POLITICAL SCIENCE

ASSINGEMENT

SYNDICALISM

AADHITYA NARAYANAN
L19BALB111
BATCH B

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TITLE PAGE NO

1 ABSTRACT 3
2 INTRODUCTION 3
3 MEANS OF 5
SYNDICALISM
4 MAIN TENENTS 5
OF
SYNDICALISM
5 ECONOMIC 7
THEORY OF
STATE
6 SYNDICALISM IN 9
EUROPE AND
AMERICA
7 FEATURES OF 10
SYNDICALISM
8 CRITICISMS 12
9 CONCLUSION 14
10 BIBLOGRAPHY 15

2
 Abstract
The explosion of industrial and political militancy that swept the world during the early
years of the twentieth century gave the revolutionary syndicalist movement a prominence
and notoriety it would not otherwise have possessed, while at the same time providing a
context for syndicalist ideas to be broadcast and for syndicalists to assume the leadership
of major strikes in a number of countries like Europe and America. This article gives an
insight to the programmes, principles, theory, features, criticisms of syndicalism.

Introduction
Syndicalism is a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy
and the government by direct means (such as a general strike). In other words, it is a
system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the
workers.1
The term Syndicalism has been derived from the French syndicates, associations of
workingmen uniting members of the same trade or industry for the furtherance of common
economic interests. Syndicalism may be defined as that form of social theory which regards
the trade union organisation as the foundation of the new society and the instrument whereby
it is to be brought into being. Loosely defined, syndicalism holds that, "the workers must
control the conditions under which they work and live; the social changes they need can be
achieved only by their own efforts, by direct action in their own associations, and through
means suited to their peculiar needs." Syndicalism was a movement committed to destroying
capitalism through revolutionary industrial struggle. The road to the emancipation of the
working class, according to syndicalism, lay through direct action, solidarity, and finally the
general strike which would lead to the working class seizing the means of production. The
efforts of theorists like Fernand Pelloutier and Georges Sorel and many others have also gone
into the making of Syndicalism as a revolutionary movement. Syndicalists were opposed to
all forms of state and they believed in the inevitability of its gradual disintegration as class
consciousness grows among the workers. Like the Marxists they regard the state as arbitrary
and oppressive in nature. 2They consider the state as a bourgeois institution working for the
rich and acting as an instrument of exploitation. According to them the state arose to protect
the economic interests of the capitalists. It perpetuates social injustice and permits the
exploitation of the workers. It is a central organisation which tends to uniformity and to
routine, to lack of imagination and initiative, and distrust of local development and enterprise.
The coercive power of the state kills all initiative. The syndicalists are opposed to the state on
the ground that though it represents and safeguards the interests of the consumers, it cannot
claim itself as the guardian of the producers. 3The syndicalists insist upon producer's control
over the economic and political life of the community and, opposes all forms of government.

1
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syndicalism
2
file:///C:/Users/srn19/Downloads/100513892-SYNDICALISM.pdf
3
file:///C:/Users/srn19/Downloads/100513892-SYNDICALISM.pdf

3
They not only want to improve the living conditions of the working class but also desire to
install workers in positions of authority in society. The syndicalists have no faith in
parliamentary and peaceful methods. They do not favour piecemeal reforms which only
deceive the workers. The syndicalists stand for violent and revolutionary methods of direct
action. They believe in catastrophic and revolutionary upsurge. The methods advocated by
the syndicalists are strike, sabotage, boycott and libel. Among these methods their greatest
emphasis was on strike. According to them, strikes must be encouraged whenever possible.
There must be strikes for better wages and for shorter hours of work. These strikes are to be
regarded as merely rehearsals for the general strike, which is to be resorted to in the long run
for the purpose of ousting the capitalists and capturing the machinery of the state. The
doctrine of general strike as the final weapon for the overthrow of the capitalist system. The
general strike need not be a strike by all the workers. It must be a strike by a sufficiently large
number of persons engaged in key industries to secure the collapse of capitalism.4
During the first two decades of the twentieth century, amid an extraordinary international
upsurge in strike action, the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism originally gathered in
small propaganda groups - connected with and helped to produce mass workers'
movements in a number of different countries around the world. An increasing number of
syndicalist unions, com- mitted to destroying capitalism through direct industrial action
and revolutionary trade union struggle, were to emerge as existing unions were won over
to syndicalist principles in whole or in part, or dissidents who broke away from their
mainstream reformist adversaries formed new alternative revolutionary unions and
organizations. Among the largest and most famous unions influenced by syndicalist ideas
and practice were the Confederation Générale du Travail (CGT) in France, the
Confederation Nacional de Trabajo (CNT) in Spain, and the Unione Sindacale Italiana
(USI) in Italy. In Ireland the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU) also
became a mass force. Elsewhere, syndicalism became the rallying point for a significant
minority of union activists, as in the United States with the Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW) and in Britain with the pre-war Industrial Syndicalist Education League
(ISEL) and Unofficial Reform Committee (URC) of the South Wales Miners' Federation,
as well as within the leadership of the wartime engineering Shop Stewards' and Workers'
Committee Movement. 5

Means of syndicalism
4
Darlington, R. (2013). Syndicalism and Strikes, Leadership and Influence: Britain, Ireland, France,
Italy, Spain, International Labor and Working-Class History, pp. 37-53.
5
Darlington, R. (2013). Syndicalism and Strikes, Leadership and Influence: Britain, Ireland, France, Italy,
Spain, International Labor and Working-Class History, pp. 37-53.

4
The chief supporters of Syndicalism were Pollontier, Sorel, Pouget, Lager- Lelle and
Edward Berth, Emile Patand, etc. but Sorel is the most popular among them. The
syndicalists believe in sabotage, general stake, boycott, and label to achieve their end.
Sabotage means the destruction of machinery by the workers. It also includes production
of goods of poor quality and slow work. General strike means strike in all government
offices, in police and military and in factories all over the country, so that the capitalist
government may find it difficult to function and workers may be able to control the
administration.
Boycott means, the propaganda by the labourers against the purchase of goods of the
capitalists. When there is no sale of goods, the capitalists will suffer. Label means
propaganda by the workers regarding manufacture of goods in the factories under the
workers’ control. A separate label will be fixed on such goods and the people will
purchase only those goods, and not the goods manufactured in the lactones owned by the
capitalists. 6

Main Tenets of Syndicalism

The following are the 10 principles of Syndicalism:

(1) Condemnation of Capitalism:

Like other socialism and Marx, the syndicalists also bitterly condemn capitalism. They say
that through capitalism, a great economic disparity arises, and the wealth of the country is
concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists.

(2) Inevitability of the class struggle:

Like other Socialists and Marx, the syndicalists believe that the world has been divided into
two parts, i.e., the capitalists and the working class. Their interests are conflicting, one class
is the exploiter and the other is the exploited. The capitalists become millionaire by constant
exploitation of the workers.

Therefore, a clash between the interests of the two is inevitable and they cannot reconcile
with each other. That is why the syndicalists do not demand any reforms from the capitalists,
but they want to abolish capitalism after a bitter struggle.

(3) Ending the state:

The syndicalists want the abolition of the state completely; because the state has always
supported the capitalists and the capitalists have not protected the interests of the labourers.
6
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-criticism-of-syndicalism/398

5
 (4) Opposition to Middle class:
The syndicalists, like the communists, have criticised the middle class because the middle
class generally takes sides with the capitalists. At the most they can become the reformists
but not the socialists. Certain middle-class intellectuals support syndicalism. But they do this
in order to become leaders and not because they want to protect the interests of the labourers.

(5) No faith in nationalism:

Marx said that the proletariats have no fatherland. He did not give any place to nationalism
and patriotism in his philosophy. The syndicalists also agree with this theory of Marx.

(6) No faith in Democracy and Parliamentary Government:

Syndicalists say that instead of absolute monarchy, there has been no difference in the
condition of the labourers in the establishment of democracy and parliamentary government.
They are of the view that the influence of capitalism is the same as before in democracy and
the condition of the workers is still causing anxiety. With the advent of democracy, socialism
has not been established and the workers are being exploited continuously.

(7) Attitudes towards Army and Wars:

The syndicalists are of the view that main reason of war is the clash among the capitalists of
different countries. Therefore, wars become inevitable among them. The interests of the
workers are the same in all the countries. Therefore, they do not want to fight with the of
other countries.7

The capitalists encourage wars for their selfish motives and patriotism. Therefore, the
workers of the world should not have any concern with such wars, and they should oppose
their own government. Marx and Lenin did this during their lifetime. Therefore, the
syndicalists also lay a special emphasis on it. Regarding the army, they say that it is not
necessary because it is maintained for the capitalists’ wars and it is employed to suppress the
labour movements.

(8) Opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat and state socialism:

Marx laid emphasis on the dictatorship of the proletariat after the revolution, but the
syndicalists have no faith in it. They feel that the dictatorship of the proletariat, first, becomes
the dictatorship of one party and later it becomes the dictatorship of one leader.

They also bitterly criticise state socialism because the influence of the government officials is
increased on the production, and their attitude does not prove helpful to the procedures. The
syndicalists want the control of labour union instead of state control on production.
7
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-criticism-of-syndicalism/398

6
 (9) Future shape of the society after the revolution:
Most of the syndicalists have not expressed their views about the proposed future set-up of
the society after the abolition of the state. They say that first it is necessary to bring about
revolution. The question as to what the social set-up would be decided after that. But certain
syndicalists did express their views in this regard. They say that there will be no need for an
army after the revolution. Different syndicates will have their own militia, which will be
responsible for the maintenance of law and order and, in case of necessity, they will be
utilised over a much wider area.

In this way, they differ from the anarchists, who do not want any type of use of force after
revolution. According to syndicalists, country-wide utility services like Railways, Post and
Telegraph, etc. will be the central organisations of the workers. Other services will also be
controlled by different labour organisations.8

(10) No confidence in the utility of elections and political parties:

The syndicalists have no faith in the utility of elections and political parties. They say that the
capitalists spend lakhs of rupees in elections and they bribe the press. Thus, it is difficult for
the workers to win elections against them. Even if some workers win the election, they will
not be able to have much say in the parliament, because the capitalists will be in majority
there.9

Economic Theory of the State

The state originated, say the syndicalists, solely as the result of economic factors. When one
group became economically stronger than another group, it organized a government to
protect its economic interests. Thus, when economic life evolved, the governmental
machinery had to change to meet the new conditions, and when economic power shifts from
one group in the state to another, political power of necessity shifts with it.' The state is
looked upon, then, as not only having its origin in economic oppression, but as also being
perpetuated in order that the capitalist system may be buttressed by the machinery of
government. The primary functions of the state are there- fore summarized as the protection
of property and the preservation of either aristocratic or economic class distinctions. The
conduct of both foreign relations and war is aimed at the protection of the economic interests
of the state. 10Consequently, the syndicalists refuse to support the army and navy and have
even gone so far as to threaten a general strike in case war is declared. If that will not prevent
hostilities, a general mutiny has been prophesied. This portion of their doctrine was held in
abeyance during the World War, partly because the reformist wing of the Confederation
Generale du Travail had gained control of the movement, and partly because of the nature of
the war's causes and the way in which it came about. Since the signing of the Treaty of

8
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-criticism-of-syndicalism/398

9
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/top-10-principles-of-syndicalism-explained/394

10
Mott, R. L. (1922). The Political Theory of Syndicalism. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 pp. 25-40

7
Versailles there have been evidences, however, that the radical element is again recovering its
position. Consequently the peace program of syndicalism may be pushed to the front., But the
syndicalists are not only opposed to war; they also protest against standing armies and navies,
which they look upon as causing war directly by fostering a narrow patriotism and indirectly
by aiding in the imperialistic designs of the capitalistic regime. Moreover, the army is
especially to be op- posed because the soldiers are often called in as strike breakers, and in
this way the capitalist government is enabled to prevent the workers attaining better working
conditions. Universal military training is likewise opposed because the government may call
the workers to the collars in case of a threatened general strike, thus putting them under
military discipline and making much harder the organization of an effective strike. The work
of the government within the country also demonstrates to the syndicalist its essentially
economic function. It is pointed out that economic classes have been fostered and their
wealth and privilege protected by the state. Since government is organized to preserve
economic inequality, it can do only those things which tend toward that end. The reason why
so little social legislation has proved effective is that a bourgeois state is inherently incapable
of protecting any but its own interests. If the reforms seem to be of real benefit to the working
class, it is only because they are sops thrown to the proletariat to prevent it from asking more.
Even these reforms, it is pointed out, are frequently rendered practically use- less by the
difficulties of administration. The number of civil servants, already very large in France,
would have to be in- creased if any considerable scheme of social amelioration were to be
undertaken.11 It is urged, furthermore, that much legislation, e. g., that regarding factory
conditions, can best be enforced by the workers, because they are in the best position to know
the conditions. It is evident that laws of this nature will not be enforced by the workers unless
they demand them, and the best evidence of such a demand is a struggle on the part of those
affected to obtain them. The attempts to replace this violence by parliamentarism, maintains
Sorel, have resulted in a degeneration of the middle class, and the paternalistic at- tempts at
social legislation in recent years, except in so far as they have been forced upon the
government by the workers themselves, will prove both ineffective and enervating to the
proletariat. By a similar method of reasoning it is contended that even the courts and
machinery of justice are purposed and maintained largely to secure the capitalist in his
exploitation, and the slight benefit which may rebound to the workers from them is only
incidental. The function of the present political organization, in all its activities, is regarded,
therefore, as being to perpetuate itself, preserve class distinctions, and permit the legal
exploitation of the workers. Holding this view of the origin and functions of the state, it is
quite natural that the syndicalists should contend that the source of all political authority is
economic power. Popular sovereignty is an impossibility in a state in which the proletariat is
not in complete control of the economic power. Rousseau' s conception of the " general will "
is called a" fiction," something that has never existed, and majority rule in fact does not exist
in the present state system. But even if the control were exercised by the majority, the
syndicalist would not, because of that fact, admit its worth. Majority rule is regarded as inert,
clumsy, conservative, and hence invariably an obstacle to progress. In order that there may be
real development it is necessary that a minority assume a conscious leadership, and by
expressing the inarticulate will of the majority, lead them into the improved social order.
12
But the bourgeois state has failed to produce a leadership capable of leading the country

11
Darlington, R. (2013). Syndicalism and Strikes, Leadership and Influence: Britain, Ireland, France, Italy,
Spain, International Labor and Working-Class History, pp. 37-53.

12
Darlington, R. (2013). Syndicalism and Strikes, Leadership and Influence: Britain, Ireland, France, Italy,
Spain, International Labor and Working-Class History, pp. 37-53.

8
along the path which the syndicalist considers progressive. It is concluded, therefore, that the
control of the state, and with it the guidance of society, should now pass from the minority of
the upper class to the minority of the proletariat.

Syndicalism in Europe and America

France is the birthplace of Syndicalism, and the General Confederation of Labour is its
embodiment. In 1888 a congress held at Bordeaux voted in favour of a general strike. Other
congresses declared their adherence. At Marseilles, in 1892, a resolution stating that
legislation cannot settle the differences between Capital and Labour, that only a revolution
can give economic liberty that bloody revolutions only benefit those who have the army
behind them.

The appropriate revolution for the workers is a general strike, was supported, in a memorable
speech, by Aristide Briand, whose fortune it was to be Premier and the maker of a serious
attempt to carry out his own resolution. The idea spread like wildfire. In 1894 a National
Congress met at Nantes, where there was a great trial of strength between the Socialists and
Briand. The latter won by sixty-five votes to thirty-seven. That year the Confederation
Générale du Travail was formed.

The General Confederation is the National Federation of French trade unionism and consists
of two sections—that which corresponds in the country to the trade unions, and that which
corresponds to the Trades Councils. Each section has own committee and funds, and there is
a joint committee—the Comité Confédérde—for general supervision and propaganda, which
agitates for what is known as the " English Sunday," the Eight Hours' Day, and similar things.
Feeble in its action at first, whilst attempts were still being made to join up the political and
the industrial organisations, it only became important when it passed absolutely under the
control of the revolutionaries in 1900. The struggle between the reformist and revolutionary
is by no means ended, but since that year the latter has been predominant. The Confederation
is weak. It is estimated that there are 11,000,000 wage earners in France who might join a
trade union, and of those only 1,000,000 are organised. Of those who are organised, only
about 400,000 belong to the Confederation, and at least 250,000 of those are opposed to the
violent and the revolutionary doctrines of the Comité Confédércle. It is a minority governed
by an internal minority, owing to methods of voting which secure the predominance of
minorities.13

The Confederation owns a weekly paper called the Voix du Peuple, founded in 1900 and
enjoying a circulation of about 6000 copies. It is independent of all political parties and
proclaims the doctrines of " direct action." Its chief contributor, Emile Pouget, a name
famous in the Syndicalist world, wrote recently in it in heaviness of heart: " it not pitiable to
think that the interest taken in the paper is secondary to that taken in sport or even in
politics." The small circulation of the paper, together with the grievous bemoaning of Pouget,
reveal the real weakness of Syndicalism, even in France. In France it is comparatively easy to
work up a strike. Working class solidarity is very real there, and the " myth " of idealism,

13
McDonald, J. R. (n.d.). Syndicalism, critical examination.

9
which Sorel cherishes, constantly keeps the French mind warm. But the French Syndicalist
votes at elections and gesticulates enthusiastically between times on matters

In Germany, Syndicalism hardly exists ; in Italy, it is part of the anarchistic unsettlement of

the working-class mind, and one of the products of the evil which have taken root in the
peninsula ; in Holland, an attempt to organise it has yield insignificant results; the same is
true of Belgium ; the northern Lands know nothing of it—the recent attempt to declare and
carry to a successful end general strike in Sweden having had no connection with Syndicalist
propaganda,

In America, the Syndicalist has received more encouragement. The corrupt state of American
politics, the power of the machine, the electoral difficulties presented by 8 mixed population
speaking in many tongues and brought up under very diverse civil conditions, have hampered
the growth of a political Labour and Socialist movement, and have encouraged the activities
of the Syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World. Moreover, the brutal force which money
can exert in America in the workshop, the corrupt force it can exert on the bench and in the
capital of every State, make it the most natural thing imaginable for labour to contemplate a
resort to such force.

The condition of the Socialist movement in America also helped this kind of propaganda by
action.14

Features of the Syndicalist Theory

The most characteristic feature of syndicalism is the extreme decentralization of the proposed
state. The municipal authorities, not the national organs nor even the provincial ones, are to
make the laws and to enforce them. There will, indeed, be no national law except the
regulations for the national services and the few rules passed by the congress of the
Confederation under the strictest sort of referendum. Presumably France under a syndicalist
regime would lapse into the chaotic condition which existed before the national unification of
the law. The disadvantages which decentralization entails in this regard are evident, and there
seems no way to obviate them under the extreme federalism which is proposed. On the other
hand, it should be noted that the bureaucratic nature of the present centralized French
government, with its multitude of useless functionaries, its slowness of both executive and
legislative action, its administrative " red tape," now stifles individual initiative and
spontaneity of action to a very consider- able degree. 15The reaction against this condition
accounts in a measure for the federal feature of the proposed reorganization, though it is not
evident that a mere swing of the pendulum to the other extreme would not entail quite as
many disadvantages, due to the absence of concerted effort. Furthermore, the history of
federally organized states shows that there is a marked tendency toward centralization, and it
is not improbable that, if the syndicalist proposal should prove workable at all, the confederal

14
McDonald, J. R. (n.d.). Syndicalism, critical examination.

15
Levine, L. (1912). Syndicalism. The North American Review, Vol. 196, No. 680, pp. 9-19.

10
committee would in time be able to draw to it- self-sufficient power to become bureaucratic.
In this way the purpose of the reorganization might be defeated from within.

A second feature of the proposed system is the establishment of a minimum of control in all
governmental agencies. While the locality is to have charge of most of the functions of
government, its range of power is, nevertheless, very limited. The workers in the local trade
are to control that trade; each worker is to control himself with the very least possible
restraint; and certain matters of common national importance are to be con- trolled by the
congress of the Confederation. By this extreme separation of powers, and by relaxing most of
the control over individual action, the syndicalists hope to prevent tyranny and oppression,
and at the same time to open the way for greater freedom of action by the smaller units of
society. The tendency of the evolution of modern civilized governments seems to be toward
deconcentrating rather than toward decentralization. The rapid increase of municipal
functions in American cities during the past half-century, the extension of dominion home-
rule within the British Empire, the proposals for subsidiary parliaments in Scotland and
Wales, the agitation for " regionalism " in France, all point to deconcentrating as the probable
line which governmental development will take. The system of syndicalism is clearly
contrary to this movement, for it provides for a diffusion of responsibility as well as of
power. All proposals for deconcentrating contemplate a centralization of responsibility, even
though the power of administration is diffused. Furthermore, in the syndicalist
commonwealth there will be no intermediate organ of government between the local
municipal authority and the national congress. Such an organ is one of the essential features
of the movements for both subsidiary parliaments and " regionalism ". In the third place, the
syndicalists expect to do away with all but the most elementary rules and laws. Under no
form of deconcentrating, however,16

One of the principle reasons for both the movement for subsidiary parliaments and the
proposals of " regionalism" is the fact that the central legislature cannot properly legislate on
all regional matters. Not only is the syndicalist commonwealth to be organized along
economic lines, but in the main its organization is to follow that of the Confederation
Generale du Travail. It thus appears that what syndicalism proposes is not so much the-
abolition of political organs as the transfer of power from the present political organs to the
trade unions. Much of the argument relative to the corruptness of politicians and political
methods at the present time, therefore, seems beside the point, for under every form of
political organization there are political leaders, and whenever there are not adequate
safeguards, both in laws and public opinion, these leaders are apt to be corrupt. Furthermore,
the proposed organization seems fatally adapted to the furtherance of machine control and
political in- justice. It has been noted that representation in the confederal committee is based
on a unit of organization (either a labour ex- change or a federation of a trade), regardless of
the size of the body represented or the importance of the industry or locality. 17It is obvious
that great inequalities would exist; t and until a more satisfactory plan for the representation
of economic interests shall have been evolved, it is hard to see how popular control would be
more effectively secured under a regime of syndicalism than under a democratic state with
representation on a territorial basis

16
Levine, L. (1912). Syndicalism. The North American Review, Vol. 196, No. 680, pg. 9-19.

17
Mott, R. L. (1922). The Political Theory of Syndicalism. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 pp. 25-
40.

11
 Criticisms
Syndicalism comes back to the utopian idea of the self-governing workshop and
underestimates entirely the strength of our economic system. The syndicalist does not believe
that any one person has greater capacity to rule than has the mass of workers. Mass rule is,
according to the syndicalist, al- ways superior to individual rule, only it is not the rule of the
majority which the syndicalist emphasizes but the rule of the so- called "moral active
minority”. The syndicalists' idea of the necessity of class conflict leads nowhere. Conflict, as
all sociologists know, is of value as a social force only when it leads to toleration, but the
conflict which the syndicalists preach is simply destructive in its nature. If the workers win
their fight against the capitalists by their methods of riot, sabotage, etc., the exploited merely
become the exploiters. The workers may gain control of the industrial establishments, but
syndicalism does not tell us how they would use them by removing competition, and
abolishing the marginal class, it breaks down the force which, hard though it is on certain
individuals, now performs for society the vital function of counteracting the inherent
tendency of consumption to outrun production.18

Syndicalism has been criticised as under:

(1) Syndicalism encourages class struggle, which results in low production. Social unity is
weakened, and the country is ruined.

(2) The syndicalists have criticized democracy, party system and parliamentary government.
This is not desirable, because the working class can gel power by winning the elections and u
can improve its position just as the labour party has done in England.19

(3) The syndicalists’ enmity against the state is condemnable. Probably state has been
supporting the capitalists in the past but today it is a welfare institution. Therefore, it is
necessary to maintain it.

18
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-criticism-of-syndicalism/398

19
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-criticism-of-syndicalism/398

12
 (4) The state can defend the people against foreign aggression and can also maintain internal
law and order. In the absence of the state, the labour organisations will not be able to perform
this function.

(5) The syndicalists have adopted the system of sabotage which is not appreciated. It creates
conflicts. It will spoil the nature of the workers and the production will fall. If the machines
are put out of order, crores of rupees will have to be spent to repair them.

(6) The government will never tolerate general strike and it will adopt every possible measure
to curb it.

(7) The syndicalists attach importance only to the interests of the producers and ignore the
interests of the consumers. It will result in the increase of the prices of commodities by the
producers in an arbitrary manner and thus the consumers will be exploited.

(8) Lack of faith in nationalism is a seditious act.20

Conclusion

The one outstanding service which Syndicalism has done though done so badly that its value
has been counterbalanced by other consequences has been its emphasising that organised
labour must not go to sleep in the belief that others are doing its work. Industrial organisation,
20
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/top-10-principles-of-syndicalism-explained/394

13
pressure, diplomacy is necessary to social progress as political action. But the two must act
together.

Three views may be taken of labour action. The first is that of the pure and simple State
Socialist who believes that Parliamentary union is everything and that the State is to suppress
and supplant every form of individual and voluntary action which has a direct public
significance. This school is numerically weak, and its chief activities are not conducted
systematically, but spasmodically, On the other extreme is the Syndicalist movement which
has been the subject of this study. Then there is the third way, which is that upon which the
British Labour Party is trying to walk. 21Organised labour operating in the factory and
workshop, keeping alive labour issues and labour demands, acting with a Parliamentary Party
which steadily changes social organisation in all its relationships, preserves the State against
reaction, keeps the way of progress open, and secures the permanence of every gain acquired.

Bibliography

Articles
21
Mott, R. L. (1922). The Political Theory of Syndicalism. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 pp. 25-
40.

14
 1. Brooks, J. G. (1914). The Problem of Syndicalism. The American Economic Review,
Vol. 4, No. pp. 115-130.

2. Darlington, R. (2013). Syndicalism and Strikes, Leadership and Influence: Britain,

Ireland, France, Italy, Spain,. International Labor and Working-Class History, pp. 37-
53.

3. Karl Rathgen, M. B. (1914). The Problem of Syndicalism. The American Economic

Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 131-157.

4. Levine, L. (1912). Syndicalism. The North American Review, Vol. 196, No. 680, pg
9-19.

5. Mcdonald, J. R. (n.d.). Syndicalisma, critical examination .

6. Mott, R. L. (1922). The Political Theory of Syndicalism. Political Science Quarterly,

Vol. 37, No. 1 pp. 25-40.

Web sites

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syndicalism

2. http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/syndicalism-definition-means-and-
criticism-of-syndicalism/398

3. http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/top-10-principles-of-syndicalism-
explained/394

4. file:///C:/Users/srn19/Downloads/100513892-SYNDICALISM.pdf

15