Welsh Journals

terrible war. We have been forced into the necessity, from which we must not shrink, of trying to cripple a great race, a race which we have seen rushing to destruction at the instigation of a perverted patriotism. An evil spirit has blinded them alike to their own real interests and to their obligations as members of the family of nations, and has robbed them of all power to appreciate the ideals and emotions of their neighbours. Let us hope that, whatever the issue of the war and however dreadful its course may be, THE difficulty of finding an adequate statement of Syndicalist ideals and methods seems in the last resort to be due to the heroic character of Syndi- calist doctrine, even more than to the complexity and inchoateness that belong to it, as to every new evangel. For whatever may be our final estimate of Syndicalism, whether we believe it to succed or to fail in its task, at least we shall be compelled to admit that its task has been very great, and its endeavour tremendous. It directly challenges one of the funda- mental maxims of our modern industrial system. Industry seems to rest on the principle that vast production implies a highly organized and sternly disciplined system of industry. All our social and industrial experience seems to prove this principle and yet it is just this that Syndicalism denies. It is important to realize the manner and the method of its denial. Our industry rests on the principle of division of labour ix., the task which each worker undertakes is only one special part of a very long productive process, and depends for its value and importance on the work of others, who carry to completion the partly accomplished work. A piece of cloth embodies the joint efforts of carder, spinner, dyer, weaver, and finisher, and when all these work together, each becoming expert at his own particular task and passing on his product to his associate, the result is the production of more and better cloth than if each had carried through the whole process for himself. But to participate in this more abundant product, each has had to give up his industrial independence. Suppose a man were the sole pro- ducer of the cloth which he himself wears, then he would regulate his production by no other standard than his own needs. He could work how and when he liked. But if, to ensure a greater production, he it may at least succeed in teaching Germany some- thing of that deep sense of charity and resignation which animates Christian Russia, something of that high spirit of honour and intellectual sincerity which has led France, with such wonderful dignity and self-control, from the degradation of 1870 through the terrible crisis of the last few weeks, and will, we doubt not, lead her to ultimate victory. C. T. SYNDICALISM ceases to do the whole thing himself, and begins to work along with others, he is dependent on the others in two ways. He depends on them to complete the work in which he has participated, and so to supply his needs and he must fall into line with them in the matter of productive activity. He can no longer work how and when he pleases. He has to satisfy conditions other than his own needs to have his work done in a certain form, and by a certain time, so that the whole process may run smoothly. He must be a part of a greater whole and the more perfectly organised that whole is, the more complete the dependence of the part on it. In a word. Nature appears to have set two ways of industry before men. Either they may retain their independence, and do everything for themselves, as e.g., up to a certain point, Highland crofters do or they may surrender their independence and enter the ranks of organized industry. In this case, the material rewards are greater, for it is the way of abundance of production. It is a choice between poverty with independence, and comparative com- fort with membership of a rigorously controlled industrial order. If you elect for independence, you must accept poverty. If you elect for sharing in the abundance of goods and services, you must accept the restrictions that productive conditions impose on your freedom. Now, the industrial doctrine of Syndicalism is that this antithesis is false. Our modern system, and the presuppositions underlying it, bid us choose either independence or comfort. Syndicalism says we can have both. It is a consciously motived attempt to combine the great productivity of a system of highly-organised industry with the personal freedom and independence that belong to a loosely- organised industrial system.