distribution. The way to secure industrial peace is to remove the fundamental cause of industrial war, that is, to make the means of production common property, to put the management of industry on a truly democratic basis and to equalize distribution.

The Syndicalist distrusts the state and believes that political forms and institutions have outlived their usefulness and can not be adapted to new social relations. The Syndicalist program for the future, in so far as it is definite and clear, contains the outlines of an industrial society-the basis of which is the industrial union, and the subdivisions of which are federations of unions, and federations of federations. The direction of industry, in this ideal system, is decentralized in such a manner that each industrial part of society has the control only of those economic functions for the intelligent performance of which it is especially fitted by experience, training, and industrial position.

The creative force of the industrial struggle, according to the Syndicalist, manifests itself in a series of economic and moral phenomena which, taken together, must have far-reaching results. In the struggle for higher wages and better conditions of work the workingmen are led to see the important part they play in the mechanism of production and to resent more bitterly the opposition to their demands on the part of employers. With the intensification of the struggle, the feeling of resentment develops into a desire for emancipation from the conditions which make oppression possible; in other words, it grows into complete class consciousness which consists not merely in the recognition of the struggle of classes but also in the determination to abolish the class-character of society. At the same time the struggle necessarily leads the workingmen to effect a higher degree of solidarity among themselves, to develop their moral qualities, and to fortify and consolidate their organizations.

It is evident that unless the Syndicalist could theoretically connect the struggles of the present with his ideal of the future, the latter would remain a beautiful but idle dream even in theory. He is bound, therefore, to find concrete social forces working for the realization of his ideal. His position forces him to prove that his ideal is the expression of the interests of a definite class, that it is gradually being accepted by that class under the pressure of circumstances, and that the social destinies of the "revolutionary" class are more and more identified with the Syndicalist ideal.

He cheerfully accepts the conclusion that if industrial strife is creating social harmony his task is to intensify the struggle, to widen its scope, and to perfect its methods-in order that the creative.

force of the struggle may manifest itself as thoroughly and on as large a scale as possible. He, therefore, logically assumes a hostile attitude towards all efforts tending to mitigate the industrial struggle, such as conciliation and arbitration, and definitely enters the economic arena for the purpose of stirring up strife and of accentuating the struggle as much as is in his power.

315. The General Strike10

BY ARTHUR D. LEWIS

A logical extension of the local strike leads to the "general strike," which, in its extremest form, is a strike of all the workers in the world, in order to expropriate all the owners of land and capital, and accomplish a world revolution. This is to be brought about by the spread of the strike-spirit. Obviously, if miners, transportworkers (that is, railway, dock, cartage, and tram employees), textile-workers, and building-trade workers (to select a few trades), all stopped work, it might be near enough to a total strike for all practical purposes, and the phrase "general strike" is not applied with any much stricter meaning than that of a very large strike.

The advantage of the general strike has been declared to be that "it is a revolution which commences in legal action, with legality," and that it is so general that the mobilization of an army of suppression would be difficult if not impossible."

"If you believe in the necessity for maintaining what has been called the catastrophic conception-the feeling, that is, that the world will only be born again by a complete regeneration, a complete rupture of the present social structure; if you are persuaded that the idea of the social revolution is the necessary symbol which must guard in the heart of the workers the sense of the abyss which separates the classes, and the gap which exists between capitalist society and socialist society; then you must recognize that nothing but the idea of the general strike is capable of creating and developing these revolutionary ideas."

The most important part of a general strike, however, would be a strike of soldiers and police. If this took place while many great trades were arrested, a revolution might actually be near at hand. "What barricades and refusal of taxes have been to the bourgeois, the general strike is for the working-class. It is the ultima ratio which enters the scene after all other means have been exhausted." It is usually conceived that the shooting of unarmed strikers, innocent of any crime, is likely to be, at some time or other, a great cause

Adapted from Syndicalism and the General Strike, 217-226 (1912).

of an extension of a small strike into a very large one: the mere presence of crowds in the streets has on many occasions been a means of spreading an idea.

A complete disorganization of the means of communication (the letter-post and telegraph) would probably produce a greater psychological effect (as apart from directly material inconvenience) than any other single failure in the routine of society.

Society, although based on force, is largely carried on by means of the knowledge that force can be exerted. The real success of a general strike must depend on its generality: if a vast majority of the workers of a country ever voluntarily struck, it is no doubt true that the entire system of present-day society would be at its end. What, however, must usually happen in great strikes is that some men are thrown out of work "without in the least sympathizing with the strike or its purposes. They will be the shopkeepers, the business men, and great sections of the working-classes. As the strike. proceeds and the price of food reaches famine levels, and its scarcity becomes chronic, the ranks of the malcontents will be increased." The point is obvious: you cannot get in actual fact a division of society with all the workers on one side.

By many, the idea of the general strike will be quickly dismissed as a wild fancy, a horror of the night, to which it is not necessary to devote serious day thoughts. It may, however, be thought that, although the general strike is exceedingly unlikely to take place, in days of growing discontent, the possible methods by which a strike might really paralyze society are worth considering.

If all the clerks struck work: ours is a civilization built on ledgers, and just imagine-if the money in the rich man's purse was all the money he could get because there were no cashiers at the bank-if, for want of shipping clerks, no one knew how to send. goods from Antwerp to Pernambuco-if the builders and decorators spent hours in puzzling over the real cost of jobs in order to send. in estimates to customers, and partners in financial houses, absolutely unaware what bills were due for payment or who was to do what in the multitudinous subsidiary wheels of the details of their business, simply raved uselessly and idly around, in a week no one would know whether he was bankrupt or had multiplied his fortune. Now let us imagine that there was simultaneously a strike of transport workers-workers on railways, trams, ships, omnibuses, tubes, cabs, and public conveyances of every kind-while the clerks had stopped all the bookkeeping, letter-writing, insurance, and recordkeeping business of the country, and that no one could get to business except by walking-to say nothing of the disorganization of

home life-the rise in cost of food, injury to health, want of news owing to non-delivery of papers, and so on-which would follow. If to these two strikes-the clerks and the transport workers—a third, that of the coal-miners, be added, it will, without explanation, be seen how fearful would be the position of society, if the wageearners ever became even approximately able all to strike work together.

Van Kol declares it to be "an anarchist Utopia;" if it were possible because of the strong organization of the working-class and their unshakable discipline, better means would also be at their disposal. The poor would suffer first from the famine caused by it. Kautsky says that in a real general strike, as every employer would be equally hit, the main weapon of the striker, the fear of losing trade to competitors, would be non-existent. Like many others, he approves of the political strike intended to obtain definite concessions from a government, but not of a general economic strike; the politica! strike tends to destroy a government by a direct disorganization of the country governed: it is a contest between the cohesive force of the strikers on the one side and of the government on the other. The more foolish and feeble the government, the better the occasion for striking: also the more unforeseen and spontaneous the strike the greater is its effect.

But the Syndicalist's ideal is precisely the general economic strike.

In so far as men unite, and twenty-five shillings a week does not look down on eighteen, the chances of success increase, and the general strike becomes more possible.

XII

SOCIAL REFORM AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS

From time out of mind the value and permanence of "fundamental" institutions have been questioned. The escape in America from a discussion of problems so basic has been largely due to the newness of our society. The open frontier, the wide distribution of industrial opportunity, the lack of formal class lines, and a spirit of self-reliance have centered our attention upon the more immediate problems of applying a machinetechnique to a new continent and of collecting the golden returns. So closely have we been absorbed in this that we have regarded our institutions as a part of the immutable universe itself, as unalterable as the paths of the stars.

But with our consciousness of maturity we are beginning to realize that in the immediate future we must newly evaluate our institutions. Three lines of development are responsible for this change in attitude. First, we are victims of intellectual curiosity. The emphasis placed upon the general ideas of "evolution" and "organism" in our intellectual system has led investigators to explore the institutional realm, and they have brought back word to us that our institutions are but social conventions, and that, though they change slowly, they nevertheless change. Accordingly they are losing the attribute of absoluteness with which we have been accustomed to endow them. Secondly, there is a growing feeling that wealth is inequitably distributed. This attitude was apparent in our discussion of the tariff, the railroads, the trusts, the immigration problem. It manifests itself clearly in discussions of the problems of labor and in the literature of socialism. Even so late as a decade ago the conflict between those who proposed radical changes in our present social arrangements and the upholders of the present order turned upon the issue of the source of value. Today questions of market-process are no longer strategic points of conflict between the opposing systems. The clash now is over institutions. Accordingly we find questions of the social and industrial reform engaging the attention, not only of the economist, but of the student of jurisprudence, the political scientist, the sociologist, and the philosopher as well. Thirdly, the peculiar nature of the industrial system is forcing such questions to the front. Unlike other systems, Modern Industrialism makes use of a vast co-operative productive system. In this there are employed vast aggregates of accumulated wealth. A consciousness of the importance of this large volume of "socialized capital" is leading to the formation of a "gospel of wealth" not unlike the mediaeval "doctrine of stewardship." The disposition to justify or condemn ownership or use of productive goods by "social results" is becoming stronger. Together these three lines of development are increasing our interest in problems of an institutional nature.

Four closely related problems are treated below as typical of the whole group. The first, and in a sense the one which comprehends all the others, is the legal system. It has been pronounced alike “a subtle device of capitalism for enslaving the laborer" and "the supreme palladium of our liberties." Its defenders insist that "law is the conservative factor in social development" and declare its stability a necessary condition to industrial and social advance. Its opponents insist that it is still bound by the naturalrights philosophy of the eighteenth century, that it is living in a world of fictions, and that it knows nothing of the reality of Modern Industrialism. A second institution, which is little else than an aspect of this larger first, is