DIRECT ACTION. The use of trade union action for po litical ends, a theory imported into Britain from French syndi calist sources. Theoretically, trade union action for political ends can include other methods than the strike, and was originally in tended to do so—as, for example, sabotage (q.v.) on a large scale, the boycott and use of the trade union label. But none of these, except perhaps the first, can be effective for political pressure, and "direct action" in fact has been confined to the strike. Since the object of direct action is to bring pressure upon the whole politi cal system, only a large strike is of use, and "direct action" invari ably has meant either a general strike or a strike affecting so many vital industries that it might as well be general.
The idea was taken to England in the early years of the loth century from the writings of Lagardelle, Griffuelhes and Sorel, the propagandists of the French C.G.T. (Confederation General du Travail, General Confederation of Labour, see SYNDICALISM) . Political action of the ordinary kind was opposed by syndicalists, but pressure by trade union action on a Government was held to be permissible, as being the one means which did not injure but strengthened working class solidarity through the trade unions. "Useful laws can be won by direct action," said M. Sorel--a re markable concession to politicalism—and added that "the deter mining factor in politics is the poltroonery of the Government." "Direct action" strikes may be divided into three classes accord ing to their object : (I) Strikes against war, (2) social general strikes, or revolutionary strikes, (3) strikes to force a Govern ment to enact or refrain from enacting certain legislative or ad ministrative measures. Not all general strikes are "direct action": the famous Swedish general strike of 1909, for example, was a purely industrial battle between the employers and employed.
(1) An actual strike against a war has never yet been effectively carried out, although it has been, of the three, the proposal which has secured most enthusi asm. J. Keir Hardie (Britain) and Edouard Vaillant (France) were most active before the World War in pressing for its adop tion by the Socialist International (see INTERNATIONAL), and the motion to this end is generally known by their combined names. It was received with coolness, particularly by the German dele gates who were on principle opposed to general strikes and further argued that an explicit statement of this kind would make the German Social Democratic Party illegal. The proposal was eventually referred to the Bureau to ascertain the opinion of the various national parties and their industrial organizations. By August 1914 only a trivial number of these had answered. The policy of the Socialist International in August 1914 was therefore defined by a compromise resolution drafted by Jean Jaures, "Should war break out it is their (the Socialist Parties) duty to bring it promptly to an end and with all their energies to use the political and economic crisis created by the war to rouse the masses of the people and to hasten the fall of capitalist domina tion." This resolution, literally taken, would have meant revolution as a reply to the declaration of war; it was, however, not applied by any but the Russian section (in March
. Since the war the idea of direct action against war has been much more power fully supported. In this connection the intervention of the "Coun cil of Action" in 1920, whose strike threat removed the possibility of war with Russia, must be cited.
(2) The "social general strike," has figured on the programmes of many syndicalist groups, especially of the Industrial Workers of the World (q.v.). But it has never, in western Europe, actually been called, unless we count upheavals in Spain (and especially Catalonia) before the war, which were directed by political elements. The "Commu nalist" insurrections of 1873, for example, were accompanied by extensive cessations of work, and in one or two towns juntas of the International were for a short while actually in power. The only important cases of direct action with the object of subverting the whole political constitution of a state took place in Russia in 1905. The first strike took place on Oct. 17 and lasted till Nov. 1; many middle class elements (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in Moscow and St. Petersburg took part and the Government was severely shaken. Extended suffrage and an effective constitution were granted. The Tsarist Government, however, quickly recovered and began to withdraw its concessions and, as a first step, ex cluded Poland from the provisions of its decree. In reply the St. Petersburg Soviet, or Council of Workers and Peasants' deputies, which had become the recognized revolutionary authority, called a second political general strike (Nov. 14). The Government, however, learning from its previous experience, merely stood aside and allowed the workers to feel the full brunt of the consequent hunger and disorganization. As the Soviet had no troops, nor was able to seduce the garrison, it had to call off the strike on Nov. 19 without securing concessions. On Dec. 20, as a result of the arrest of the whole Soviet, another general strike was called, which in Moscow turned into an insurrection, which was sup pressed.
(3) Direct action to force a Gov ernment to take or refrain from a certain measure has, contrary to a general impression, frequently been practised. As a political instrument, however, it has been much discredited by the levity with which the French C.G.T. has called general strikes without adequate preparation. In 1909 and in 1919 complete fiascoes re sulted, and since the division of French trade unions into "C.G.T. U.," "C.G.T." and "C.G.T. autonome," general strike calls have been issued with even less reflection, especially by the first-named body (e.g. the "Sacco-Vanzetti strike" of 1927).
In earlier years, even in France, considerable victories were achieved. Direct action was taken in 1902–o3 to secure the clos ing of the private Labour exchanges, in 1903 to secure state tech nical education and in 1905-06 for the eight-hour day. In the first case the success was complete, in the second some advantages were secured and in the third none. In 1902 the Swedish trade unions called a limited three-day general strike to destroy a re actionary Government franchise bill, which was withdrawn. In 2893 a Belgian general strike secured universal suffrage, but gen eral strike calls in 1902 and 1913 for further suffrage reform, though punctually obeyed, secured no advantages. Pre-war ex perience of limited direct action indicated that the object desired must be one that the Government would rather voluntarily con cede than face the dislocation of industry, but at the same time must be sufficiently far-reaching to secure the enthusiasm of the workers and the neutrality of sections of the middle class. Thus the Dutch general strike of 1903 (to secure trade union rights for civil servants) met with scarcely any response.
The most famous cases of limited direct action are, of course, the threatened British general strike of 1925 and the actual gen eral strike of 1926 (see GENERAL STRIKE). An unusual but start lingly successful form of direct action is the strike in defence of a threatened form of Government. In Germany, in 1920, the "Kapp putsch," by which a group of monarchist officers had overturned the Republican government, was expeditiously ended by a general strike called with the assent of the fallen rulers.
See G. D. H. Cole, The World of Labour (1913) ; R. W. Postgate, The Bolshevik Theory (1920) ; W. Mellor, Direct Action (192o) .
(R. W. P.)
