the texts of the time and the words of the actors, we avoid cookie-cutting judgments and the caricatural simplifications to which the general strike is often reduced. Nevertheless, more than a faithful restitution of the positions which spoke at the time, the publisher favored the point of view of his supporters since only two texts (those of Jean Jaurès and the Dutch socialist Henri Van Kol) present the point of view of his opponents. The militant prospect of the book therefore favors supporters of the general strike, those that history has rejected in the camp of the vanquished. It is one of the interests of this book to give the floor to actors widely unknown to revolutionary unionism.
To reconstruct the debate and the different opinions that were expressed, the author brought together the texts of the time in four parts. He first gives the floor to supporters of the general strike like Émile Pouget, Fernand Pelloutier or the group of internationalist internationalist socialist students. The second part presents the debate on the general strike by giving the floor to Jean Jaurès, who formulates the first criticism built and systematic in 1901, and to the revolutionary trade unionists who responded to him. The third part presents the tensions which divide the socialists on the question of the general strike: faced with those who see it only one “ anarchist utopia Dangerous, others like Paul Louis, closer to the union movement, strive to develop more conciliatory positions. Finally, the last part gives the floor to Hubert Lagardelle and Georges Sorel, the theorists of revolutionary unionism. After 1901, the general strike was considered to be an acquired union movement. The trade unionists no longer believe necessary to expand on the subject and it is then up to intellectuals to propose a more theoretical translation. Rather than presenting each of these texts, perhaps it is more useful to rebuild the main lines of their argument. The controversy focused on several points: the question of the origins of the idea of general strike, the modalities of its implementation and its predictable consequences.
An idea carried by revolutionary unionism
The question of the origins of the idea “ generosk “, As we said at the time, is undoubtedly what arouses the least debate. The genesis of the idea of general strike is at the heart of the article by Émile Pouget, one of the main animators of revolutionary unionism, which opens the collection. Pouget, also a famous sabotage theorist, recalls that “ The idea of a general strike has no ideological coat of arms. It comes from the people and cannot claim a noble origin. Neither sociologists nor philosophers deigned to ease to his account (P. 50). For Pouget, the general strike first emerged during the first congresses of the Ouvrière International at the end of the Second Empire. In his intellectual genealogy, he nevertheless neglects the English origin of this watchword at the time of chartism: it was probably not good to recall the British origin of this theme while England is essential at the end of XIXe century as one of the platforms of social-democracy.
Beyond this intellectual genealogy that should be deepened, the emergence of the theme of the general strike is inseparable from the rooting of mass unionism and acculturation to striking practice. This is why all the authors agree to see an emanation of the workers’ movement itself. This is the meaning of the definition of the general strike as “ social myth »Proposed by Sorel. The general strike is therefore born from the experience of the strike which then entered the daily life of the workers: from the end of the Second Empire on the eve of the First World War, the number of strikes increased by 1667 %. From a few dozen per year until the end of the 1860s, the number of strikes then alternated between 200 and 300 until the early 1890s before crossing the 1000 course in 1904. The general strike was therefore a reflection of this transformation of the collective action repertoire. By becoming banal in workshops and factories, the strike appears to some as a possible action strategy to generalize.
“” For us, thus write internationalist internationalist socialist students in 1901, the general strike merges with the Revolution (P. 92). The gathered texts show the abundance of debates on the Revolution and its meanings at the start of XXe century. The development of the general strike idea is also inseparable from the context of strategic reorganization which follows the repression of the municipality. For unionists at the end of XIXe A century, the general strike embodied an alternative to the barricader strategy as well as that of the conquest of power by the parties, hence its undeniable success in the world of work. Thanks to its simultaneity throughout the territory and the absence of a decision -making center, the general strike must thwart the strategies of state repression: “ There is a superiority on the previous revolutions that I had not seen », Admits one of the workers in the fictional dialogue written by Girard and Pelloutier (p. 77).
Socialist criticisms
Against the enthusiasm expressed by revolutionary unionists and certain workers, the socialists are much more reluctant with regard to the general strike. If the guesdists are satisfied with insults and sarcasm, Jaurès publishes a refutation argued in the Small republic In 1901. This text presents in the condensed state the main arguments against the general strike watch. For Jaurès, the general strike is misleading and vain. To be viable, it would require conditions that are difficult to achieve. Anxious not to cut himself off from the world of work, Jaurès nevertheless recognizes him a virtue: “ The general strike, powerless as a revolutionary method, is nonetheless, by its idea, a revolutionary index of the utmost importance. It is a prodigious warning for the privileged classes, more than it is a means of release for the exploited classes (P. 127).
More than an effective revolutionary strategy, the general strike is therefore a spectrum, a sword of Damocles which weighs on the wealthy, a latent threat which must encourage them to compromise. While Jaurès is prudent and moderate, the Dutch deputy Henri Van Kol manifests a much brutal refusal. Where revolutionary unionism is inexpensive and where the unions do not arise in rivals of socialist political organizations, criticism is indeed easier. This is why Van Kol writes bluntly that “ The general strike is only an anarchist utopia, an idea that arises in countries where the socialist movement is weak or in childhood, a dangerous fantasy of poorly organized workers (P. 179).
This book, also endowed with a rich critical apparatus and a very useful glossary, therefore allows the reader to dive into the heart of the debates that cross the union and socialist movement at the turn of XXe century and find the passion that animated the revolutionaries of time. The publisher affirms in his introduction that the general strike watchword disappeared with the war and that after 1918 “ He will no longer stop losing ground (P. 35). This rapid disappearance would be due to the triumph of the two models of political socialism – the insurrectional model and the reformist model – to which the general strike and revolutionary unionism had opposed. For Miguel Chueca, the forgotten tradition of the general strike offers a third way to exceed the aporia of our time. He concluded with an invitation to imagine what the XXe A century if the call to the general strike against war had succeeded in 1914. This nostalgic look seems to us to be neither relevant nor very useful to understand the contemporary issues. The theme of the general strike was born at a very unique moment in the history of the workers’ movement. Its development corresponds to the universe of the second industrialization which sees developing the striking practice in a context marked by the weakness of structured political organizations. Rather than deploring the death of the idea of general strike after 1918, it would undoubtedly be intellectually more fruitful to analyze the reconfigurations of this idiom. He has not ceased, in fact, to be instrumentalized by the most diverse fights, a sign of the persistence of the mobilizing attractions of this expression. Rather than proclaiming abruptly, and somewhat nostalgic, his disappearance between 1908 and 1913, it would be more useful to follow his resurgence and evolution to the most current fights, such as this recent call to “ General consumer strike Thought as a weapon against the drifts of contemporary capitalism in the era of the ecological crisis.