A fantastically informative piece by Paul Louis on Socialism in France in the period just before the First World War.
‘The Present State of French Socialism’ by Paul Louis from New Review. Vol. 1 No. 4. January 25, 1913.
In this first article I would like to make clear to our readers the present state of Socialism in France. And as the Socialist party will play a capital and often paramount rôle in the events which I shall describe and comment upon from month to month, it is necessary that our readers be in possession of exact information in regard to its present condition.
Some years ago Socialism in France was weakened by a dispersion, we might call it, characterized by divisions which almost sterilized it. In 1899, at the time when the great crisis was provoked by the entry of a Socialist, M. Millerand, into Waldeck-Rousseau’s cabinet, five factions were facing each other. These were the Parti Ouvrier Francaise with Guesde, the Parti Socialiste Revolutionnaire with Vaillant, the Parti Ouvrier Socialiste Revolutionnaire with Allemane, the Federation de Travailleurs Socialistes with Brousse, and the Confederation des Independents with Jaurés, the latter being the last organized of the Socialist parties. The first time that these factions attempted to unite they were unsuccessful. Nevertheless there remained two large groups only, the Parti Socialiste de France and the Parti Socialiste Francaise. The Parti Socialiste de France repudiated any alliance with the bourgeois democratic factions, any vote for the budget, any participation in executive power. The Parti Socialiste Francaise was unwilling to break completely with the bourgeois democratic elements, and it was represented by delegates in what was called the republican “Bloc.” In 1904, on the eve of the International Congress of Amsterdam, the struggle between these two parties became very lively. The Congress of Amsterdam sided with the Parti Socialiste de France, but at the same time it invited all the Socialist parties of France to unite. They loyally engaged to realize unity and negotiations were at once opened, which ended in the Congress of Unification of Paris, called the “Congress de la Salle du Globe,” which was held in April, 1905.
At that time there were 34,688 members in the various organizations–the two most favored regions being the Department of the Seine, the chief city of which is Paris, with 7,378 dues paying members, and the Department du Nord, the chief industrial region, with 7,130 members.
At the Congress of Chalons (October-November, 1905) 40,000 members were represented; at the Congress of Limoges (November, 1906) 43,462; at the Congress of Nancy (August, 1907) 48,237; at the Congress of Toulouse (October, 1908) 49,348; at the Congress of St. Etienne (April 1909) 51,692; at the Congress of Nimes (February, 1910) 53,928; at the Congress of Saint Quentin (April, 1911) 63,358; at the Congress of Lyon (February, 1912) 63,657.
It will be noted that the advance was very regular up to the congress of 1911, and that the year 1910 was particularly fruitful, regrettable since it brought in almost 10,000 new members. A stagnation is apparent in the year 1911-1912. The last published statistics show that this stagnation has ceased to exist, for from February to October of 1912 there has again been an increase of close to 3,300 members.
How is this membership distributed over the whole territory? Of course it is the localities where great industries flourish–mines, blast furnaces, glass works, the chemical factories, railroad centers which offer the best opportunity for Socialist propaganda.
The Nord (mining, weaving, spinning, metallurgy) is now at the head with 12,300 members. The Seine follows with 10,000. This last figure is relatively low if account is taken of the fact that the Seine (Paris) has four million inhabitants, a quarter of whom at least have Socialist or revolutionary aspirations. The Pas de Calais, which contains the richest coal deposits (Lens, Bruay), has 2,550 members. But all the departments from now on will have their groups, which are united into sections. These sections are combined, in their turn, into federations. The agricultural Departments are the only ones where the forces are weak; such as the Haute Saône (68) or the Sarthe (75). The great problem now before the Socialist party is how to push its agrarian propaganda and to win over the peasants–the latter forming almost one half of the total population–while they form over a third in Germany and less than a quarter in England. Certain results have already been obtained, particularly in those places where the small agriculturists and peasants are in touch with the industrial wage-workers, but these have been all too rare up to the present time.
It is of interest to compare the Socialist party of France, with its 70,000 members, and the Social Democratic party of Germany, with its million members, and to ask ourselves why the Socialist forces of France are apparently so backward in point of numbers. Several causes should be considered here:
1. France has a considerably smaller population than Germany, 39 millions and 65 millions respectively. But this disparity cannot be taken as a sufficient explanation. It would be a valid solution only if France had 600,000 or 700,000 dues-paying members against Germany’s million.
2. The great capitalistic industries are far less powerful to the left of the Rhine than to the right. The fuel deposits are infinitely less rich in France than in Germany, where they consequently furnish occupation to much larger numbers. In spite of the advance made during the last ten years in the metallurgic basin of Meurthe and Moselle (Bricy, Nancy), German metallurgy far surpasses it. The great industrial cities of France cannot, with rare exceptions, be compared with the great industrial cities of the German Empire, with three and four times the number of inhabitants. No French maritime port has the importance of Hamburg. The railroads, much better developed on the other side of the Rhine, have a much larger staff of employes.
French capitalism tends rather to financial operations properly speaking, to banking transactions, foreign loans (loans to Russia, Hungary, Spain, South America), investment of funds in the gold and diamond mines, than to industrial production. If we except some centres–Lille, Roubaix, Tourcoing, Amiens, Rouen, the Parisian and Marsellaise regions, Le Creusot–France is still a country of industries of average size. Although industrial evolution and capitalist concentration are undeniable, as is proved by periodic statistics, there are no trusts comparable to those of Germany and the United States. Although commerce is tending, at least, to combine into powerful companies, and although houses which have the appearance of being independent are, in reality, branches of great companies, the small retail commerce is trying to resist the current, and the supplying of food, in particular, has offered it a real refuge. It must be repeated here that the rural element yields comparatively slowly and that the urban development is not as great as in many other countries.
Now, great urban concentration, on the one hand, and the triumph of great industry, on the other, are the essential conditions for Socialist expansion as well as for labor union advance.
3. The French temperament is antagonistic to the discipline of a firmly organized party as well as to the payment of regular dues. When we study the history of the labor union movement of this country, we perceive that the groups, at least until about 1890, disappear as fast as they are formed. This was true of the “Syndicats” as well as of the trade unions. It was no less true of the Socialist sections. And it is only since the unification of the party, that is since 1905, that there has been a reaction against these tendencies of extreme individualism.
But although the reaction against them has been strong and salutary, it has not yet been able to overcome them entirely. Time alone can accomplish that.
4. And finally, to explain the numerical weakness of the Socialist party, it is necessary to take into consideration the differences, of historic origin and of a practical nature, which have arisen between this party and the Confederation Generale de Travail, differences to which we shall again refer some day. France is the only country of the European continent where the Socialist party and the federated or central organization of the unions (Syndicats) are not in contact.
Whatever the difficulties which lie in its way, the Socialist party in France nevertheless plays no unimportant role. It might even be said that in no state of the world, and I make no exception of Germany, has the Socialist party so much influence. This influence is due, first, to the courage of certain of its militants, but chiefly to the revolutionary spirit of the French nation. Many people who do not belong to the party, because they refuse to enlist in any organization and because their individualism is antagonistic to highly disciplined associations, give it their moral support and will in some cases render it material aid. This is because they recognize the sovereign justice and broad humanity of the Socialist conclusions. It has happened, and it happens oftener and oftener, that the Socialist party of France is the only one to raise its voice in behalf of the oppressed, to oppose the brutalities of the capitalist regime, to denounce the crimes and the shames of the money dealers, and to make war against war. The more the bourgeois democratic parties turn from their own past, the more they forget their traditions, the more they throw aside the reforms they once espoused, just so much the more does the Socialist party perceive the communion of ideas that exists between the working masses, as yet more or less unorganized, and its propagandists.
What is lacking, or rather what was lacking during recent years, is sufficiently active recruiting. The organized central body and the organized locals of the French Socialist party are now occupying themselves with this situation, as they should. At the present time an effort is being made to improve the means of propaganda, and, if possible, to add new means.
When we look at the results accomplished by the party in the electoral struggle, we find that they are far from being negligible. In the elections to the Reichstag in 1912, the Social Democratic party of Germany received 4,250,000 votes, or about 33 per cent. of all the votes cast, and in Berlin this percentage was exceeded considerably. Here, too, the Socialist party of France cannot be compared with it.
The statistics of the election to the Chamber of Deputies, held April 28, 1910 (these are the last that we can consider), show 1,106,000 Socialist votes; this is about 12 per cent. of the whole. But distinction must be made between the agricultural regions and the industrial regions. In the former the votes received were generally low, in the latter they amounted to considerably more than 12 per cent., in the average, for the Socialist party. Thus in the Seine they reached 25 per cent. and in the Nord 27 per cent. These elections of April 28, 1910, gave the party 76 electoral seats, of a total of a little less than 600–that is to say, about an eighth of the whole number of deputies elected by universal suffrage. It has not yet been possible to penetrate into the Senate, elected indirectly by means of a clever filtering system.
It is interesting to compare the results of the election of 1910 with those of 1906, the election immediately preceding.
In 1910 the party nominated about as many candidates as in 1906; 351 instead of 346. We know that in 1910 there were 1,106,000 votes; in 1906 there were 878,000, or 228,000 less. On the earlier date only 52 seats were won, or 24 less than in 1910.
Since we are reviewing the electoral strength of the party, it should be added that 137 cantonal candidates were elected (conseillers generaux, and conseillers d’arrondissements) the jurisdiction of the conseiller general extending over a whole Department, which in France is the administrative unit, and that of the conseiller d’arrondissement over the whole Arrondissement, which is the sub-section of the Department. Both are elected by the Cantons, which are an intermediate subdivision between the Commune and the Arrondissement. There are also 5,530 conseillers municiраuх, distributed among 282 Communes–a number of large cities being in the hands of the party.
When we examine the parliamentary action of the Socialists, we find that, although it may give occasion for criticism more or less justified, in general it has conformed to the resolution passed in 1904 at the International Congress of Amsterdam, and which provides a rule for Socialist parliamentary delegations throughout the world. We no longer find a single deputy voting for the budget, and although we might feel that, in certain cases, the opposition was not vigorous enough, there has never again been an alliance with any bourgeois group.
In international matters the Socialists of France have consistently done their duty. There is no party in the two hemispheres that has fought more vigorously against militarism, armaments, imperialism, bellicose colonialism, and which has done more to safeguard peace. It kept up a continuous protest throughout the whole Morocco campaign. In 1911, during the Franco-German crisis, which followed the incident of Agadir; and again in 1912, during the entire Balkan crisis, the party, with vehemence and without flinching before governmental threats, made manifest the firm will of the French proletariat to resist a bloody conflagration by every means in its power.
From the foregoing our readers will gain some idea of the party which I shall very frequently have occasion to discuss in these pages in the future.
New Review was a New York-based, explicitly Marxist, sometimes weekly/sometimes monthly theoretical journal begun in 1913 and was an important vehicle for left discussion in the period before World War One. In the world of the Socialist Party, it included Max Eastman, Floyd Dell, Herman Simpson, Louis Boudin, William English Walling, Moses Oppenheimer, Walter Lippmann, William Bohn, Frank Bohn, John Spargo, Austin Lewis, WEB DuBois, Maurice Blumlein, Anton Pannekoek, Elsie Clews Parsons, and Isaac Hourwich as editors and contributors. Louis Fraina played an increasing role from 1914 on, leading the journal in a leftward direction as New Review addressed many of the leading international questions facing Marxists. The journal folded in June, 1916 for financial reasons. Its issues are a formidable archive of pre-war US Marxist and Socialist discussion.
PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/newreview/1913/v1n04-jan-25-1913.pdf
