An inquiry into National Syndicalism

By d'Arma

Greetings comrades, today as the title suggests we'll be delving into National Syndicalism, I will be debunking few of of the myths surrounding it and explaining both its history and theory, and oh, quick disclaimer, this post will be almost exclusively discussing the original French form of National Syndicalism, and will not go in depth discussing the Falange, JONS nor Italian/Portuguese National Syndicalism.

National Syndicalism first appeared when dissidents of the French revolutionary Syndicat, the CGT (Confédération générale du travail) which had been degrading into reformism with many of it's leaders such as Léon Jouhaux,

 and Maxime Leroy embracing it¹ and Monarchists or Integral Nationalists aligned with Action Française, represented by Édouard Berth (who was writing under the pseudonym of Jean Darville) and Georges Valois respectively, united under the patronage of P-J Proudhon forming the Cercle Proudhon. We'll be discussing the rationale of this seemingly contradictory alliance.

First, since both Valois and Berth were students of G. Sorel, they already had some common ground to stand on.

Secondly, both looked to the same intellectual, obviously being Proudhon but, it is necessary to distinguish between the Monarchists and the Syndicalists when speaking of Proudhon.

Let's start with the Syndicalists,

The Syndicalists mainly took from Proudhon's philosophy and his hatred of the State, believing in a society where the free association of individuals cooperating socially and economically would establish an organic social order (i.e Corpus) as described by Proudhon in his Philosophy of Progress, quote:

“For me, following the notions of movement, progress, series and group, of which ontology is compelled from now on to take account, and the various findings that economics and history furnish on the question, I regard society, the human group, as a being sui generis, constituted by the fluid relations and economic solidarity of all the individuals, of the nation, of the locality or corporation, or of the entire species; which individuals circulate freely among one another, approaching one another, joining together, dispersing in turn in all directions; — a being which has its own functions, alien to our individuality, its own ideas which it communicates to us, its judgments which do not at all resemble ours, its will in diametrical opposition with our instincts, its life, which is not that of the animal or the plant, although it finds analogies there; — a being, finally, who, starting from nature, seems the God of nature, the powers and laws of which it expresses to a superior (supernatural) degree.”²

Interestingly enough, other Mutualists such William B. Greene echoed a similar view on society which I also consider to be Para-Corporatist, quote:

"A true order of society would enable man to act out all his passional nature. Society should, therefore, be so arranged as to render it impossible for one man to act according to his own pleasure, without acting at the same time for the interests of all. We must find some means of so arranging society, that there shall be a harmony of interests—not a balancing of interests, but such an arrangement that no conflict whatever shall be possible. If there were a balancing of interests, there would also be conflict and compromise, which supposes the necessity of self-denial. But in a well-ordered society there can be no self-denial, no check upon the impulses and passions; for it is the chief end of man to follow always his own interest and inclination, and if any inclination or passion be checked, the end and aim of association is not attained."³

Comparisons have been drawn between Édouard Berth's social theory and G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism, both opposing authoritarianism, centralization, and paternalist social reform.⁴ they were different in their own respects, for example Guild Socialist's envisaged the cooperation of self-governing units within a democratic state while Syndicalists opposed the very concept of the state.⁵

The Guild Socialist movment although being short-lived and limited in followers had a wide intellectual impact on the British Labour Party, providing a theorticial synthesis between the collectivism of British intellectuals and the autonomist leanings of the British Trade Unions.⁶

Now as for the Monarchists of the Cercle Proudhon, they also had  a similar interpretation of Proudhon, both up hailing him as the defender of the family and society aganist Anarchist degeneration, quote: 

"The fact that the anarchists only represent bourgeois social decadence emerges with complete clarity if, disregarding for the moment the metaphysical theses concerning the reality or the non-reality of social existence, we examine their way of addressing the question of the family, that primary manifestation and unmediated form of social life. Here, too, we notice the same fundamental incompatibility between Proudhon and anarchism. For everyone knows that anarchism conceives of the sexual partnership as a free, temporary and ephemeral union; and that, as a result, love is reduced to a volatile passion and marriage to a revocable ad libitum contract, a civil contract of the same nature as other contracts, lacking any sacred or religious character. And everyone also knows that, on the other hand, for Proudhon, the sexual union is an irrevocable and indissoluble union; that, for him, love is subordinated to justice by marriage, because the very symbol of justice is the androgynous couple. As you can see, you cannot imagine a more fundamental opposition on such an essential question of such primary significance, a question whose answer will depend entirely on the respondent’s orientation with regard to social morality"⁷

Another quote:

"A significant fact among all: in his speech in Besançon, Mr. Viviani did not say a word of the ideas of Proudhon on love, marriage, and the family; ideas that yet hold a great place in Proudhonian thought. Was it modesty? Was it fear? I am inclined towards fear: not a line of Proudhon who, in these matters, would have branded with a red hot iron the big bosses of democracy united at the foot of the statue of this great French moralist.

But this conduct dictates ours. The truth embarrasses the democrats, we will say. They bury Proudhon, we will exhume him. This makes us serve both the cause of the intellectual and that of the common people which I am, for my part, with every fiber in my body."

“Everything,” said Proudhon, “is in the hands of the father, nourished by his work, protected by his sword, submitted to his governance, citizens of his court, heirs and followers of his thought. Justice is entirely organized and armed there: with the father, the wife, and the children, it finds its application that only extends further to the cross breeding of families and the development of the city.”

Proudhon fought divorce. Even more: according to our author, even the death of those who founded the fecund family cannot dissolve this institution both spiritual and carnal. It endures, it is perpetual.

Also Proudhon attached an extreme importance to the testament, the solemn act, “this monument of last wills, by which man acts beyond the grave” and “affirms the continuation of his presence in the family and in the society from which he departed.””⁸

Another thing relating them to Proudhon was their Federalism, they sought to synthesize Maurrasian social theory (inspired by La Tour du Pin)⁹ although at the same time, Maurras had an open dislike for Proudhon, quote: 

"Proudhon's ideas are not our ideas, they were not even always his own. They fought within him and destroyed each other so often that his mind is defined as the rendezvous of contradictions. Having understood a lot, this great debater did not know how to put everything in order. "¹⁰

But Maurras' petty remark mean nothing, considering du Pin's thought compliments Proudhonian Federalism, with its emphasis on decentralization and organic cohesion.¹¹

Modern Action Française thinkers are still emphasizing this, Thibault Isabel applies Proudhon's critique of centralism (which basically states that centralization alienates the individual and the group) to the modern context of the European Union and the IMF.¹²

Now towards the second section. 

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND MYTHS ABOUT NATIONAL SYNDICALISM

1. National Syndicalism was founded by Sorel

No, the term was first used in the Cahries du Cercle Proudhon and never appeared in any of Sorel's work, although Sorel definitely indirectly contributed to it in areas other than of course, Syndicalism, for example Sorel's vague Conservative Revolutionary comments in Reflections on Violence.¹³

2. National Syndicalism is not a valid form of Syndicalism, as it espouses Class-Collaboration 

This is a Wikipedia thing, it cites Fascist Trade Unionists and the 26 point program of the Falange (which was not was not entirely reprensative of Spanish Fascism)¹⁴ it also misrepresents the Sorelian conception of Myth which regenerates both the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, not to establish unity and cooperation between them but to reestablish class struggle in decadent Social Democracies, this was magnificently explained by Berth in Plutocratic Satellites, quote: 

“ a bold and truly revolutionary proletariat can exist only if it faces an equally bold and revolutionary bourgeoisie. This was the conclusion of this masterful book: Reflections on violence ”¹⁵

3. Cercle Proudhon doesn't understand Proudhon/selectively read him

This argument comes from this quote which Wikipedia hilariously attributes to Peter Kropotkin, when it was the American Individualist-Anarchist Benjamin Tucker who said it, quote: 

"Democracy is an easy mark for this new party, and it finds its chief delight in pounding the philosopher of democracy, Rousseau. Now, nobody ever pounded Rousseau as effectively as Proudhon did, and in that fact the Cercle Proudhon finds its excuse. But it is not to be inferred that, because Proudhon destroyed Rousseau's theory of the social contract, he did not believe in the advisability of a social contract, or would uphold a monarchy in exacting an oath of allegiance"¹⁶

The fact that it comes from Benjamin Tucker is ironic, as Tucker himself barely took anything directly from proudhon ESPECIALLY on social theory even according to anarchist sources, in fact he was an unpopular Mutualist at the time, quote: 

"while Tucker is often portrayed as being Proudhon’s disciple he ignored many of the French anarchist’s key ideas. Workers’ associations and co-operative production, the agro-industrial federation, communes and their federation find no echo in Tucker, nor did Proudhon’s opposition to wage-labour. Somewhat ironically it was Tucker’s arch-foe in the movement, the communist-anarchist Johann Most, who echoed the French anarchist on most issues"¹⁷

As elaborated above, the Cercle had a peculiar approach to Proudhon, they cited his most important works for example Berth recommends to the reader of his Anarchism and Syndicalism essay Justice in the Revolution and the Church, or his Philosophy of Progress.¹⁸ while Valois cited What is property? Which is Proudhon's most important work.⁹

Another thing is that they didn't support Proudhon just for his criticism of numerous ideologies and the Cercle didn't entirely reject Rousseau either, I quote Valois: 

"The recognized part that Proudhon took in the movement of counter-revolutionary ideas will therefore be, in the eyes of all, our first justification. But there is more, we believe. It is not only Proudhon criticizing democracy, socialism and anarchism that we will invoke here. It is Proudhon the constructor. It is on this that I especially want to give you some explanations."²⁰

Last but definitely not least, Tucker's biggest mistake was implying the Cercle was entirely formed up of Monarchists, this is his most baffling mistake because they literally said the exact opposite in the declaration of their newspaper!

“ The Frenchmen who have met to found the Cercle P-J Proudhon are all nationalists. The patron they chose for their assembly had them meet other Frenchmen who are not nationalists, who are not royalists, and who join them to participate in the life of the Cercle and the editing of the “Cahiers.” ”²¹

That's everything, comrades, I spent a lot of time writing this post so it would be heavily appreciated if you spread it around. take care.

Ave.

BIBLOGRAPHY

Laborde, C., 2000. Pluralist thought and the state in Britain and France, 1900-25. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Proudhon, P-J,. The Philosophy of Progress. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from theanarchistlibrary.org

Greene, William B.,. Fourierism Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from theanarchistlibrary.org

Laborde, C., 1998. Syndicalism against the state: Libertarianism in the works of edouard berth and his contemporaries. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from Taylor & Francis. 

Berth, Édouard,. Anarchism and Syndicalism, Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from libcom.org

Vincent, Albert,. The Family With Proudhon and In Democracy, Retrieved on 2022/4/2022 from institutenr.org

Nolte, E., 1963. Three faces of fascism. New York and Toronto: New American Library.

Maurras, Charles,.  in Lorsque Proudhon eut les cent ans, Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from maurras.net

Sladky, J., 2012. A program for a Christian social order. Washington, D.C.: THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA.

Isabel, Thibault,. Proudhon for Today and Tomorrow Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from p3p-l blog

 Sorel, G. & Jennings, Jeremy., 1999. Reflections on Violence. The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street: Cambridge University Press.

Payne, S., 1999. Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Primo de Rivera, José,. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera selected writings Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from archive.org

Darville, Jean,. Satellites de la Ploutocratie. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from wikisource.org

Tucker, Benjamin,. 1913, Proudhon and Royalism. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from anarchism.pageabode.com

Proudhon, P-J & Mckay, Iain,. Property is Theft! a Pierre-Joseph Proudhon anthology. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from theanarchistlibrary.org

Valois, Georges,. Why We Link Our Work to the Proudhonian Spirit. Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from p3p-l blog

Various,. Declaration of the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon, Retrieved on 30/4/2022 from p3p-l blog

(1) p 137 of Pluralist thought and the State

(2) p 20-21 of The Philosophy of Progress

(3) Fourierism by William B. Greene

(4) p 67 of Libertarianism in the works of edouard berth and his contemporaries

(5) p 130 of Pluralist thought and the State

(6) p 144 of ibid

(7) Anarchism and Syndicalism by Édouard Berth

(8) The Family With Proudhon and In Democracy by Albert Vincent

(9) p 130 of Three Faces of Fascism

(10) in Lorsque Proudhon eut les cent ans (when Proudhon was One-Hundred years old)

(11) see chapter 6, section C. of The Organic Democracy of René de La Tour du Pin

(12) see Proudhon for Today and Tomorrow by Thibault Isabel 

(13) p 79 of Reflections, quote: 

 "Marx does not seem to have asked himself what would happen if the economic system was declining; he never dreamt of the possibility of a revolution which would take a return to the past, or even social conservation, as its ideal."

(14) the 26 program went into many phases, first it was written by Ledesma, then José edited it, then it went through the Consejo Nacional to be edited again to fit, see Fascism in Spain 1923-1977 p 123 127,  José Antonio famously opposed class collaboration and referred to Italy's Corporatism as wind windbagger, quote: 

"How often have we heard men of the Right say: ' We live in a new age , we must set up a strong state , we must harmonize capital and labour, we have to seek a corporative form of existence? I assure you that none of that means a thing , it is all mere windbaggery. Harmonizing capital and labour... this is as if I were to say : ' I am going to har monize myself with this chair . ' " p 171 of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera selected writings 

(15) Satellites de la Ploutocratie by Jean Darville (Berth) 

(16) Proudhon and Royalism by Benjamin Tucker

(17) p 43 of Property is Theft! a Pierre-Joseph Proudhon anthology by Iain McKay 

(18)  "this anarchist, has admirably described the reality of social existence; if you have any doubt of this, just read his Justice in the Revolution and the Church, or his Philosophy of Progress: in these works you will find a theory of collective power and a presentation of a metaphysical doctrine of existence, essentially conceived in the form of the group." Berth in Anarchism and Syndicalism 

(19) he cited the following in  Why We Link Our Work to the Proudhonian Spirit: 

"Property, if we understand the origin, is a vicious and anti-social principle, but destined to become, by its very generalization and by the help of other institutions, the pivot and the great mainspring of the whole social system.

The principle of property is ultra-legal, extra-legal, absolutist, selfish in nature to the point of iniquity: it must be so.

Its counterbalance is reason of state, absolutist, ultra-legal, illiberal and governmental, to the point of oppression: it must be so.

This is how, in the predictions of universal reason, the principle of egoism, usurper by nature and improbable, becomes an instrument of justice and order, to such an extent that property and law are inseparable and almost synonymous ideas. Property is selfishness idealized, consecrated, invested with a political and legal function.

This must be so because law is never better observed than when it finds a defender in egoism and in the coalition of egoisms."

(20) ibid

(21) Declaration of the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon