INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE
GENEVA
—

Studies and Reports
Series A
No. U

23 December 1920.

The 15th Congress of the General Confederation
of Labour (Confédération Générale du Travail)
(France)
held at Orleans the 27th September to the 2nd October, 1920.

The General Confederation of Labour held its 15th
Congress (the 21st National Trade Union Congress) at Orleans
during the six days from the 27th September to the 2nd
October 1920.
This "extraordinary" Congress was convened in accordance
with a resolution adopted by the National Confederal Committee
(Comité Confédéral National) on the 21st May, at the end of the
railwaymen's strike, when the decision was taken in favour
of a general resumption of work by the Unions which had
supported the action of the Federation of Eailwaymen (Fédération des Travailleurs de la Voie Ferrée).
Following an earlier strike of railwaymen in the month of
February 1920, and as a result of the manner in which the
Ministry of Public Works and the Companies had carried out
the clauses of the agreement which brought that strike to an
end, a minority of the Federation of Eailwaymen severely
criticised their Federal Council. The latter was replaced,
and the new officials of the Federation, completely changing
its line of action, decided to initiate a movement for a series
of consecutive strikes to commence on the 1st May, and
appealed for assistance in this movement to the General
Confederation of Labour. They had not, however, concluded
any agreement with the latter body before issuing the order
to strike.
The General Confederation of Labour thus found itself
involved through the decision of a particular Federation in
a movement of great importance. After the movement
failed, the leaders of the Confederation (The Confederal Office
(Bureau Confédéral) and the Executive Committee of the
C. G. T.) were exposed, on the one hand, to the reproaches
of those who would have preferred to avoid this check to
the Confederation, and, on the other hand, to the attacks,

ILD-SR/A14
ENGL
COP. 3

— 2 —

which soon became violent, of the promoters of the May
strike, who accused the Confederation of having failed to
give sufficient support to the movement.
An extraordinary National Congress was proposed and agreed
to. Its purpose was not to discuss the past, but to examine
the position of the C. G. T., to define its general programme,
and to determine its future action. I t had to decide whether
the leaders had acted rightly in supporting the Kailwaymen's
Federation in their strike, and also "whether the world of
organised labour is master of its methods of action and
the direction of its movements... whether the C. G. T., as
the representative of the unity of French workers has no
choice but to obey the most inconsiderate orders and no
means of escape from the immense responsibilities .resulting from t h e m " . Further, it had to define " i t s conception
of Federal autonomy, and to say whether each Organisation has the right to take advantage of its individual
freedom of action for the purpose of undertaking the most
serious measures Avhich must necessarily involve all the forces
of the Confederation ". Finally as the attacks on the leaders
of the Confederation in the press developed into the most
serious accusations, the Congress had to decide whether
" the C. G. T. should be crippled by the effects of the constant
efforts to discredit it by systematic misrepresentation of
intentions and results; whether the desire for action, the
Avili to realisation, the confidence in an ideal should be open
to suspicion owing to the fact that they were allied to practical
considerations, to judicious delays and to preparations which
encourage the endeavours and ameliorate the condition of
servitude of the workers." (1)
The Agenda of the Congress, which was previously
discussed by the National Confederal Committee on the 23rd
and 24th August, was as follows :—
(1) Adoption of the Report.of the Credentials Committee.
(2) Discussion and vote on the reports of the Confederal
Committee and the Executive Committee.
(3) Modifications of the Constitution.
(4) The future programme of the General Confederation
of Labour :
(a) Nationalisation on industrial principles.
(b) Hours of work.
(c) The housing problem.
The discussion at Orleans of the first two questions
occupied so much time that the Congress had to refer the
consideration of the modifications of the Constitution to the
(1) These phrases are taken from a pamphlet published by the
Confederal Office and the Excutive Committee after the strike in May and
quoted in part in the General Report (see below).

— 3 —

National Confederal Committee at its meeting on the 8th
November, and it altogether abandoned the consideration
of hours of work and the housing problem. Even the question
of nationalisation on industrial principles, although touched
upon several times, was not directly or completely debated.
The Credentials Committee reported a total of 2,225 Trade
Unions represented at the Congress.
Resolutions.
The Congress in the first place passed unanimously four
resolutions proposed by the Executive Committee.
The first conveyed to the workers' organisations of other
countries the fraternal greeting of the General Confederation
of Labour, and expressed its determination to associate
itself closely with these organisations in the struggle against
war and in the endeavour for the establishment of a just and
lasting peace.
The second protested against the blockade of Russia and
the prohibition of the Russian Trade Union delegation led by
Mr. Losowsky from entering French territory on the occasion
of the Congress.
The third denounced the repressive measures to which the
workers' representatives hadbeen subjected in France, demanded
the liberation of those who were imprisoned, and declared the
determination of the General Confederation of Labour to
pursue " in spite of all threats the realisation of its ideal of
justice and liberty for all ".
. The fourth was directed against the refusal of the Government, in spite of its promises, to recognise the right of
organisation of Government servants, and welcomed the
entry of the latter into the General Confederation of Labour.
The Congress gave a warm welcome to the appeal made to
it by a delegate of the disabled in industry (Mutilés du Travail), who was himself blind as a result of a mining accident.
" The C. G.T." declared the Secretary-General, Mr. Jouhaux,
" has already taken up its position, and it has undertaken a
campaign for the improvement of the condition of persons
injured or disabled by industrial accidents."
T H E GENERAL REPORT

The General Report was printed and distributed by the
Confederal Office before the Congress (1) together with the
( 1 ) General Confederation of Labour : General and Financial Reports
for the year 1919-1920 presented to the 21st Trade Unions Congress, being
the 15th Congress of the C. G. T. Maison des Syndicats, Printing
Department. Octavo,82 pp.

_

4 —

proposed modifications of the Constitution (1). The report
differs from those which had been presented to the preceding
Congresses and particularly from that which was submitted
to the Lyons Congress in September 1919. It is not a complete
narrative, but a simple summary of Trade Union action since
the last Congress. As particulars of this action had already
been given in the monthly numbers of the " Voix du Peuple "
(Voice of the Pe'ople), the official Bulletin of the C. G. T., and
a pamphlet issued by the Confederal Office and the Executive
Committee of the C. G. T. relating to the Railway Strike of
May 1920, Avhich was the occasion of the Extraordinary
Congress, had already appeared, a detailed narrative of trade
union activity Avas unnecessary (2).
" If " says the Preamble to the General Eeport (3) " the
action taken by the C. G. T. since the Congress of Lyons be
examined in its general character, it will be readily seen that
it consists of two parts, national, action and international
action.
The first has been characterised by the application of the
general ideas defined in the Lyons Resolution and expressed
by the Constitution of the Economic Labour Council and by
the Manifestos and Propaganda relating to nationalisation on
industrial principles. Between this action and the railway
strikes there is a direct connection.
The second has a two-fold character : it comprises in fact
the action of the trade union International, reconstructed
in July and August 1919, at Amsterdam, a few weeks after
the Lyons Congress, and the action of the delegates of the
C. G. T. in the International Labour Organisation created
by the Peace Treaty, both at the first Conference at
Washington and in the Governing Body of the International
Labour Office, of which the General Secretary of the C. G. T.
is a Member. "
These were, in effect, the essential questions considered
during the first four days of the Congress, which were devoted
to the discussion of the General Report.
1. The May Strike and

Nationalisation.

The question of nationalisation was bound up with that
of the strike, for the Railwaymen's Federation had placed
nationalisation at the head of its demands.
The criticisms expressed in the Congress of the leaders
of.the Confederation may be summed up as follows :
(1) General Confederation of Labour, 211, rue Lafayette, Paris :
Modifications of the Confederal Constitution proposed to the Congress
of Orleans, September 1920, by the Commission appointed by the National
Federal Committee. Maison des Syndicats. (Nov. 12 pp.).
(2) General Confed. of Labour: Confederal Action and the Railway
Strike. Publishing Office of the Confederation of Labour, 33, rue de la
Grange-aux-belles, 1920. Octavo. 40 pp.
(3) General Eeport, page 3.

" The C. G-. T. did not properly support the movement
of May; it did not dare to go so far as the proclamation of a
General Strike; it did not give sufficient preparation to the
scheme of nationalisation. "
These grievances were repeated several times under different
forms, by various speakers of the Minority. The replies
of the speakers on the side of the Majority, Messrs. Eey
(Allier), Bourderon (Coopers), Bartuel (Miners) were very
spirited. Their effect was, substantially, as follows :
" The strike was not in fact properly prepared, but
it was the railwaymen who set it going. The trade
unions set in motion by the the C. G. T. for the purpose
of supporting the movement of the railwaymen, did what
was required of them, while the railwaymen only partially
obeyed the order to strike.
If sufficient preparation had not been given to the
nationalisation scheme, why did the railwaymen include
it in their demands ? And if the idea of nationalisation
had not penetrated sufficiently among the masses of
workers, was not this the fault of the Minority which
had itself condemned all idea of nationalisation ?
Moreover, it was untrue that the question of nationalisation
had not been carefully studied. It had been, at least
by the miners. "
Mr. Sirolle, a Minority Bailwayman of Paris, gave valuable
support to the speeches of the Majority speakers by declaring
that, as had been indicated, he had not been in favour of the
strike movement, but that it was his duty to carry out what
the Congress of his Federation had resolved upon. As for
the scheme for the nationalisation of the railways, it had long
been considered by the Parisian Unions.
The conclusion of this debate was drawn by Mr. Dumoulin,
Deputy-Secretary of the C. G. T., in an important speech
delivered on the third day of the Congress, in which he said
among other things : "We are now relieved of the burden
which has weighed on our shoulders since May last. I had
noted with pleasure and so had you, that a Federation like
that of the railwaymen was not a toy to be played with,
but an instrument to be used with all caution.— For this
Federation had succeeded in combining three hundred
thousand members, it had considerable funds and it also had
a building for housing its staff. What pains you, and us also,
is to see the present condition of this Federation; what pains
you and us is the result of the battle, the thousands of men
dismissed and the victims of every kind. What pains us all
is the present attitude, the present position of the trade union
organisations in our country. Our duty was (not for the
sake of quarrelling about aims or personalities) to show you
the dangers of applying the method which Mr. Sirolle calls :
" The method of enervation. " It is not your revolutionary

— 6 —

sentiments which are in question, or your idealist views; it
is a method of fighting, which has produced the results which
you know; and it is this method which we must condemn
for the future, if we are to learn the necessary lessons.
This is what we take the responsibility of saying : We
condemn methods of action which can only produce results
such as those in which you have compelled us to participate.
We had not the right, Mr. Semars, to refuse on the 2nd May
the support of the C. G. T. to the Bailwaymens' Federation.
We had not the right,however correct your views may have
b e e n — I am not speaking to the Comrades of the North but
to those who reproach us on other grounds than yours — to
decline to join in the struggle. I t was necessary, in view
of the facts with which we found ourselves confronted, to
take the plunge courageously, as our Comrade Jouhaux says.
We took it courageously, and we take the responsibility of
having been beside you in the battle. You must take the
responsibility of having committed your organisation to the
struggle without preparation, prematurely, without sufficient
warrant for doing what you did. These responsibilities we
cannot accept. "
2. The International Labour Organisation
The Washington Conference and the International
Labour Office.
The General Eeport contains (pages 60-65) an account
of the International Labour Organisation and its work from
the time of the Washington Conference to the Conference
at Genoa. The declaration made by the Executive committee
of the Confederation, when it agreed to send Delegates to
the General Labour Conference at Washington, is recalled.
The text of this important declaration is as follows :—
"As already announced, the Executive committee has
decided that the Confederation shall be represented at the
International Conference on Labour Legislation, which has
been convened in pursuance of the Peace Treaty by President
Wilson, and will be opened at Washington on the 29th
October. I t has appointed as its representatives, Comrades
Jouhaux, Dumoulin, Lenoir, Bidegaray and Bouvier.
This decision has been arrived at in accordance with the
decisions of the National Confederal Committees and of the
recent Confederal Congress, which pronounced on the question
by the adoption of the General Reports, and in accordance
with the conditions defined by the Central Trade Union
Organisations assembled at the Conference at Amsterdam.
The C. G. T. finds that, in accordance with the decisions
of the Trade Union International, the workers' representatives
of all countries taking part in the meeting at Washington
have been appointed by the Central Workers' Organisations

of each country, and, in the case of countries already belonging
to the International, by the organisations affiliated to the
latter.
I t is therefore the Workers' International itself which
will have the duty of defending, in the presence of the
representatives of the Governments and employers, the
interests of. the workers.
The C. G. T. finds, moreover, that as a result of the efforts
of the Workers' International which had made the participation
of the Central Powers an essential condition of its own
participation, the Supreme Council has recognised the
legitimacy of such participation. The representatives of
Germany and Austria will therefore be invited to deliberate
on the general questions in which the labour organisation
of all countries is interested. A first effort will thus be made
towards reconciliation and understanding between peoples
which yesterday were still at war with a view to common
co-operation in an aim whose realisation is eminently desirable.
Without abandoning any of the criticisms formulated
by its representative on the Labour Commission of the Peace
Conference, to which it intends to endeavour to give effect
in agreement with the other national workers' organisations,
the C. G. T. will go to Washington with a firm determination
to work for the realisation of international labour legislation
based on the demands of the proletariat expressed at the
International Trade Union Congress at Berne.
Faithful to the principles affirmed at the Conferences
which took place during the War, which found a definite
expression at Berne, the French proletarian organisation
affirms the necessity of unifying the conditions of labour
throughout the world and of realising a minimum of justice
and of guarantees for the workers.
The proletariat organised in the International has affirmed,
and the Governments and the diplomats have had to recognise,
that the realisation of this principle is an indispensable condition
of the establishment of a lasting peace. There can be no
equilibrium in the world unless the workers of all countries
are able to enjoy equal conditions and a status which is the
same for all.
I t is these conceptions, as to which the Central Trade
Union Organisations are agreed, that the General Confederation
of Labour intends to develop at Washington. In sending
representatives to this Conference, the proletariat of this
country is not yielding to a desire to enter into relations with
the representatives of governments and employers, but is
affirming the clear determination of the workers of the whole
world to take an effective part, and to play an essential
rôle in the development of world conditions, and to exercise
permanent and effective control over the operation and
development of the new international organism.

— 8 —
Further, it does not forget that the International Labour
Organisation is an integral part of the League of nations,
the imperious necessity for which it affirms together with
the whole world of workers. The League by the united effort
of all peoples, of all the organised workers, is capable of
putting an end once and for all to military wars and to economic
wars.
The International Conference at Washington is the first
in date of the manifestations of the League of Nations, and
as such, the workers cannot dissociate-themselves from it.
They are obtaining the first satisfaction of their wishes in the
admission of the countries which yesterday were enemies,
and in the fact that the action of the workers has succeeded
in giving effect to their views for bringing about a reconciliation
of all nations by common action based on progress, justice
and peace.
I t is in this attitude of mind that the General Confederation
of Labour is about to take part in the deliberations of the
First International Conference on Labour Legislation.
It will work, in agreement with the workers' International,
for the recognition of the rights of labour throughout the
world and for the freedom of action of all the proletariats,
including the Kussian proletariat, which are united in a
common conception of liberation by means of regenerated
labour ".
The criticisms advanced at the Congress aimed especially
at showing that the participation of the C. G. T.
in the International Labour Organisation was a demonstration
of collaboration between classes, that the fact of going to
Washington to engage in discussion with employers was
irreconcilable with the resolution passed at the Lyons Congress
declaring that " the Trade Union Movement cannot be anything
but revolutionary ", and particularly that the International
Labour Office was an organ of " social peace " with which
Trade Unionists could not co-operate.
In reply to these criticisms, Mr. Dumoulin, after recalling
the common action of all the members of the C. G. T. in favour
of the League of Xations and its unanimous attitude of
confidence at the time of the arrival of President Wilson at
Paris, expressed himself as follows in regard to what was
called " collaboration between classes " :—
" I claim that we are not by any means engaging in
collaboration between classes in the sense in which you intend
to apply that term. Unlike political parties which live on
principles and doctrines, which are bound to confine and limit
themselves to doctrines and principles, trade unionism has
to take account of daily life, of the facts of every day. We are
not like you socialists, free to disregard conditions of work,
wages, old age pensions : we have not the option, like you,
of leaving the old people behind for the sake of principles.
We must, in our Trade Union activities, have regard at every

— 9 —
moment to actual life. And yet, in applying this reasoning
to the Socialist party, I am well aware that that party itself,
in the exercise of its parliamentary functions, is obliged to take
account of the needs of every day in the world of labour.
Its claim upon us is that it is the interpreter in Parliament of
the desires of the workers. In its Parliamentary aspect can
it be anything but a Parliamentary group continually engaged
in discussion in a certain place with bourgeois, with bourgeois
representatives ?
Socialist Trade Unionists, when you are asked this question :
Do you carry on in Parliament collaboration between classes'?
Do you carry on, when you discuss labour laws, laws on old
age pensions, when you discuss the improvement of the
condition of your fellow creatures, do you carry on collaboration
between classes? — you will reply: " I n our opinion, ïfo."
You defend from day to day the interests of those who
have elected you to defend their interests.
At Washington, we did nothing but what you do every day
in Parliament. At the International Labour Office our
comrades do nothing but what you do every day in Parliament.
In their double character as social reformers and advocates of
the workers' claims, your deputies are the interpreters of
your demands. They are not in your eyes class collaborators,
or if they are, it is you who appoint them collaborators with
the bourgeoisie, since they are in permanent contact with
bourgeois of every shade, with representatives who are sworn
enemies of the working classes, and since they receive a salary
from the Government for carrying on their work.
If you wish to pursue a different course in the future, it
is for you to say so. For our part, we claim to have done
nothing at the International Labour Conference but what
is done every day in the bourgeois Parliament of this country,
and when our comrades discuss, propose, defend and make
demands at the International Labour Office, they are only
doing what you do in Parliament from the workers' point of
view. Your criticisms, therefore, on this point, are not justified."
But the question of the relations of the C. G. T. with
the International Labour Organisation was chiefly dealt
with, and at very great length, by Mr. Jouhaux, the Secretary
General, in the course of a speech which occupied the greater
part of the fourth day's sitting.
In regard to participation at the Washington Conference,
Mr. Jouhaux expressed himself as follows :When you say : " Your action in going to the International
Labour Conference at Washington is a violation of the Lyons
Congress" you make a two-fold mistake, because the General
Eeport presented to the Congress at Lyons dealt with this
question, and its very adoption in its entirety by the Congress
was at the same time an adoption of the principle of
participation in the International Labour Conference at
Washington.

— 10 —
I say nothing of the reproach of having been paid by the
Government : Mr. Dumoulin has dealt effectively with that.
If it were necessary to insist upon it further, I should ask
those who will ask us to-morrow or the day after to-morrow
to sign their certificates of attendance at the Congress in
order to enable them to receive the allowances granted by
their municipality or their General Council, if they are entitled
to reproach us with having gone to Washington at the national
expense.
I said that you made a two-fold mistake. I have explained
one of these mistakes, that with regard to the Lyons Congress.
I wish to demonstrate another, which, in m y eyes, is the most
important.
Was it at the Lyons Congress that this question was
submitted for the first time to the Trade Union organisations
of this country ?
It would be impossible to reply in the
affirmative without forgetting the discussions which took
place at the General Confederation of Labour, those which
took place in the Trade Union organisations, and those
which took place in the Press, regarding the participation
of the General Confederation of Labour in the Peace
Conference, regarding the International Labour Charter,
regarding the Leeds programme, and regarding the resolution
of the Berne International, in which our position was fixed
in advance.
All that had the effect of committing the whole of the
workers' organisations, all that had the effect of definitely
raising the question, and the Lyons Congress, in adopting
the General Eeport, gave us the necessary authorisation
to proceed to Washington. .
Yesterday, Mr. Dumoulin, reading a document of the
General Confederation of Labour which does it honour, spoke
of the attitude adopted by the delegates of the trade union
organisations towards, not perhaps the personality of President
Wilson, but the idea which he represented and the hopes
which he embodied. Have we no right to recall that to-day ?
Is it not our duty to-day to put ourselves again in the state
of mind in which we then were, with the hopes which we then
entertained ? Is it not our duty to remind those who desire
to forget it that the General Confederation of Labour was
at one time alone in this country in affirming the hopes of the
workers in regard to a peace among nations founded on
independence and liberty 1 "
There is one man who ought to remember this, the man (*)
who set out for America with me to see President Wilson before
he came to Prance, who shared with me the idea that the
League of JTations would bring to the world the possibility
of a lasting peace, the possibility of a development in social
progress and liberty.
,..,,
(*) Mr. Marcel Cachiri.

— 11 —
I cannot recall without emotion the struggle that we had
and how permission was refused to us to go to the other side
of the Atlantic.
We were, at that moment, in the eyes of a large part of the
French Press, and of a section of the English Proletariat,
Bolsheviks whose action must be stopped at all costs :
And what were we saying? Precisely what we are saying
today, what we repeat at this Congress and from this platform.
We remain faithful to the idea of not taking up a rigid attitude
of doctrinaire impotence, but of employing every means and
following every road in order to advance the idea whicliwe
have embraced and to endeavour to realize it as far as possible.
We remain faithful to the views which we have always held,
and the hopes which we cherished are not of less value today
because they have not been realised.
Tell me, then, all you who have carried on a campaign
against the League of Kations, all you who have carried on
a campaign against Wilson, the representative of the bourgeoisie,
you who have joined in the reactionary campaigns, are you
in a proper position to reproach us with not having succeeded
when you have, done everything possible to prevent our
succeeding1?
A Delegate : That is not an argument; that is not to the
point.
Mr. Jouhaux : You say that is not to the point; I say
that it is very much to the point, — it is very much to the
point because, if it has been possible in this country to adopt
in the name of this nation an attitude of scepticism and irony,
if it has been possible to cast ridicule on the idea of the League
of Nations, it is because this scepticism, this irony have found
a sympathetic echo among the masses of the people. If on
the other hand the masses of the people had risen as we rose
against those who indulged in irony, against those who
attempted day by day to undermine the. confidence of the
masses of the people in a new international body, it is very
probable that the campaign could not have been carried so
far as it has been, and that President Wilson would not have
been compelled to repudiate what he had said.
I have sought to keep in view three points in the
complaints which were brought against us. I have sought
to show that the International Labour Conference at
Washington was not the product of a sudden decision, but
the logical sequel of a continuous process, which was
continually and carefully followed by the Executive Committee
ot the C. G. T. It was, I have the right to say, always in
agreement with the views of the working classes, at least
of the majority of them. The responsibilities of the
International Conference at Washington came in question
at the very beginning of the negotiations at the General Peace
Conference. They came in question at the moment when
you gave me a mandate to go to the Peace Conference to

— 12 —
advocate there, in the presence of the diplomats, in the presence
of representatives of the Governments, the International
Labour Charter.
This mandate was acknowledged by the General
Confederation of Labour, it was acknowledged by the Trade
Union International; for the Berne Conference, which was
preliminary to the final reconstitution of the trade union
International, had also given me this mandate.
I took part in the Peace Conference and I advocated our
views. I certainly do not pretend to have accomplished a
work so great that the bourgeois Governments have crumbled
to pieces under it, but I claim to have done my duty. I claim to
have introduced a new principle which existed perhaps before
t h a t date in the minds of revolutionaries, but did not exist
in the realm of facts. I t does exist there to-day, and what
we have to do is to secure for it its maximum development.
That idea is the principle of international control' which
you find even in the Soviet documents. I t is a principle
without which there can be no continuous progress in the
world. We have obtained the acceptance of that principle.
That may not be, it is true, in the view of a section of the
French working classes, a revolutionary act; it may even be
— interpretations are so different and the French language
is so rich — it may even be collaboration between classes.
I t is none the less a fundamental principle, an essential
principle which the thinkers, the philosophers and the
sociologists of all periods and of all schools have entertained,
a fundamental principle without which there is no federation
of the peoples, no practical internationalism. And that is
the .principle to which I hold. "
Mr Jouhaux then considered the work and the future of
the International Labour Organisation and especially of the
International Labour Office.
"We went to the Peace Conference to advocate our views
and to secure the triumph of an international organisation
of labour. The result of our participation was the International
Conference at Washington and its logical and normal sequel :
the International Labour Office.
When you speak of collaboration between classes —
Mr Dumoulin expressed himself yesterday polemically on that
question — I wish to observe that the International Conference
at Washington cannot be treated as a simple question of
principle; it is a human question, it dominates all principles,
and derives its social character from that fact. That is what
you will not understand, that is what you will not grasp.
What you will not see is that, though it is possible for you
with your trade union organisations to defend your wages
and conditions of work, there are millions and millions of
workers in the world reduced to a condition of slavery, enjoying
no liberty. They, like you, have a right to existence; they,
like you, have a right to live, and are entitled to your active

— 13 —
sympathy. That is the position which we went to Washington
to defend.
If we had only had to think of ourselves, we were in a good
position in regard to all those points. We had, for example,
won the eight hours day, — for it was not given to us out of
pure benevolence by the capitalists, it was won through the
power of the workers' organisation; and I have a right to say
that those who have attempted to deride that victory are
the least capable of securing respect for it.
I t was this profoundly human question that we went
to the Washington Conference to consider, and those who
Avere there are well aware that it was not a question of cordial
discussions, but of a clash of ideas, a clash of claims, from which
a solution was to emerge which we wished to be absolutely
in conformity not with the French point of view, but with
the international trade union point of view decided upon
at Berne and at Amsterdam.
I challenge anyone to prove that what I affirm is not true.
The writings of foreign comrades have been flung into the
debate, and an interpretation has been given to them which
does not belong to them. An attempt has been made to use
them as a weapon against us. I do not even wish to know
what is the position occupied to-day by those who stood up
against us yesterday.
When you declare that capitalist imperialism is at the
bottom of all wars, when you claim that commercial
competition creates tension between nations and rivalries
of interests, and provokes war, you are right and we agree
with you, but then what is to be done? Ought one to adopt
a rigid doctrinaire attitude, to look down from the height
of one's lofty conceptions on the miserable contingencies of
humanity? Or should one come down into the real world,
come to grips with facts, and endeavour to remove what is
bad in them? That is the whole question.
We wish to reduce the causes of conflagration as much as
possible, and we are going to seek them wherever they may
be found. There is one region to which our attention must
be specially directed, i. e. the economic region. In that region
there is a task which seems to us of the first importance, that
is the equalisation of the position of the workers throughout
the world, the application throughout the world of the social
advantages obtained by those possessing organisation and
fighting strength. That is the task which we wish to accomplish.
I t may be that these considerations do not count for those
who judge life only from the point of view of commercial
competition. It does count for us. We know its value;
we know that it lies at the very foundation of all social action,
and we want that idea to triumph. We desire that there
should no longer be in the world young Hindoos of 11 or 12
years of age working 14 or 16 hours a day for other peoples

— 14 —
profit. We do not want any more young Japanese working
14 or 16 hours a day; we want no more negroes in Africa driven
to work with the whip and under degrading conditions of
senátude. We do not want slavery to continue to exist in our
Colonies. We wish liberty to be the common heritage of all
humanity. That is what we are fighting for, that is why we
are in the International Labour Office.
I do not wish to enter here upon an examination of the
general international situation and of the necessities for reform
and action which it demands, but I ask you whether there
are not in the world at the present time many cases of war due
to capitalist competition. America and Japan, America and
England, France and England, Italy and France, Germany
and France, Hungary and France, everywhere economic
competition is evident, everywhere it controls the rulers,
everywhere diplomacy is creating new causes of war. Will
you then reproach us with attempting to fight with a view
to removing competition and to getting rid of causes of war?
If you do not reproach us with it, then cease your insinuations.
The International Labour Office, appointed by the
Washington International Conference, is not an instrument
of collaboration between classes; it is an instrument of
international control in the application of international social
legislation, and it concerns me little that Mr. Millerand —
whose corrupt methods I hate as much as ever I did —should have
gone to Geneva to carry a message of social peace; it concerns
me little that such a political farce should have been played;
what does concern me is to know whether the International
Labour Office responds to the hopes which were placed in it,
and up to now it has responded to them.
What concerns me is to know whether the International
Labour Office fulfils the task which was entrusted to it, and
contrary to the assertions which are made in certain sections
of the Press, I, for my part, as a responsible member of the
International Labour Organisation, declare that it does fulfil
the functions which have been assigned to it, and I say that
t h a t is the reason for the attacks which are made upon it by
the Eight, with which you are unconsciously associating
yourselves.
There is another question of capital importance, that of
raw materials. That question, which the Washington International Conference would not accept, the Governing Body
of the International Labour Office has taken up again. Why?
Because it intends that the International Labour Office
should not be limited to the supervision of the application of
social laws, but should take part also in the regulation of the
distribution of raw materials, not according to the degree of
solvency of the nations, but according to their industrial
needs, according to their vital needs. Is not that a revolutionary theory, is not that a step towards a new constitution?
Who will dare then to make the least objection? Are you now

reduced to saying that all improvements obtained areso ninny
obstacles to the accomplishment of the revolution?
A delegate — Perhaps.
Mr. JouJiaux : Perhaps ! If that is your idea it condemns
your presence in the trade union organisation. In any case
it is not our idea, it has never been the idea of the Workers'
movement.
I wish to invoke the memory of a man who, answering
the same question at a Social Congress, protested against" this
idea that reforms are counter-revolutionary manifestations,
protested against that absurd and idiotic thesis that to raise
the individual is to make him less capable of accomplishing
his emancipation.
M. Jouhaux then read a speech delivered by Jaurès at the
Socialist Congress at Toulouse (October 1908, page 333 of the
Eeport).
M. Jouliaux : " That is what Jaurès stated in 1908, and I
say that we are conscious of being in agreement with that
doctrine. We also think that to give, the workers the
maximum of liberty and well-being is not to arrest revolutionary development, but, on the contrary, to hasten it.
We have accomplished this task; and if the International
Labour Office is not an organ from which we receive directions
but one to which we give them, that is sufficient to justify
our presence in that Office, to make our action legitimate,
and our attitude in harmony with the interests and aspiration
of the working classes. "
On the question of the International Labour Organisation,
the speech of Mr. Million (Ehône) in the debate on the future
programme of the C. G. T. should also be noted. He desired
that the International Labour Office should become still more
an instrument of research for preparing for the use of the
working class the means of action necessary for the revolution.
3. The Economic Council of Labour.
The General Confederation of Labour at the beginning
of 1919 proposed the formation of a national Economic Council
composed of representatives of the organised workers, industrial
leaders, technical experts, and the State. This proposal led
only to a scheme of the French Government which was
unacceptable to the workers and which, in any case, was not
carried into effect. The Lyons Congress therefore decided
on the constitution by the C. G. T. of an Economic Council of
Labour (Conseil Economique du Travail). " In view of
the decay of the executive power", M. Jouhaux stated at
Lyons, " the workers should constitute in common with the
technical workers and public officials who accept the minimum
programme of the C. G. T. an Economic Council of Labour
which will attack without further delay the immediate problems and the general problems of production and exchange."

— 16 —
In pursuance of this decision, the Economic Council of
Labour was constituted and commenced operations on the
8th January, 1920. I t is composed as follows. At its head
is a Committee of thirteen members representing the four
great organisations composing the Council, i. e. the General
Confederation of Labour, the National Federation of Public
Officials (Fédération Nationale des Fonctionnaires), the
National Federation of Co-operative Societies (Fédération
Nationale des Coopératives), the Union of Technical Workers
in Industry, Commerce and Agriculture (Union syndicale de
Techniciens d'Industrie, du Commerce et de l'Agriculture).
This composition gave rise to a certain number of criticisms
of the Economic Council of Labour which were expressed at
the Orleans Congress. Certain delegates would have preferred
the Economic Council to be recruited solely from the General
Confederation of Labour. Others, and in particular Mr.
Launat, a former member of the Economic Council who had
resigned his membership, denounced the presence on the
Council of bourgeoise elements and demanded that the COUECÜ
should be composed " only of Trade Unionists, i. e. of wageearners ".
The activities of the Economic Council, which, during
1920 were very considerable, led particularly to the scheme
for the nationalisation of the railways, and this scheme
aroused the criticism of certain members of the Congress on
the ground that it maintained class privileges inasmuch as
it rejected the expropriation, pure and simple, of the shareholders and debenture holders and admitted the principle
of purchase. Finally, other delegates, on the very first day
of the Congress, reproached the Economic Council with not
reflecting revolutionary sentiments and with endeavouring to
consolidate the existing social system, inasmuch as it
proclaimed the necessity for production.
Mr. Million endeavoured, as he had done in the case of
other questions, to clear the ground at the outset, and to
show that in certain of the criticisms there was a good deal
of wounded amour propre and personal bitterness.
Mr. Jouhaux vigorously emphasised this view and explained
that the relations between technical and manual workers
might be in the administration of the national economic
system.
" N o w " , he said, ''let us pass to the Economic Council
of Labour. What is the objection to this Institution, which
some people have sought to attribute to directions received
from Washington and Geneva ?
" The Economic Council of Labour is a creation of the
General Federation of Labour. It is an institution of our
C. G. T., created by us and controlled by us ; it receives its
directions from us.
" When you say that it was Messrs Bernard Lavergne
and Gide who presided over the preparation of the principles

— 17 —
on which we established our schemes of nationalisation you
lie".
Mr. Launat. " I t was you who said so. "
Mr. Joiihcmx. " That is a lie, for no such thing has ever
been said.
" I t is the opposite of the truth.
" To begin with, what is Mr. Bernard Lavergne ? A writer
on Le Temps 1 Nothing of the kind, a delegate of the
Co-operative Societies on the Economic Council of Labour.
" The administration of the National Economic System?
But you have the draft of the scheme on your .table. The
delegates have only to read it to convince themselves of the
falsehood of your statements. What we put before the
Congress, what we ask of the organisations, is that they
should examine that draft of a rational organisation of
production. I t is conceived on principles which are the
opposite of collaboration between classes ; on principles which
are related to the necessities with which we are confronted,
and it takes into account the experience of other countries.
"When you come here, as you do, to play the demagogue
by trying to persuade the workers that they can place the
technical workers under their control, can command them,
enslave them, you are playing an unworthy part.
" I t is in entire contradiction to your latest expressions,
in which you seek to raise your action to a higher level.
" If the mind is to regulate the destinies of humanity, it is
necessary first of all not to imprison the brain and to drag
pown the intellect.
" W e want the antagonism which has existed from the
beginning of time between those who work with their brains
and those who work Avith their muscles to disappear. We
want to associate brain work with muscular work in the
general interest. That is the idea that we Avant to realise,
and it is criminal of you to attempt to under-A'alue one of
these elements. No, there is no superiority, but neither is
there any inferiority; and just as we have stood up against
arbitrary, inhuman and anti-social exploitation by employers,
I stand up and I ask the intellectuals to stand up with me,
against their subordination to the Avorkers.
• "Such principles of the demagogue have cost, the Russian
BeATolution dear. In order to repair this error, they are
obliged to-day to give the technical workers a position better
beyond all comparison than that which they are able to
obtain here even under the capitalist system. Is that Avhat
you Avant to arriA^e at ? "
He then proceeded to SIIOAV Avhat nationalisation might
be in the Anew of the C. G. T., the principles on which it rests
and the conditions under Avhich the experiment might be
attempted.
" When you speak of schemes of nationalisation, you
forget that such schemes have no A^alidity for us except so

— 18 —
far as they are accepted by the Trade Union Organisations.
Not only do we supervise the action of the technical workers
in our Economic Council of Labour, but we ask for and call for
supervision by the workers' organisations of the Avork which
we are accomplishing. Are not these sufficient guarantees
to entitle us to say to you that so long as you do not bring
forward any argument which condemns the principles on
which our scheme of nationalisation rests, you have no right
to rule it out ?
What are the principles on Avhich it rests ?
Nationalisation has been a great deal talked about duringthe last fifty years. It was in the programmes of the pioneer
groups fifty years ago. But Avhat Avas the nationalisation of those
days Ì I t Avas either a financial monopoly, or an increase of
the coerciA^e power of the State. It meant that the State
laid its hands on a part of production with a ATiew to
administering it for its political interests and Avith its political
machinery. We were, and still are, against this form' of
nationalisation. We do not Avish to place in the hands of the
State greater power for the purpose of increasing its ability
to coerce; Ave do not Avish to set up neAV officials. We do not
wish to set up once more particular groups of workers outside
the general body of the working class. What Ave want is to
place the means of directing production in the bands of
those who represent the general interests of the community.
Our formula is not State ownership, or corporate OAvnership,
but the community as master of its own destinies. Our
formula is the collaboration of producers and consumers, and
when you haAre proved to me that that is not a Socialist
principle, taking the word in its general sense, when you hä'A-e
proved to me that that is not a principle of social
transformation, then you will have proved your case. Until
then, you had better be silent.
Mr. Launat : Explain your scheme of purchase.
" Purchase — we conceiA^e it in the form of expropriation
of the shareholder and the taking of the debenture-holder's
security by Avay of guarantee. If those of you who were
speaking yesterday have taken a course of political economy,
you must know the difference AArhich exists between the
shareholder and the debenture-holder. I do not even ask
you to consider the social difference, but we are bound to take
account of it, and Ave haA^e as much right as the Eussian
Soviet Eepublic to be opportunists Avhen circumstances compel
us to be so. We do not want to bring into the field against
the scheme of nationalisation the Avhole body of debentureholders; we do not want to allow the Eailway Companies,
who have spent more than 20 millions on the counter-offensive
Avhich they have been carrying on against us, to haA^e the
support of too large a force of public opinion. We want the
nationalisation scheme of the General Federation of Labour

— 19 —
to become a reality, and we ought not to misunderstand the
situation which confronts us.
" I t is easy for you to misunderstand it, to say ' let us
keep on the plane of pure principles'. Meanwhile the Companies will obtain the adoption of the Le Trocquer scheme or
the Loucheur scheme. Meanwhile they are consolidating their
power and making it impossible for us to resist or to arrive
at any result whatever.
"If we claimed that our schemes of nationalisation would
accomplish the social revolution to which we all aspire, your
criticisms would be well-founded ; but you know very well
that we only regard our schemes as measures of progress
on the road to revolution. You know very well that what
we desire is to place in the hands of the workers a measure
of control which will give them the necessary apprenticeship
in the administration of the economic and social affairs of
the nations. You know very Avell that, in conformity with
the doctrine which we have always held, we wish the workers
to acquire the practical knowledge which is indispensable to
them for the realisation of their historic mission. You know
very well that we want to associate the technical , intellectual •
and manual workers in a common endeavour for liberation.
" It is this social experiment that we wish to attempt, and
if you regard such a social experiment as a counterrevolutionary activity, you must try to prove it by something
better than unjustified accusations and paradoxical remarks.
We are no longer living in the time for philosophising ; we
are no longer living in the time when our movement only
carried on the struggle in the region of theory. We have
reached the time for setting to work. All is ready for
commencing operations, and we have got to show that we
know how to build. We have got to show that our claim
to take the direction of affairs is a justifiable and legitimate
claim. It is necessary, therefore, that the Economic Council
of Labour, while still pursuing the realisation of our social
demands, should show that it is able at the present moment
to offer solutions of practical questions in harmony with the
general interests of the community.
" That is what we are engaged in; that is why the Economic
Council of Labour exists ; and it matters little to us whether
we proceed in a more or less melodramatic and striking fashion
or not ; the necessity for actual work remains the same. The
hesitating and incredulous stop on the road under the shelter
of formulas ; the believing and courageous pursue their way. "
It is worthy of remark that later in the Congress a speaker
on the Minority side, Mr. Sirolle, declared that he Avas a
supporter of nationalisation on industrial principles, because
he saw in it " possibilities of doing something Avhich the
capitalist class could not accept, because it would constitute
a decrease of their class privileges ". He, therefore, asked
the comrades " to consider carefully a scheme, the application

— 20 —

of which would make it necessary to transform all social
systems, and would give to the working class of this country
the direction of all production ".
It Avas in relation to the Economic Council of Labour
that the question of production under the capitalist system
was slightly touched upon by certain speakers on the Minority
side. lío clear reply was given to them until later, when
it Avas giA'en by Mr. Merrheim in the course of the debate
on trade union policy.
The beginning of an important passage in his speech is
quoted below : — Mr. Merrheim folioAved these remarks Avith
extracts from pamphlets of Lenin, showing to Avhat an extent
the Bussian Avorker had lost the love of Avork as a result of
•constantly hearing it said that one ought not to " produce
under the capitalist system ".
" In closing I will reply to a final question which has been
raised here. Allusion has been made to the theory of the
General Confederation of Labour in regard to production. I t
has been said that we ask the workers to OA7er-produce, Avhich
is a lie. Unfortunately the worker is too often impelled to
OArer-production by the system of piece-Avork and bonuses.
The exceptional Avages of a very small minority of metal
Avorkers, amounting to as much as 50 or 60 francs a day during
the Avar, how Avere they earned? By a mad OArer-production,
Avhich exhausted the men or Avomen making such efforts in
a few months. We told these people that they were mad
to OArer-produce. But in this matter the militant Avorkers
have a duty from the point of ATiew of morality, of dignity and
of conscience. Ought Ave, as some people suggest, to say
to the Avorkers that they should sabotage production under
the capitalist system Ì For my part I refuse to tell the
workers not to produce, and neArertheless that is Avhat you
will be obliged to do if you adopt the communist doctrine.
You must appeal to and excite every kind of hatred, the
hatred of work among others, and say to the masses : 'you
must not produce'. That is to appeal to the hatred of work.
I t is, believe me, to create in the heart and mind of the Avorker
such a state of feeling that in a revolutionary period, Avhen
you are masters of poAver, the Avorking class from whom you
demand a greater effort of production Avili not understand,
and will tell you that it is not necessary to produce , because
you have told them so often and so long that production should
be reduced, and that there Avas no necessity to intensify i t
in order to increase the general Avell-being. "
4. International Federation of Trade Unions.
The Congress of Lyons had ratified the reconstitution of
the International Federation of Trade Unions carried out at
Amsterdam in July and August. 1919 ; but the propaganda
which had been going on for many months for the constitution

— 21 —
of a new Trade Union International affiliated to the Communist
International of Moscow, made it necessary to return to the
question at the Orleans Congress. The question was debated
especially during the last two days devoted to the discussion
of trade union policy, and it was then that Mr. Merrheim
called particular attention to the determination of the Russian
rulers to destroy the Trade Union International in order to
subordinate the trade union movement to the political
movement. But during the discussion of the general report
the Confederal Office had pointed out the spirit of liberty
and good faith in which the Amsterdam International had
been reconstituted and the positive work which it had
accomplished in 1919 and 1920.
The subject was first referred to by Mr. Dumoulin in the
following terms :
"At the end of our demonstration the defence of the Trade
Union International will be so much the easier, inasmuch as
those who claim to-day to show us the road to internationalism
have been seeking it for two years and have not yet found it.
Those who come to us to-day and say 'here is a new International' have not been able after two years to get on to the
road to internationalism.
"As for us, we have silenced our common hatreds and our
particular sentiments in order to reconstruct the Labour
International. We went with you socialists to Berne in
February 1919 to reconstruct the Trade Union International
If you have not succeeded in reconstructing yours, do not
impute that crime to us. We reconstructed the Trade Union
International in February 1919. We asked our friends in
Belgium to forget what they had had to suffer in the war,
just as we asked our comrades in the devastated areas to forget
the disasters, sufferings and hatred which the war had brought
into their surroundings.
"We did not waste time in everlasting petty discussions
on principles and conditions. We made up our minds on the
necessity of reconstructing our Trade Union International.
We had no right, and we have no right now, to ask the American workers to find another secretary than comrade
Gompers. We have no such right. In our International
the various central organisations preserve their autonomy
in. the direction of their own affairs. We have no right to
say to the six million German workers that they must choose
other officials, any more than we have the right to meddle in
the internal affairs of the English proletariat organised in its
trade unions. I t is with the benefit of these conditions of
liberty for each country that we have united, at the present
moment twenty-three million workers in the Trade Union
International. . You are at liberty to say that this Trade
Union International has not produced the revolution, that
it has not overturned the world. I merely ask you to find for
yourselves the road to internationalism which we have found.

— 22 —

Here in this Congress, in obedience to the demands of our
comrade Totti, who regards me as his master, we will make
our mutual confessions. We will invite you to this mutual
examination of conscience. Have you the right to compromise
the existence of the Trade Union International by bringing
against it, not on your own initiative — (you cannot have the
right because you have sought them elsewhere) — have you the
right to produce the accusations against the Trade Union International contained in the conditions which you have brought
forward? If you claim this right we will go over the same
road together and give words their full meaning.
"Those who are to-day at the head of the organisation of
the Amsterdam International are social traitors, social traitors
according to the conditions which you are called upon to
apply. You cannot apply them, and you have no right to
destroy our International which we have reconstructed under
the guarantee of liberty and good faith".
The positive action of the International Federation of
Trade Unions was explained in its main outline by M.
Jouhaux. The first part of his account especially deserves
to be quoted.
"Tommasi has used as a weapon against us here the
Treaty of Versailles. He has only forgotten one thing, that
the movement that has been constantly taking place and is
taking place for the modification of the Treaty of Versailles
in the economic domain is the work of the Trade Union
International. What is the present position of the question
of coal?
"The military men talk about the occupation of the Euhr
district and the employment of force under the pretext of
obtaining for us the coal which we need — a fundamental
error but an error which cannot be corrected except by the
action of the workers' organisations united internationally
and acting internationally. And, indeed, comrades when
you reproach the Trade Union International with its practices
and its conceptions you are wilfully forgetting a capital point —
the attitude taken by the International Federation of Trade
Unions.
You forget that we have declared urbi et orbi
that our solution consisted in a harmonisation of efforts, in
taking assistance to the workers of Germany in the matter
of food.
" You forget that we declared ourselves in agreement with
our German comrades and said to them ' if one of these days
our military men take it into their heads to occupy the E u h r
district and to compel you to work at the point of the bayonet,
we shall be at your side to support your act of revolt against
such slavery'.
" You forget too the resolution of the. International
Miners Congress at Geneva, passed unanimously, which
declared : the question of coal is an international question,
it can only be solved internationally, and which called for the

— 23 —

constitution of an international organisation for the distribution
of coal throughout the world.
" And who has been entrusted with the constitution of
this organisation, who was unanimously nominated by the
International Miners Congress to accomplish this task ? The
International Labour Office, which you want to disqualify
and to render incapable of accomplishing its work.
" Clearly this solution is not what is. desired by the
profiteers and middlemen, but this international solution is
a rational solution. I t is a revolutionary solution in the
region of facts, a solution on which the life of the nations
depends whatever may be the form of their political
constitution; and you must have perceived this when you
saw how almost the whole of the French press turned against
the English miners when they threatened to strike. You
must have realised that at such a moment there was a
necessity for that international organisation.
" Let us consider a little the international situation, for
after all it is not enough to keep on talking about imperialism,
and we must not be for ever seeking the tares which may be
growing
among our wheat.
We must look at the
international situation. We, who demanded immediately
after the Armistice the constitution of an international body
for the distribution of raw materials as one of the essential
foundations of the new order, and as one of the most important
means of removing the industrial rivalries which give birth
to capitalist imperialism, we are in position to say to-day
t h a t everyone has felt the necessity of turning to the doctrine
which we expressed. We procured the adoption of that
doctrine by the Trade Union International in its entirety,
and whatever may be your conceptions or your views you
cannot get away from it. I t lies at the very basis of the
international life of the peoples. I t alone is capable of giving
to the peoples the possibility of living and developing in
economic independence, while our impotence has made
possible the economic slavery from which at the present
moment we cannot escape.
" That is the work of the Trade Union International which
you are attacking. That 'yellow' Trade Union International,
that International of 'traitors' follows only one principle, one
ideal — to serve the international proletarian cause and the
cause of the peoples themselves. I t is the work of this
International that an attempt is being made to disqualify,
against which the most monstrous accusations are brought.
If we protest to-day it is because not only an indictment but
a declaration of war has been made against us.
" The Trade Union International is to be replaced by the
International Trade Union section of the Third International
of Moscow. We who have reconstituted the international
forces, who have carried on an international action, we must
bow before those who, apart from the Eussian militants,

— 24 —

have been unable to accomplish any thing Avhatsoever, and
represent nothing ".
" Tomorrow the Congress of the International Federation
of Trade Unions will meet in London, there to discuss the
question of rationalising production — in the spirit as well
as in the letter — there to repeat that although international
action may vary in its methods it must yet strive for one
object, and pursue one ideal. And it is this International
that you wish to condemn % It is against this International
that you hurl your anathemas, against which your ridiculous
excommunications have been hurled % I t is against this
International that you have made yourselves the mouthpiece
of those who probably do not even understand the conditions
under which we are developing, or the necessities to which
we must submit. Not tomorrow's International Congress
alone will reply to the greater excommunication; the past
action of the Trade Union International will answer as well.
" You speak of the Treaty of Versailles : you protest, and
with reason, against the Treaty of Versailles; but who has
achieved positive, practical results in attempting to mitigate
the tyranny of the Treaty ? You or we ? The question
answers itself : we alone have achieved these results.
"A nation was reduced to famine, a proletariat threatened
with extinction; the Trade Union International arose and
appealed to its Proletarian constituents, and food trains, bearers
of hope and life, were immediately sent to the population
of Vienna.
" W e should have done the same for Moscow had it been
possible, and you have no right to doubt us. If today we
have taken an stand against ideas which are foreign to us,
do not forget that we have never taken our stand against the
Eussian nation. As for proletarian Austria, as for the workingclasses of Austria, they were able to protect themselves against
the forces of reaction, owing to the solidarity of the Trade
Union International. Then, when the White Terror raged
in Hungary, when hundreds of militants were tortured and
executed, who arose in the name of universal Trade Unionism ?
The Trade Union International, who endeavoured to give a
practical expression of its aid. Do you forget that at Vienna
the representatives of reactionary Hungary, delegates of
European reaction, were forced to come to terms with t h e
Trade Union International ?
5. Vote on the General Report.
The discussion ended in a vote on the General Report. The
result of the vote, issued subject to revision was as follows : —
Voters
2225
In favour of the adoption of the General Eeport 1482 votes
Against
691
Abstentions
52

— 25 —
This vote should be sufficient proof that the Congress
wished to forget the grave accusations which for months
past had been levelled against the Confederal leaders at public
meetings and in the press. I t could scarcely do less, seeing
that with the exception of certain accusations which, had
found no echo and which were manifestly censured by the
Assembly, no accuser had come forward and no accusations
had been formulated during the Congress.
The opinion of the Congress, however, became even more
explicit in a sharply worded declaration against " the slander
of the militants ". The text of this declaration, signe'd by
numerous Trade Unions, reads as follows :
" The undersigned, delegates present at the Congress,
after having heard the discussion in connection with the
adoption of the General Eeport
submitted
to the
representatives of Trade Union Organisations incorporated
in the General Confederation of Labour;
Declare, that in the course of this discussion, none of the
written or verbal accusations publicly made at Trade Union
or Public Meetings have been confirmed, much less substantiated, during the debates before the Congress.
In view of the fact that these accusations clearly have
no foundation, and further that no one is present to advance
them in the Congress, the undersigned demand that the
Congress do denounce and condemn the compaign undertaken
many months ago, which became more intensive during the
weeks preceding the Congress. This campaign was based
exclusively on insults, calumny, lies, intrigues, and unjust
and disloyal procedure :
The undersigned likewise demand that the Congress do
condemn those newspapers, whether or not they represent
officially political parties and tendencies, which have made
themselves the instruments and even the instigators of this
campaign;
The French working classes know today that the
calumnies uttered against the militants at the head of Trade
Union organisations and of the General Confederation of
Labour are the work of unscrupulous opponents who have
deliberately attempted to compromise the activities and the
legal authority of the General Confederation of Labour, in
order to satisfy their personal ambition and enmity :
The undersigned demand that the Congress do call on
all workers and their Trade Union Organisations to take
resolute steps against all who attempt to continue the evil
practices herein denounced, as these practices would only
sacrifice the advantages already obtained by the working
classes, and compromise the prospects of the future ".
The reading of this resolution provoked violent protest
from the Minority.
Actuated by a spirit of conciliation, and on the assurance
of the minority that there was no need to remember " unjust"'

— 26 —

accusations, and that such a declaration would lead to
secession, Mr. Jouhaux demanded that this motion should
not be put to the vote. I t served, however, to confirm what
was known in the Congress as the "total absence of accusers ".
FINANCIAL REPORT

In the pamphlet issued by the Confederal Committee,
a Financial Eeport was added to the General Report. This
Report gave rise to no discussion but it is interesting to draw
attention to a few of the principal figures.
The number of Confederal stamps purchased from the
1st June, 1919, to the 31st May, 1920, amounts to 16,130,784
for the National Federation, and to 16,582,176 for the
Departmental Unions, giving a total of 407,931.95 fr., for
the Federations, and 424,469 fr., for the Departmental
Unions.
The total receipts of the Central Office at this period
amounted to 1,215,486.55 fr., and the expenditure to fr.
703,923.60.
The cash in hand on the 31st May. 1919, totalled fr.
53,922.85, and 565,545.80 fr. on the 21st May, 1920.
T H E FUTURE PROGRAMME OP THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION
OF LABOUR.

The discussion on this part of the Agenda should have been an
extremely lengthy one; in fact, however, the Congress limited
itself to a discussion of trade union policy, which occupied
the whole of the fifth and sixth days. Some attention was
paid to questions previously discussed, but otherwise the
debate dealt essentially with the relations of the C. G. T. to
the socialist party and to the Moscow International.
This debate had been {¡receded a t the end of the fourth
day by the reading of a long message from the Russian Trade
Union Delegation, then at Berlin. The message was at first
received with sympathy which gave way to amazement
at the attacks contained in it. The complete text of this
letter was published by the "Voix du Peuple" (Xo.22, October
1920, pp. 624-628) pending the publication of the Report of
the Congress.
A declaration by Mr.Jouhaux closed this incident: " T h e
Russian comrades suffer" he said "but they are ignorant of
our activities ; consequently I do not blame them. They have
been misled, and Russian trade unionism has been furnished
with lying and biassed information by the authors of the
accusations contained in their letter".
A speech by Mr. Frossard, and another by Mr. Meerheim,
delivered during the debate on trade union policy, are worthy
of note.

— 27 —

Mr. Frossard, General Secretary of the Socialist Party,
whose presence had led to protests from certain members of
the Majority, attented the Congress as an official trade union
delegate and not as the official of any political organisation.
The Congress, after certain difficulties, permitted him to speak.
Mr. Frossard's speech differed very greatly from anything
that was expected of him. He not only proclaimed the
necessity for an autonomous trade union movement in relation
to other political bodies, but declared that "the seizure of
power with a view to social transformation in a country like
France is inconceivable without an agreement on a basis of
equality between the General Confederation of Labour and
the Socialist Party". But he demanded that the two movements should not ignore or disown each other, should not
act independently of or in opposition to each other, but should,
on the contrary, unite for joint action.
Mr. Frossard did not intend to dwell on his long journey
in Russia, but he asked that the plight of the Russian working
classes should be taken into account, for their terrible position
would inevitably have an influence on the revolutionary
psychology of Russia.
With regard to relations between the Trade Union
International and the political International, he stated that,
as far as he knew, the question was still an open one, and he
considered that the Trade Union International would become
whatever its component trade unions wished it to be. "None
the less," he said, " it is a fact that you may yet regret the
formation of a new Trade Union International. I t is a fact
whose gravity and importance you dare not overlook. I t is
also a fact that, whether you wish it or not, the Russian
Revolution has cast such a glamour over the movements of
the working classes, both at home and abroad, that you
cannot prevent the bourgeois Governments from regarding
the adherence of the workers' organisations and trade unions
to the Moscow International as the most striking testimony
of the solidarity of the working classes."
On the whole, this speech, which, though conciliatory in
tone, was barren in fresh arguments, could not influence
the position already adopted and clearly defined by the vote
of the General Report.
On the other hand Mr. Merrheim's remarkably well informed
and well-arranged speech produced a great impression. Mr.
Merrheim had for long carried on a vigorous and careful press
campaign against the pretentions of the Russian leaders to
lord it over the French labour movement. His speech a t
Orleans was a logical sequel to this campaign.
He demonstrated the necessity of maintaining a united
labour front against the whole world. The resolution of the
Federal Congress of Amiens (known as the Amiens Charter)
definitely separating trade union action from all political
action, was not an opportunist measure adopted against any

— 28 —
one political party; it was the expression of the doctrine that
"trade unionism, which is to-day an organisation for resistance
will in the future be an organisation for production and
distribution, and a basis of social re-organisation". Mr.
Merrheim laid stress on the Amiens doctrine as being directly
opposed to the action of the Russian leaders, especially of
Lenin, who aspired to the destruction of trade union forces
in order to achieve the triumph of political dictatorship, and
he protested vigorously against Mr. Frossard's declarations
concerning the Moscow Trade Union International.
"You have said, Comrade Frossard, that the Trade Union
International, has not been definitely established, that it
should be constituted at another Assembly, and that all
organisations who wish to do so might belong to it. I base my
reply on this position. Why destroy the Trade Union
International of Amsterdam in order to reconstruct another
one? Why should we not impose on the Russian Trade
Unions the same conditions as are offered by the Communist
International to the political bodies of various nations?
The International says to them: "Come t o u s ; these are the
conditions; when you have accepted them you become our
associates". Let the Russian Trade Union Organisations
adhere to the Trade Union International. They will argue,
and unless they obtain a majority they will have to submit.
They won't accept this offer : they will continue to split up
the Trade Union International and to render it powerless.
The attempt to provoke secession from the Amsterdam Trade
Union International is being made with malice aforethought.
The documents I will bring to 3Tour notice are ample proof
of this statement. I have taken them from the Bulletin of
the Petrograd Office of the Communist International, which
contains a summarised account of the work done by the Third
General Congress of the Russian Labour Councils. You
will note the language employed by the leaders of the Russian.
Dictatorship, and the constant affirmation of their systematic
design to destroy the Amsterdam Trade Union International".
The greater part of Mr. Merrheim's speech consists of an
exact and detailed account of the true tactics of the Russian
Trade Union Organisations, of the tyranny of the Russian
Communist Party over the Trade Unions and of all those
factors the features of its campaign for the destruction of
Trade Unionism.
In the course of his speech, Mr. Merrheim emphasised most
strongly all that was unacceptable to French Trade Unionism
in the methods of the Communist International. A passage
from his speech may be quoted in extenso :—
" We are face to face with two theories, and consistency
is required in view of the obligations entailed by both.
" T h e first one, our own theory of Trade Unionism,stands
for open propaganda, for propaganda in the light of day.
I t does not hesitate to accept_responsibilities^when necessary,

«

— 29 —
in addition to the responsibilities involved by the plans and
resolutions of our organisers.
" The second theory, the doctrine of the Third International
involves the formation of certain nuclei (a theory which was
discussed in the past, and which no one hesitates to discuss
now), to be introduced into the heart of the Trade Unions and
fostered under Party orders and control. And now, please
try to understand me: These nuclei not only have to undertake
a campaign of legal .propaganda, but they will, here, in your
own country, undertake the furtherance of illegal propaganda
as well.
Comrade Frossard, let us discuss this matter
seriously. Does anyone dare to affirm the possibility of
conducting illegal propaganda in our country when we are
all aware that if there are only six in one Office, the police
know what has been said in that Office ? Would anyone
consent to such propaganda ? And yet the principle of this
propaganda is one of the conditions whose acceptance secures
admission to the Communist International, and it is completed
by a second condition: the organisation of civil war.
" You cannot escape from the obligations entailed by
these conditions, for otherwise you could not belong to the
Communist International. It is because of these conditions
that I said yesterday : " 2s o hedging ". Let every policy
govern its own movement and accept the responsibilities which
it involves. We are told to-day that adherence to the Third
International is merely a matter of sentiment, and that we
should associate ourselves with the Communist International
in order to advertise our sympathies with the Russian
Revolution. I have- as much sentiment as anyone, but I also
have my duties and my responsibilities as a militant with
regard to the working classes. Supposing I did obey my
impulse of sympathy for the Russian Revolution and join
the Third International : there would still remain its doctrines
and the action demanded from all its constituent organisations.
If I were to join the Third International because I had
convinced myself of its capacity for revolutionary action and
for giving assistance to the Russian Revolution, I should
agree to all the conditions entailed by my adherence. I should
draw up an Agenda in this Congress, indicating the means
of action advocated and imposed by the Communist
International, i. e., the permanent institution of illegal
propaganda in our local organisations, and the preparation
for civil war in this country.
" You of the Minority have no right to leave the Congress
without adopting this resolution, and thereby proving to the
working classes that you have no confidence in any other
methods but these.
" I d o n o t say that I shall vote in favour of this resolution,
even if you do adopt it, because I am opposed to its conditions;
the question does not concern me. But I do say that you
have no right to adopt this propaganda unless you publicly

;

— 30 —

accept the responsibility for the same before the working
classes. With unfeigned emotion, Mr. Sirolle reminded the
Chair yesterday that this propaganda had been adopted once
before in connection with the Anti-Patriotic Campaign. He
told you of his grief for a comrade who had been sentenced
to death — a victim of the enthusiasm engendered by a
meeting at Brest.
" And what of tomorrow? How many would fall as a
result of this propaganda ? How many innocent people
would you carry away with you ! How many would fail
under the repressive measures provoked by your illegal and
anonymous propaganda ! This is what I am denouncing in
anticipation. I protest against it with all the strength of my
convictions as a militant."
Mr. Merrheim closed his speech with the following words :—
" Comrades, I wish to state in conclusion : This is the
situation in which we are placed : — either the attacks and
libels of our Russian comrades, which apply to you, cease
to-morrow, or you will continue your work of disintegration,
your campaign of calumny and lies and we shall be powerless.
Let us beware, for reaction would then triumph over us with
the White Terror and its attendant evils ".
This speech practically closed the discussion.
At the end Mr. Jouhaux read a proposal presented by
the majority. " The extraordinary Congress of Orleans,
which has been called on to determine the policy of trade
unionism and the future action of the General Confederation
of Labour, maintains the continuity of labour activity and
its allegiance to the methods and theories independently
evolved by the organisation.
I t recalls that the Amiens resolution, born of experience.
and developed in the successive Congresses of Limoges,
Eennes, Paris, Montpellier and Bourges, is of an irrevocable
and not of an incidental or provisional nature. As at Lyons
the Congress repeats that' the Amiens resolution remains the
fundamental charter of French trade unionism.
I t reiterates without reserve that the revolutionary aims
defined by this resolution, which should be pursued with all
the vigour and courage demanded by circumstances and social
events, both foreseen and unforeseen, is more than ever
incompatible with existing institutions, with capitalism and
its political expression.
Confirming the resolution of Lyons, it emphasizes the
revolutionary value of the daily victories obtained, which
improve the conditions of life of the worker and partially
free him from the insecurity of bondage; it declares that
French trade unionism has given precedence to the control
by the workers of industry and commerce. In this way,
through the direct action of the workers, a part of their power
is wrested from the employers, a part of their authority is
wrested from the Government. This procedure will eventually

— 31 —
lead them to profound and absolute change by increasing
their numbers and by developing their power and their means
for revolutionary action.
The Congress recognises that the Economic Council of
Labour constituted by the General Confederation of Labour
and acting under its sole control, is a necessary institution
for the continuity of this work.
Eenewing the Declaration of Lyons, the Congress proclaims
the urgency of nationalisation, on industrial principles, of
the essential industries and means of exchange, and demands
the cooperation of all trade union organisations in carrying
on an intensive campaign for strengthening the General
Confederation of Labour.
Eecognising that this is the general wish of the workers
in all countries, the Congress requests the Industrial Federation
of Trade Unions, in whom the Congress has the fullest
confidence, to promote common action for the immediate
attainment of this social change, and points out that the
present revolutionary period through which the labour world is
passing is a most propitious one for similar action and discussion.
The Congress has entrusted the International Labour
Office with the essential task of introducing to the colonies
and smaller nations the legislation for the protection of labour,
imposed by the trade union organisations in countries with
a greater industrial development and to devote itself to the
vital problem of the equitable distribution of raw materials.
For this purpose only and in consideration of the fact that
the International Labour Office is mainly an intelligence
office, the General Confederation of Labour is represented in
this institution, where it is determined to claim respect for
the fundamental principles of international trade unionism.
In case of any deviations from the above aims, or in the
absence of the necessary initiative, the General Confederation
of Labour would have to reconsider the question of the
continuance of its representation, which up to the present has
been granted with that independence and dignity of trade
unionism which the organised workers are entitled to expect.
The Congress expresses its absolute sympathy with the
workers of other nations.
The Congress wishes to express its warm sympathy with
the Italian wage-earners to whom it offers all encouragement
for their noble example of energy and will power.
The Congress puts on record again its indignation with
regard to the servile instrument of universal reaction, the
French Government, and it affirms its complete solidarity
with revolutionary Eussia.
The Congress demands that the General Confederation of
Labour should organise, in agreement with the Trade Union
International, a ceaseless campaign for a lasting peace, until
such time as the Soviet Eepublic should gain its independence
and a free Eussia at last be governed as she thinks fit.

— 32 —

The Congress is convinced that the union of the proletariat,
the defeat of universal reaction and the total emancipation
of the wage earners, irrespective of their doctrines, creeds,
race and nationality, can only be accomplished by their
complete indépendance, by mutual respect for their individual
principles, in accordance with their organisations, for their
traditions, their ideas and their particular spirit.
The congress invites all the trade union organisations to
act energetically for a complete and general amnesty, and to
strive more especially for the abrogation of the repressive
laws directed against every expression of free thought, and
for the recognition of trade union laws for all.
For these reasons the Congress proclaims that the
constitutive basis of the General Confederation of Labour,
the principles of self government, which it has proclaimed
up to to-day its methods of action and realisation, are in
absolute agreement with the present exigencies of the struggle.
The General Confederation of Labour proclaims once again,
in the face of the whole wTorld, its ideal of economic freedom
attainable by the suppression of wage-slavery. "
A motion by the minority had been previously read in the
Congress (vide appendix) as well as a motion presented by
M. Verdier. The result of the voting was as follows :
Motion of the Majority
1479 votes
Motion of the Minority
602
"
Motion Verdier
44
"
Abstentions
83 "
Thus the extraordinary Congress of Orleans reached a
conclusion similar to the result of the ordinary Congress of
Lyons. At Amiens, as at Orleans, there had been a discussion
respecting the direction to be given to trade union policy.
Against those who attempted to involve French trade unionism
in negative position of systematic opposition to every question
and on every ground, to those who considered that the effort
of French trade unionism should above all things manifest
itself in favour of the Russian revolution, which they regarded
in the light of a.symbol, the Lyons Congress had opposed a
thesis defined by Messrs. Jouhaux and Merrheim, a thesis of
constructive trade unionism which demands a more ample
participation of the workers trade unions in the government
of the nation and a more careful control of production. The
separatist campaign of the Minority had continued after the
Congress of Lyons, and had after many and often painful
episodes, succeeded in obtaining a hearing from the Congress
of the General Confederation of Labour. The Congress had
opened in an atmosphere of violent and personal controversy.
But to begin with, the Minority opposition found no speakers
in the Congress to give a precise and vigorous exposition of
their theses, whilst, on the other hand, the accusations

— 33 —

formulated prior to the Congress were practically never
discussed at all.
But there is a numerical difference between the votes for
the movement at the Lyons Congress and those of the Congress
of Orleans. At Lyons, the motion of the Confederal Congress
had been adopted by 1,633 votes against 324, with 43
abstentions. At Orleans the votes of the opposition are far
more numerous, and it is even possible that the corrected
figure was slightly higher than the figure announced in the
Assembly. I t should, however, be remembered that many
trade unions of the Minority had issued peremptory injunctions which must have prevented a .certain number of the
delegates from voting with the Majority..
I t is possible that the Excutive Committee (Commission
Administrative) and the Confederal Office (Bureau Confédéral)
can really count on a larger majority than the one obtained
at the Orleans Congress. The debates at the National
Committee of the 8th and 9th November are of a nature to
confirm this impression.
MODIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION.

We have already stated that this question could not be
broached by the Congress, but had been considered by a
Commission specially appointed by the Congress.
The
Congress at first had to content itself by voting for an increase
of Confederal contributions in order to meet the expenses of
the propaganda. A more detailed study of the modification
of the Constitution was postponed until the National Confederal
Council of the 8th November. The latter Council adopted
the increase in the price of the stamps. I t likewise consented
to raise the price of the Confederal Card to 1 fr. This increase
in the sums received is to serve, inter aha, for the publication
of a daily Confederal Journal.
The Confederal leaders consider that if the workers'
movement is able to obtain exclusive control of a journal, i t
will secure a precious weapon for the furtherance of its action.

— 34 —

STUDIES AND REPORTS
already

issued.

Where the English or French text of a Report has not yet been published it
will be issued at a later date.

S e r i e s A.
N° 1.

T H E AGREEMENT B E T W E E N T H E SPANISH W O R K E R S ' ORGANISATIONS, issued on September 25th 1920. English and French.

"

2.

T H E D I S P U T E I N T H E METAL INDUSTRY IN I T A L T .
TRADE
UNION CONTROL OF I N D U S T R Y , (First part) issued on September 25th 1920. English and French.

'"

3.

A N N U A L MEETING OF T H E TRADES UNION CONGRESS
issued on October 4th 1920. English and French.

"

4.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF WORKERS I N T H E FOOD AND
DRINK TRADES, issued on October 11th 1920. English
and
French.

"

5.

T H E B R I T I S H GOVERNMENT AND T H E M I N E R S ' FEDERATION O F
GREAT BRITAIN. CONFERENCE B E T W E E N S I R ROBERT HORNE
AND T H E MINERS' F E D E R A T I O N , issued on October
11th
1920.
English and French.

1

6.

T H E CONGRESS OF THE LABOUR AND SOCIALIST I N T E R N A T I O N A L ,
issued on October I 4 t h 1920. English and French.

7.

T H E M I N E R S ' INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, issued on October 19th
1920. English and French.

'

"

1920,

" . 8.

T H E INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.
issued on October 21st 1920.
English and

"

9.

T H E INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS O F METAL W O R K E R S , issued on
October 22nd 1920. English and French.

"

10.

T H E BRITISH GOVERNMENT
GREAT

BRITAIN.

A COMPARISON,
French.

AND T H E M I N E R S ' F E D E R A T I O N OF

CONFERENCE

BETWEEN

THE

GOVERN-

MENT ANT THE TRIPLE INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE, i s s u e d On
October 26th 1920. English and French.
,;

1 1 . T H E DISPUTE IN THE METAL INDUSTRY IN ITALY. TRADE UNION
CONTROL O F I N D U S T R Y . (Second part) issued on November 4th 1920. English and French.

"

12.

T H E FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS O F B O O K B I N D E R S , issued
on November 26th 1920. English and French.

'' 13.

T H E MINERS' STRIKE IN GREAT BRITAIN, issued on December 21th
1920,
English and French.

— 35 —
Series B.
N° 1.

COAL PRODUCTION

I N T H E RUHR

DISTRICT.

Enquiry

by

the

International Labour Office, end of May 1920, issued on September 1st 1920. English and French.
"

2. P A P E R S RELATING TO SCHEMES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR T H E DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FOOD

STUFFS, issued on October 5th 1920. English
"

3.

and French.

T H E CONDITIONS OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTION IN THE UPPER SILESIAN

COALFIELD, issued on December 10th 1920. English and French.

Series C.
N° 1.

BRITISH

LEGISLATION

ON UNEMPLOYMENT

on October 26th 1920.
"

2.

English

INSURANCE,

issued

and French.

GOVERNMENT ACTION I N DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN ITALY,

issued on October 27th 1920. English and French.
"

3.

T H E BULGARIAN

LAW ON COMPULSORY

vember 4th 1920. English
" 4.

T H E ACTION

OF THE SWISS

LABOUR, issued on No-

and French.
GOVERNMENT

IN DEALING

WITH

UNEMPLOYMENT, issued on November 13th 1920. English and
French.
Series D.
N° 1.

S T A F F REGULATIONS ON T H E FRENCH RAILWAYS, issued on Sep-

tember 4th 1920. English

and French.

Series H.
N° 1.

CONSUMERS'

CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES

I N 1919 (Denmark

Sweden), issued on September 8th 1920. English
"

2.

SEVENTH

CONGRESS

OF T H E BELGIAN

CO-OPERATIVE

issued on September 25th 1920. English
"

3.

and

and French.
OFFICE,

and French.

T H E NATIONAL CONGRESS OF F R E N C H CONSUMERS' CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES, issued on November 24th 1920. English

andFrench.

Series K.
N° 1.

F I R S T INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS O F L A N D W O R K E R S ' UNIONS
AFFILIATED TO T H E INTERNATIONAL F E D E R A T I O N OF TRADE

UNION, issued on November, 1920. English and French.
"

2.

AGRARIAN CONDITIONS I N SPAIN, issued on November 10th 1920.

English and French.
"

3.

SMALL HOLDINGS I N SCOTLAND, issued on November 12th 1920.

English
"

4.

and French.

T H E EIGHT-HOUR DAY IN ITALIAN AGRICULTURE, issued on De-

cember 17th 1920. English and French.