[ From the Libertarian Labor Review ]

The Workers Themselves: Revolutionary Syndicalism and International
Labour, 1913-1923.  By Wayne Thorpe, Kluwer Academic Publishers
(101 Philip Drive, Norwell MA 02061)

Review by Jeff Stein
Libertarian Labor Review #10 (Winter 1991)
pp. 38-39

Wayne Thorpe has written one of the most detailed accounts of the
events leading up to the founding of the IWA in 1922. Contrary to
historical treatments which see the purpose of the International
Workers Association as a rival to the Communist-dominated RILU (the
trade union wing of the Comintern), Thorpe traces its beginnings to
before the Russian Revolution. In 1913 there was an international
syndicalist congress held in London which aimed at building
stronger ties between the existing syndicalist unions and
propaganda groups. Present at the congress were delegates from the
FVdG (Germany), the NAS (Holland), the SAC (Sweden), the USI
(Italy) and the ISEL (Britain)> Observers attended from the IWW,
the CNT (Spain), the FORA (Argentina) and the CGT (France).
Unfortunately the Congress' outcome was inconclusive, beyond
drawing up a declaration of principles and setting up a short-lived
information bureau. Within a year Europe was plunged into the First
World War and communications between the syndicalists became
impossible.

One important reason why so little was accomplished at the London
Congress was the obstruction by the French CGT. The French
syndicalists, advocates of the 'boring from within' strategy, were
affiliated to the ISNTUC (the trade union wing of the reformist
Second International). The CGT opposed the formation of a
syndicalist international since this might alienate both the ISNTUC
and the reformist members of their own union confederation. It is
interesting to note how the French syndicalists, the historically
most successful 'borers from within,' had to tailor their policies
to appease their reformist allies. This raises the question: When
revolutionaries choose to 'bore from within' conservative
movements, just who is boring into whom? At any rate the
opportunity to form a syndicalist international was lost until
after the war.

When the war ended, however, conditions were different. Russia had
been taken out of the war by a social revolution, but the
usurpation of the revolution by the Communists was not well known
outside of Russia. When the Communists set up their new
international, the syndicalists were invited to join. The aura and
prestige of the first 'successful' workers revolution caused many
syndicalists to abandon their skepticism towards 'proletarian
dictatorship.' It was only after the Communists made it clear that
a requirement of belonging to the RILU was accepting Communist
party domination that the syndicalists decided to form their own
international organization. Thus, the main effect of the RILU and
the Comintern was not to provoke the formation of the IWA, but to
delay by several more years something already begun in 1913.

Thorpe's book covers not only the historical facts, but also the
various ideological debates within the syndicalist movement. If
unity was a long time coming, it was as much a fault of the
syndicalists themselves as it was from outside interference. Had
the movement been less divided, perhaps the opportunities which
existed immediately after the war would have been reaped by
syndicalists instead of Communists. Of course, this remains an
historic 'what if?'

My only objection is to some gratuitous remarks in Thorpe's
conclusion about how the centralization of industry made the
decline of syndicalism 'inevitable.' Nowhere does he provide any
evidence to back up this claim. Indeed syndicalism's decline did
not come about until the 1930s (Thorpe's narrative ends in 1923),
when syndicalist unions were crushed through a combination of state
repression and collusion between employers and the conservative
trade unions. If Thorpe's connection between industrial
centralization and syndicalist decline were true, how does it
explain the decline of the industrial unionism of the IWW instead
of a disappearance of the craft unionism of the AFL? Fortunately,
this bit of standard academic bias is the only weakness in what is
otherwise a good book.


