Source: The New Review, April 1916. Vol. 4, No. 4.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, February, 2023
Sorel and his book represent in miniature the fate which has long been that of Marx and Das Kapital. Like Marx, Sorel became the representative of a great popular movement, notwithstanding the fact that he was not essentially a popular leader, and spoke a language hardly understood by the great majority of his followers. Like Das Kapital, Sorel’s Reflections on Violence[1] became “The Bible” of a popular movement, to be often referred to but very little read. And both men as well as both books have been so little understood by most of their respective friends and foes as to be often praised and even more often abused for things which were not in them.
In this country, Sorel is perhaps even more of a stranger than Marx. Which is perhaps not surprising when we consider that Sorel is, comparatively speaking, a new-comer into the politico-social sphere of interests; and that he as well as the movement which he represents, while undoubtedly of great proportions when standing alone, dwindle into comparative insignificance when ranged alongside of Marx and the movement he represents. And the movement which Sorel represents, the Syndicalist movement, although much spoken of of late years, is practically as much of a stranger to us as Sorel himself. This is best shown by the fact that Reflections on Violence, the chef d’oeuvre of the man and “The Bible” of the movement, had to wait these many years for an English translation and an American edition, although it has none of the drawbacks which Das Kapital offers to either translator or publisher.
As a result, both the man and the movement have been a series of surprises to us. To mention but two: When the report reached us, a few years ago, that Sorel had joined the extreme reactionary political group in France, the so-called camelots du roi, we were shocked. And when we learned at the beginning of the Great War that the French Syndicalists had become war-mad and turned chauvinists, we stood aghast. The things seemed incomprehensible to us.
And yet there was nothing inherently improbable or even surprising in these things. In fact, when the man and the movement are thoroughly understood, the events that surprised us so much will appear perfectly natural, and, if not exactly to be expected, at least within the range of probability. For Sorel and the movement which he represents are thoroughly reactionary and highly militaristic in general outlook,— as a reading of the Syndicalist “Bible”, which is now offered in a very attractive garb by the American publishers, will easily demonstrate.
It is, of course, impossible to enter upon a comprehensive discussion of the Sorelian philosophy within the limited space of a book review like the present one. And I shall not attempt the impossible. But I want to warn my readers that by characterizing Sorel’s philosophy as thoroughly reactionary I did not mean to imply that it was on that account the less interesting, or less worthy of our careful study and consideration. On the contrary, it is highly interesting, both on its own account, and as a historical document. For in order to be fully understood and appraised at its true worth the Sorelian philosophy must be considered as a part of the general reactionary trend which has in recent years been manifesting itself in science, philosophy, and art. The book now under consideration is, therefore, interesting, not only because it gives us a consistent philosophy of the Syndicalist movement,— a philosophy which enables us to understand its anti-parliamentarism as well as its chauvinism;— but also because it shows the reflection on the labor movement of such reactionary manifestations of bourgeois life and ideology as Bergsonism-Pragmatism in philosophy; Neo Catholicism in religion; mysticism and sex-obsession in literature; and the revival of the monarchical cult in politics.
There is one aspect, however, of the general reactionary character of the Sorelian philosophy upon the consideration of which I must stop for a moment — its militaristic quality. Partly because of the timeliness of the subject, and partly because we are so used to associate in our minds Syndicalism with anti-militarism that my ascribing a militaristic quality to the Sorelian philosophy must challenge instant contradiction. But a careful reading of the book now under consideration will show that the anti-militarism of the Syndicalists has a very limited significance,— namely, that the Syndicalists are not interested in maintaining the present State. The Syndicalists are anti-militaristic in the same sense that they are anti-parliamentarian; they believe that both the parliamentary and the military systems are devices by which the ruling class seeks to perpetuate the present state, and they therefore oppose both. But that does not mean that they may not occasionally, and for temporary purposes, use either or both. Besides, the Syndicalists’ anti-militarism is a home policy, not a foreign policy; they are anti-military-service, not anti-war.
On the contrary, their entire philosophy breathes the martial spirit, in the true militaristic sense of that phrase; a glorification of force and the so-called martial virtues, and an utter contempt for the weak, the peaceful, and the accommodating.
“Pacifist” is to Sorel a term of reproach whose contemptuous implications are only exceeded by the epithet “democrat.” A “pacifist,” whether in social policy affecting the class-war at home or in foreign policy affecting war between nations, is always a miserable coward, a degenerate willing to sell his birthright for a mess of pottage. It is because of this that violence is glorified. Not as a means to an end, but as something noble in itself. And Sorel expressly accentuates the fact that it is the brutality of violence that has this ennobling quality. The greatest danger to our civilization lies in the fact that our capitalist class is growing pusillanimous, weak and accommodating, giving in easily to the demands of labor without showing the proper spirit of fight. The manly spirit of fight must be put back into the human breast, if the world is ever to become regenerate. It is this which makes proletarian violence so important.
“The dangers” — says Sorel — “which threaten the future of the world may be avoided, if the proletariat hold on with obstinacy to revolutionary ideas, so as to realize as much as possible Marx’s conception. Everything may be saved, if the proletariat, by their use of violence, manage to re-establish the division into classes and so restore to the middle class (Note: the translator always uses “Middle-class” for capitalist class or bourgeoisie) something of its former energy; that is the great aim towards which the whole thought of men — who are not hypnotized by the event of the day, but who think of the conditions of tomorrow — must be directed. Proletarian violence, carried on as a pure and simple manifestation of the sentiment of the class war, appears thus as a very fine and very heroic thing; it is at the service of the immemorial interests of civilization; it is not perhaps the most appropriate method of obtaining immediate material advantages, but it may save the world from barbarism.”
And this does not apply only to the class-struggle, but also to the struggles between nations. For the barbarism here referred to, is the barbarism which would result from the effeminacy and humanitarianism of the race.
“Middle class cowardice,” says our author, “very much resembles the cowardice of the English Liberal party, which constantly proclaims its absolute confidence in arbitration between nations; arbitration nearly always gives disastrous results for England. But these worthy progressives prefer to pay, or even to compromise the future of their country, rather than face the horrors of war. . . . We might very well wonder whether all the high morality of our great contemporary thinkers is not founded on a degradation of the sentiment of horror.”
After having thus laughed to scorn the cowardly bourgeois for shrinking from the horrors of war and believing in arbitration, he declares that:
“Proletarian violence not only makes the future revolution certain, but it seems also to be the only means by which the European nations — at present stupefied by humanitarianism — can recover their former energy."
L. B. Boudin.
1. Reflections on Violence, by Georges Sorel. New York. B.W. Huebsch. $2.25.
Last updated on 06 February 2023