Georges Sorel, whose theories influenced members of working class in France, Spain and both Americas was a renowned representative of anarchic syndicate, with an intriguing view on individuals and many other subjects.
When Sorel turned 40 years old, he decided to stop being a bridge engineer and concentrated on philosophical considerations. Despite the fact that he started dealing with theoretical concepts being a grown-up, his ideas were altering through years. He refused to call himself an anarchist and was involved in a group of thinkers like E. Berth, H. Lagardelle, who were the leading force behind „Le Movement Socialiste” magazine. In 1893 he became a Marxism sympathiser but changed his opinion 4 years later, when he refused the movement having a scientific character. In 1911 Sorel left revolutionary syndicalists to join more rightist thinkers. Since his believes were constantly evolving, later he got engaged in nationalism and then started supporting Lenin and the 3rd Cominterm. Due to his constantly moderating views, he was considered to be an inspiration not only for the working class but also to Italian Fascists.
Individuals
According to Sorel, society, state and God are „phantoms”, which prevent people from becoming aware egoists. Secondly, the egoist was defined by him as being courageous enough to admit its egoism and, thereby, to liberate from the influence of the phantoms. Moreover, an individual should always realise all its needs, even against the moral or legal rules, since they were established by the phantoms. The free human is the one who should be creating law, understood as norms imposed on the surrounding by the individual. That action would completely change the situation of law, formerly spontaneously made by the external suzerain and not binding it. Therefore, Sorel stated that force is above law, which was supported by a few examples. In his opinion, the objective criteria are not those that decide on legal qualification of actions but the subjective ones. For example killing a man is usually punished but the circumstances, such as war, may deprive it of the morally negative aspect. According to Sorel, even the most repulsive crime could be legalised, if the perpetrator had enough power to force others to accept his deed. He claimed that also revolution and theft fit in that category.
To become the aware egoist, an owner of them self, people have to stop believing in phantoms, introduced to them during an educational process. If humans finally become liberated, they would might be able to form a different kind of a society, consisting of egoists. Their chaotic, informal and impermanent association would exist in order to solve current problems.
Syndicates and the proletariat
A vital part of Sorel's beliefs was the idea of syndicates. He perceived them as a basis of the future fair political system, which would shape moral attitude of workers. They were defined as trade unions and also as future sources of political, economic, cultural and ideological power. Syndicates were described as spontaneously created, non-institutional organisations of an intuitionally-irrational character. That kind of an instinctive bond existed only among proletarians. Therefore, the syndicate, as an elementary organisation of the working class, should protect workmen from influences of the intellectuals and proprietors. The isolation of proletariat was the only way to prevent it from poisoning with ideas of different classes. However, the proletariat was also endangered by socialists, who, according to Sorel, believed in strength of their utopian thinking and took part in parliamentary fights, in order to gain power, just like all oppressors. In addition to this, he speculated that they would not eliminate a machinery of oppression, instead it would be used against other people.
It has to be explained why Sorel paid so much attention to the proletariat. The thinker presumed that it had a historical mission and should liberate from being ruled. Secondly, the proletarians could freely gain political qualifications only by their very own actions. Not only, should the movement work with no foreign help, but also it needed to remain uncontaminated with the intellectuals. Provided that, the aforementioned rules were followed, the proletariat would be able to form a socialistic society, based on new moral values. Under no circumstances, cannot workers use sabotage to achieve their goal, since it would have a demoralising impact on the masses. He wrote a book called „Reflections on Violence”, where he stated that violence was used by religion, state and all other institutions. The only way to fight with coercion was to use it against the oppressors, although the workmen's coercion was perceived by him as striking.
Obviously, Sorel did not believe that the whole proletariat would raise to change the reality. In his opinion, classes get involved in social movements, thanks to actions of few enlightened individuals. The aware human beings were the ones to organise local strikes, which were supposed to turn into global protests. The aim of regional demonstrations would be to toughen the leaders, who would become an elite of workers.
Myths and utopias
Sorel created a concept of a myth as a commonly shared vision in a society, concerning representations of future fight, which should be won. They must not be analysed, since they are not facts but images, accepted before undertaking an action. A myth is so powerful that it attracts and gathers people, which finally leads to its realisation. However mighty, it cannot convince all human beings, and usually it can be put into practice by the aforementioned elite, which acts on behalf of the masses. Power of the myth depends on the young and strong working class, which does not need to derive from the intellectual output of the former thinkers. There are many concepts that could fall into that category, for example: reformation, revolution, the movement of Mazzini's followers, general strike.
The myth of the proletariat should be the general strike, which would transform capitalism into a socialistic structure of the society. While aiming for a syndicalist community, workmen cannot trust the bourgeois past or achievements and have to create their own moral position, values, organisation of work and production. The goal of the great strike is introducing a new order, where the syndicates would rule every single aspect of life. Never did Sorel accept revolution as a way to change the state, because he believed that it would only result in a change of people in power.
According to Sorel, victory of the idea of syndicates would mean eradication of the state and put an end to violence. In his opinion, the state is a structure of power, which supports averageness and inhibits the progress. Not only, did he have negative views on the country but also on parliamentary democracy. It was blamed for misleading the masses about the visions of better future. Politicians in power were those, who managed to deceive people in the most cunning way. The opposite of democracy is syndicalism, which remained only vaguely defined by Sorel, since he did not want to turn it into an utopia by proposing an organisation of the movement.
Sorel confronted myths with utopias, which he thought were contrasting categories. The latter concept was defined as an intellectual and rational vision of the future. It is a reflection that cannot be put in practice, so it is a way of avoiding reality. The utopia was demoralising and has a destructive influence on the society. According to Sorel, one of the disadvantages of bourgeoisie is constantly being charmed by the mischievous utopias, which paralyse it.
Anti-rationalism
Sorel's philosophical thoughts were deeply pervaded by the idea of anti-rationalism, a belief that cognition of principles binding progress of society is impossible. The basic force determining the development is a result of the human's fight with the external and internal forces (for example struggling with the inborn hedonism). The individual's action undertaken to overcome those powers creates culture and it cannot be rationally judged. Sorel's aversion to rationalism made him scorn optimism and traditions of the Age of the Enlightenment, while he appreciated all spheres beyond it such as family. That negative attitude led to treating intellectualists with disdain and distrust.
Undoubtedly, Sorel was a remarkable thinker with an utmost influence on anarchists. He seems to be a perfect example of an open-minded human being, who was courageous enough to alter his views and thereby admit his lack of omniscience. Sorel's idea of syndicalists society, devoid of oppression is still considered to be very inspiring.
Bibliography:
Leksykon myślicieli politycznych i prawnych. 3. Wydanie uzupełnione i zmienione, pod redakcją Elżbiety Kundery i Marka Maciejewskiego, Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2009
Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych. Krystyna Chojnicka, Henryk Olszewski; Wydawnictwo Ars Boni et Aequi, Poznań 2004
Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych. Andrzej Sylwestrzak, Wydawnictwo Lexis Nexis, 2007
Historia myśli polityczno-prawnej. Stanisław Filipowicz; wydawnictwo Arche, Gdańsk 2006
Doktryny polityczno-prawne. Hubert Izdebski; Wydawnictwo Lexis Nexis, 2012
G.Sorel and the anarchic syndicate.
G.Sorel and the anarchic syndicate.