WHAT IS WRONG IN FRANCE.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 May 1920, Page 4

WHAT IS WRONG IN FRANCE.

POWER OF EXTREMISTS. (By Alexander M. Thompson). PARIS, March 5. The Labour situation in France, as explained to me by M. Marcel Caehin M. ltenaudel, and all the leaders with whom I have discussed it in the last few days, is very like the situation m Britain, only more so. Add the greater excitability of the French to the vague restlessness of the British, and you have as clear a diagnosis as can be.given of the French workers’ state of mind.

M. Cachiti asserts that an immense majority of them are consciously and definitely resolved no longer to exert themselves for tlie private profit ol capitalists; but other authorities not less qualified to pronounce an opinion declare that such clearness of motive exists only among the extreme few, and that the mass are much more concerned to secure the means of frequent access to the kinema and kindred little pleasures than to establish a new and idealistic socialistic order. But Caehin and all the working-class leaders with whom I have talked are cordially agreed that the extremists here, as in Britain, are much more influential than numerous.

Here, as in Britain, they are enrages, the wild men, who are most regular in their attendance at branch meetings of tlicir trade unions or the party who offer themselves as candidates for office, and who make it their business to proclaim their opinions and register their votes.

The wild men were the cause, undoubtedly, of the recent abortive railway strike; on that point there is only one opinion. None of the leaders wanted a! strike, and all of them were profoundly relieved to get it settled. But, as M. Caehin points out, the fact remains that an immense majority of the rank and file, being called upon to stop work, actually did stop, which they certainly would not have done for such a cause before the war.

The response to the strike slogan is a characteristic symptom of the time’s wide-spread discontent and disquiet. In a few weeks or months trouble may recur among railwaymeu or in another industry for no better reason. Tlie. miners, whose sympathetic support of the railwaymen was greatly feared, were appeased a week ago by the passing of a legislative measure which secures to them a retiring pension of 1,500 francs a year (nominally £6O), provided by equal contributions from employers and workers, with corresponding allowances for their children. They are entitled to draw half of this amount after 15 years’ service.

If the measure had not been passed, I am told that the miners would certainly have joined the railway workers, anti the Bill was therefore rushed through the Chamber in three days. As to the possibility of anything like armed revolution, the Socialist leaders regard the idea as absurd. M. Caehin believes that such ah event, leading to the overthrow of the capitalist regime, is quite possible and even likely in Germany, and that it would produce a very grave repercussion in France. He believes that, in any case, French workers will make determined and systematic efforts to substitute public for private ownership and to reduce the State’s war indebtedness. But while he regards the future as full of uncertainty and peril, lie believes that whatever action may be taken will be purely industrial.

As for M„ Itenaudel, his visit to the Strasbourg Socialist Congress appears to have filled him with a more hopeful view of the future. He has been much impressed with the progress towards moderate counsels betrayed by many former extremists, who declare that revolution is at present impossible, because “the peasants are not with us” and to try it would only bring' reaction. Another extremist declares that “even in a capitalist regime the workers must produce in order to benefit themselves.” The congress generally, lie thinks, showed complete disagreement with a Lenin policy and marked the beginning of a return to practical politics by the French Socialist Party.

On the suggestion that financial stress and poverty in France may lead to a Socialist revolution he is emphatically incredulous.

“Socialism,” lie says, “will never be founded on blind revolt against human misery. Socialism can only be based on the deliberate thought of the people when well-being is assured.” Finally, lie remarks with a smile, “Paradoxical as it may seem, the last thing we revolutionaries wish ior or work for is revolution.”