The Philosophy of Georges Sorel

by Pierre Tru Dank

Short Biography of Sorel

Georges Sorel was born in 1847 to a petit bourgeois family of wine merchants. He grew up during France's transition to a modern democratic nation, a period marked by the 20-year rule of Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. This era saw the great financial bourgeoisie shaping the infrastructure of modern France. Sorel pursued engineering at the Ecole Polytechnique, a state technical school, and began working for the department of roads and bridges at the age of 20. 

Throughout his time in the state engineering corps, including during the Franco-Prussian war and the Paris Commune, Sorel found himself isolated, working first in Corsica and later in Algiers. After 25 years of service and detachment from contemporary France, he retired from the engineering corps, relocated to Paris, and embraced an intellectual lifestyle. 

In 1894, Sorel made significant contributions to L’Ere nouvelle, the first French Marxist journal. Subsequently, he co-founded Le Devenir Social with notable figures in French Marxism, including Paul Lafargue (Marx's son-in-law), Paul Bonnet (founder of L’Ere Nouvelle), and Georges Deville (the first translator of Capital into French).

The period of Cercle Proudhon presented challenges for Sorel, leading him to grow disillusioned with syndicalist politics due to democratic compromises within the CGT. He became more focused on addressing the degenerative aspects of the Third Republic's culture and institutions. This prompted him to consider a strategic alliance with Action Francaise to revitalize French bourgeois society. However, Sorel's involvement in Cercle Proudhon was primarily aimed at securing a favorable position in the French political landscape for his disciple Eduard Berth.

In 1910, a book review critical of Charles Peguy's work was published in the Action Francaise newspaper without Sorel's knowledge, leading some to believe he supported monarchist and nationalist ideas in France. Despite some interaction with Action Francaise, Sorel could never fully align himself with Charles Maurras due to their differing views on nationalism and monarchism.

By 1914, Sorel strongly opposed the war and the union sacree, which prohibited strikes during wartime. In 1917, he became a supporter of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, articulating his defense of Lenin in an article later included in an edition of "Reflections on Violence." Additionally, in 1918, Sorel added a postscript to Materials For a Theory of The Proletariat.

“This book was not printed until 1918; the war has posed new problems which I dare not broach at this time. Only one point seems certain: that the victory of the Entente was a triumph for demagogic plutocracy. This plutocracy wants to suppress the Bolsheviks who frighten it; its military forces are sufficient to carry out this operation. But what will the plutocrats gain by the extermination of the Russian revolutionaries? Will not the blood of martyrs be effective once again? One must not forget that without the massacres of June 1848 and May 1871, socialism would have had great trouble in making this principle of the class struggle acceptable in France. The bloody object lesson which will take place in Russia will make all workers feel that there is a contradiction between democracy and the mission of the proletariat. The idea of constituting a government of producers will not perish; the cry: “Death to the intellectuals!” for which the Bolsheviks are so often reproached will perhaps end by imposing itself on the workers of the entire world. One must be blind not to see that the Russian Revolution is the dawn of a new era.”

— Georges Sorel, Materials For a Theory of The Proletariat

By 1922, he passed away, leaving us with no insight into his thoughts on the rise of Fascism in Italy. However, his correspondence with an Italian liberal suggests that his views on fascism were generally negative, despite potentially praising Mussolini in private back in 1919. While he briefly touches on the Russian Revolution, he does not delve into Lenin's governance or Stalin's rule. According to Larry Portis, Georges Sorel requested a black flag to be placed on his coffin, symbolizing his hostility towards the Third Republic.

The Collective Myth

Georges Sorel believed that the concept of myth serves as the primary motivator behind collective action within social movements. These myths consist of crafted images portraying the complete victory of the cause, fueling and guiding the actions of those involved.

“In the course of these studies, I have established something so simple that I did not believe it had to be emphasized: men who participate in great social movements represent their immediate action in the form of images of battles assuring the triumph of their cause. I proposed calling these constructions myths, the knowledge of which is so important for the historian: the syndicalist general strike and Marx’s catastrophic revolution are myths. I have given as remarkable examples of myths those which were constructed by early Christianity, the Reformation, the French Revolution and by Mazzini’s followers. I wanted to show that it is not necessary to try to analyze such systems of images in the same way that one breaks down something into its elements; that they should be taken as a whole and as historical forces; that it is necessary above all to keep from comparing the accomplished facts with the images which men had adopted prior to action.”

— Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence

Sorel highlights the presence of collective myths in the histories of Christianity, the Reformation, the French Revolution, Mazzini’s followers, Marx’s revolutionary vision, and the syndicalists' general strike. These myths, centered on achieving complete victory, contrast with utopias, which only evoke passivity and faith in inevitable progress. Myths, in contrast, serve as a call to action, instilling in people the belief that progress is attainable through deliberate human endeavor.

“As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it so odious to socialists who are afraid of revolution; they do all they can to shake the confidence felt by the workers in the preparations they are making for the revolution; and in order to succeed in this they cast ridicule on the idea of the general strike, which alone has a value as a motive force. One of the chief means employed by them is to represent it as a utopia; this is easy enough, as there are very few myths which are perfectly free from any utopian element.

The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost pure; they allow us to understand the activity, the sentiments, and the ideas of the masses as they prepare themselves to enter on a decisive struggle; they are not descriptions of things but expressions of a will to act. A utopia is, on the contrary, an intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing societies in order to estimate the amount of good and evil they contain; it is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be broken into parts and of which certain pieces have been shaped in such a way that they can (with a few alterations) be fitted into future legislation. – Whilst contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of utopias has always been to direct men’s minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the system; it is not surprising then that so many believers in utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired greater experience of political life. – A myth cannot be refuted since it is, at bottom, identical to the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalysable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. A utopia, on the other hand, can be discussed like any other social constitution; the spontaneous movements it presupposes can be compared with those actually observed in the course of history, and we can in this way evaluate their verisimilitude; it is possible to refute it by showing that the economic system on which it has been made to rest is incompatible with the necessary conditions of modern production.”

— Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence

Myth serves as an embodiment of the group's convictions, propelling them into action. In contrast, utopias simply serve as benchmarks to gauge the presence of good and evil in society. Utopias primarily drive reforms and foster the notion of inevitable progress. As a result, revolutionaries must imbue the masses with myth in order to secure victory.

Violence and The General Strike

In Sorelian terms, violence is defined as action that disrupts the capitalist system. Strikes are considered violent because they halt production. While violent confrontations may occur during strikes, these incidents do not solely determine the violent nature of the strike.

“The danger which threatens the future of the world may be avoided if the proletariat hold on with obstinacy to revolutionary ideas, so as to realize as much as possible Marx’s conception. Everything may be saved if the proletariat, by their use of violence, manage to re-establish the division into classes and so restore to the bourgeoisie something of its energy: that is the great aim towards which the whole thought of men who are not hypnotized by the events of the day but who think of the conditions of tomorrow must be directed. Proletarian violence, carried on as a pure and simple manifestation of the sentiment of class struggle, appears thus as a very fine and heroic thing; it is at the service of the immemorial interests of civilization; it is not perhaps the most appropriate method of obtaining immediate material advantages, but it may save the world from barbarism.

To those who accuse the syndicalists of being obtuse and ignorant people, we have the right to ask them to consider the economic decadence for which they are working. Let us salute the revolutionaries as the Greeks saluted the Spartan heroes who defended Thermopylae and helped preserve civilization in the ancient world.”

— Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence

According to Sorel, violence serves as a rejuvenating force that prompts the bourgeoisie to move away from passivity and resort to force against the workers. This escalation ultimately paves the way for the proletariat's ultimate victory. In contrast, the current dilemma lies in the influence of bourgeois socialists who maintain the bourgeoisie's passivity and attempt to placate the workers with reforms, leading to a period of economic decline. Any action that disrupts the system's operations and social harmony serves the interests of civilization by halting economic decline.

Today, the primary source of transformative violence appears to be the libertarians. They seek to liberate social life from the state and expedite the class division process.

Pessimism

Pessimism, for Sorel, is deeply influenced by his Jansenian upbringing. The true meaning of pessimism is often misconstrued. In the following passage, Sorel contrasts pessimism with disillusioned optimism and critiques the role optimism plays in politics:

“So little are we prepared to understand pessimism that we generally employ the word quite incorrectly: we wrongly take pessimists to be disillusioned optimists. When we meet a man who, having been unfortunate in his enterprises, deceived in his most legitimate ambitions, humiliated in his affections, expresses his sorrow in the form of a violent revolt against the bad faith of his colleagues, the stupidity of society or the blindness of destiny, we are disposed to regard him as a pessimist – whereas we ought nearly always to regard him as a disheartened optimist who has not had the courage to rethink his ideas and who cannot understand why so many misfortunes have befallen him, in contrast to the general law governing the production of happiness. The optimist in politics is an inconstant and even dangerous man, because he takes no account of the great difficulties presented by his projects; these projects seem to him to possess a force of their own which tends to bring about their realization all the more easily as, in his opinion, they are destined to produce more happiness. He frequently thinks that small reforms of the political system and, above all, of government personnel will be sufficient to direct the movement of society in such a way as to mitigate those evils of the modern world which seem so hideous to sensitive souls. As soon as his friends come to power he declares that it is necessary to let things alone for a while, not to be too hasty, and to learn to be content with whatever their good intentions suggest; it is not always self-interest that dictates these expressions of satisfaction, as people have often believed: self-interest is strongly aided by vanity and by the illusions of poor-quality philosophy. The optimist moves with remarkable ease from revolutionary anger to the most ridiculous social pacifism.” 

— Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence

Here, the pessimist is not seen as someone disillusioned with the world and planning a rebellion; instead, they are juxtaposed with the optimist who thinks their reforms alone will bring about human happiness. Politically, optimists are highly fickle, as they can swiftly transition from intense revolutionary fervor to advocating social pacifism. This behavior is exemplified by the leftists during the Biden administration, who shifted from revolutionary rhetoric during Trump's tenure to discussions of social peace and reform once Joe Biden assumed office.

“Pessimism is quite a different thing from the caricatures that are usually presented of it; it is a metaphysics of morals rather than a theory of the world; it is a conception of a march towards deliverance that is narrowly conditioned: on the one hand, by the experimental knowledge that we have acquired of the obstacles which oppose themselves to the satisfaction of our imaginations (or, if one prefers, by the feeling of social determinism) – on the other, by a profound conviction of our natural weakness. These three aspects of pessimism should never be separated, although as a rule little attention is paid to their close connection.

1) The concept of pessimism derives from the fact that literary historians have been very struck by the complaints of the great poets of antiquity about the sorrow and pain that constantly threaten mankind. There are few people who have not at least once experienced a piece of good fortune; but we are surrounded by evil forces which are always ready to spring an ambush and overwhelm us; from this are born the very real sufferings which arouse the sympathy of all men, even of those who have been treated most favorably by fortune; hence the literature of grief has had an appeal throughout almost all history. But we would have a very imperfect idea of pessimism if we considered only this kind of literature; as a general rule, in order to understand a doctrine it is not sufficient to study it in an abstract manner, nor even as it occurs in isolated people: we need to find out how it is manifested in historical groups; it is for this reason that I am here led to add the two elements that were mentioned earlier.

2) The pessimist regards social conditions as forming a system bound together by an iron law which cannot be evaded, as something in the form of one block, and which can only disappear through a catastrophe which involves the whole. If this theory is admitted, it then becomes absurd to attribute the evils from which society suffers to a few wicked men; the pessimist is not subject to the bloodthirsty follies of the optimist driven mad by the unforeseen obstacles that his projects meet; he does not dream of bringing about the happiness of future generations by slaughtering existing egoists.

3) The most fundamental element of pessimism is its method of conceiving the path towards deliverance. A man would not go far in the examination either of the laws of his own wretchedness or of fate, which so shock the ingenuousness of our pride, if he were not borne up by the hope of putting an end to these tyrannies by an effort to be attempted with a whole band of companions. The Christians would not have discussed original sin so much if they had not felt the necessity of justifying the deliverance (which was to result from the death of Jesus) by supposing that this sacrifice had been made necessary by a frightful crime attributable to humanity. If the people of the West were much more occupied with original sin than those of the East it was not solely, as Taine thought, due to the influence of Roman law, but also because the Latin peoples, having a more elevated conception of imperial majesty than the Greeks, regarded the sacrifice of the Son of God as having realized an extraordinarily marvelous deliverance; from this proceeded the necessity of deepening the mysteries surrounding human wretchedness and destiny.”

— Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence

Pessimism entails a belief in our inherent human frailty and the inevitability of events that unfold around us. It acknowledges that outcomes stem from a combination of deliberate human actions and the influence of the unyielding laws within the existing system. Pessimists do not seek to eradicate existing egoists to secure future generations' happiness because they recognize that such endeavors would be futile. Instead, they understand that true change can only arise from efforts to disrupt the existing societal structure and reconstruct it.

Study on Vico

Giambattista Vico's works On The Study of Methods of Our Time and The New Science are two 18th-century books that present a philosophy of historical development. Vico attributes this development to psychological laws guided by Providence, outlining the preparation of human consciousness through various historical stages marked by the emergence of religious and juridical forms.

While Sorel diverges from Vico's idealism and much of his methodology, he does draw interesting concepts from Vico that he integrates into Marxism alongside the Pragmatism of William James. One such concept is the Viconian idea of Ricorso, or recurrences, representing significant disruptions in the continuity of juridical systems. Sorel adopts this notion to formulate his idea of revolution as a mass reconstitution of the laws governing social relations.

Additionally, Sorel incorporates Bergson's concept of Elan Vital into the social sciences to develop his notion of autonomous, self-governing syndicates. The following excerpt reflects on Vico's analysis of the tendency of democratic and plutocratic societies to gravitate towards dictatorship and monarchy, a notion that Sorel challenges but attributes to Vico's "law of royalty."

Vico's concept of the law of royalty involves a progression from an aristocratic barbarian government to a civilized monarchical rule based on natural equity. He criticizes modern interpreters of Roman law for overlooking this principle. Vico explains that in democracies where citizens prioritize individual interests at the expense of the nation, a single individual seizes power, claiming all public matters while citizens focus solely on personal affairs. This transition, according to Vico, ultimately benefits the people as monarchs take charge when citizens become detached from their country.

While Vico's ideas emphasize the progression towards monarchical power for the good of the nation, Sorel challenges these idealistic notions. He points out that recognizing the necessity of certain changes for the state's well-being does not guarantee their occurrence. The concrete mechanisms and real processes driving such transformations remain elusive and beyond mere theoretical speculation.

I agree with Sorel. Even though the transition from a ruinous plutocratic and democratic society to a powerful monarchy may appear appropriate, it does not guarantee that it will occur. However, I do believe there is a historical tendency for dictatorships to arise from deteriorating plutocratic societies, without deeming it an inevitable law. To explore the similarities and differences in the methodologies of Vico and Sorel, we can examine the following excerpt.

“There is considerable difference between the modern point of view and Vico’s. He believed that psychological evolution took place in one mass, across the whole of society and developed exactly as the history of the peoples themselves. Once complete, it could not be reproduced unless history itself began again. Today we see things quite differently: psychological evolutions are sequences with their own existence and autonomy, arising in any era, mixing in society in the most confused way. Rather than a homogenous bloc, we have an interlacing of evolutions, which cannot be brought under any general definition because at any given instant we find them at all moments in their development. But economic conditions, social relations, all the historical complexes act on these evolutions to favor certain developments.”

— Georges Sorel, Study on Vico

Sorel acknowledges that despite many of Vico's formulations being inaccurate, he considers him a significant figure worthy of study for his contributions to the philosophy of history. This sentiment is exemplified in the following excerpt:

“Vico saw very well that events had to be combined: he saw very well that they have to be assembled, according to what is concrete and living, according to what is human, which is to say the laws of psychology. That he did not succeed in his attempt is not important, his glory is secured by having recognized that history has an identity of substance. Of course he did not understand this identity of substance exactly as do the moderns; but it was not yet possible for him to take, in the first half of the 18th century, the path that Marx would point out in the middle of the next century, a path that even today is little traveled and ill-defined.”

— Georges Sorel, Study on Vico

In Sorel's critique of Jaures, he disputes the idealist notion that instincts of sympathy and the aptitude for labor are the driving forces of humanity, as these aspects, according to Vico, only emerge after the establishment of classical institutions. Sorel highlights Jaures' flawed idealism in his argument.

Next, Sorel discusses the proletarian revolution and refutes the criticism that it would lead to a violent upheaval compromising European civilization. He argues that for the proletarian revolution to be successful, the proletariat must first develop an awareness of its historical role, followed by the adaptation of labor organization to support collective production. Sorel emphasizes the importance of maintaining juridical continuity during the transition, suggesting that the reconstitution of the juridical code without capitalist laws would not significantly disrupt legal principles.

Sorel's perspective suggests that the proletariat, as inheritors of capitalism and the products of civilization, will bring about a transformative but largely peaceful transition in the legal and economic structures.

Pragmatism

Sorel criticized William James, stating that some of his ideas were inadequate due to being founded on abstractions and contradictions. Nonetheless, Georges Sorel still drew influence from William James and evaluated its utility in The Utility of Pragmatism.

“One of the most fruitful advantages that William James claimed for pragmatism, in comparison to all the other philosophies, consists in the fact that: “Ours is the only articulate attempt in the field to say positively what truth actually consists of. Our denouncers have literally nothing to oppose it as an alternative. For them, when an idea is true, it is true, and there the matter terminates, the word ‘true’ being undefinable. The relation of the true idea to its object, being, as they think, unique, it can be expressed in terms of nothing else, and needs only to be named for anyone to recognize and understand it. Moreover, it is invariable and universal, the same in every single instance of truth, however diverse the ideas, the realities, and the other relations between them may be. “Our pragmatist view, on the contrary, is that the truth relation is a definitely experienceable relation, and therefore describable as well as namable; that it is not unique in kind, and neither invariable nor universal.”

— Georges Sorel, The Utility of Pragmatism

Sorel aims to combine pragmatism with historical materialism by devising a method that categorizes social activities into four Citizenries—scholarly, aesthetic, religious, and moral. These groups are tasked with creating and upholding traditions.

“For the pragmatist, tradition is an element of the highest order in knowledge, provided that the tradition is genuine—that is, that it is a result of trial and error by competent men. Here are three observations which seem to me particularly worthy of mention: tradition ought to have long since entered into close relations with the life of a glorious Cité (scholarly, aesthetic, moral or religious); it ought to have been personified by men of superior talent; it ought to be rich in good results. When tradition is thus well established, the pragmatist does not hesitate to presume in its favor by virtue of which its affirmations have the right to be received until there are solid proofs to the contrary.” 

— Georges Sorel, The Utility of Pragmatism

The concept of the Cités aligns with historical materialism's goal of comprehending social forces and pragmatism's objective of applying philosophy practically and determining truth through favorable outcomes. Sorel selectively adopts pragmatic elements that are beneficial and integrates them into Marxism, discarding those that are not useful.

Voluntarism

Sorel was a voluntarist and held a voluntaristic view of history. However, we should not confuse Sorel's voluntarism with that of the anarchists, who descend into historical nihilism. Sorel maintained that there is a process to history, but he also believed that man is the master of his own destiny.

“Idealism and determinism produce a fictitious and deceptive continuity. Marx teaches us to seek historical continuity in what is truly real—that is, in men furnished with the means to act upon nature. Men are “the authors and the actors of their own drama,” and “social relationships also are produced by men just as are cloth, linen, etc.” The continuity of history manifests itself in two ways: by means of the development of productive forces which come into being side by side, or by means of the development of men whose minds become transformed according to psychological laws. This psychological part has been quite neglected by the Marxists, who have, in general, remained aloof from the contemporary philosophical movement. In Marx’s time psychology was little studied by the Germans and few had comprehended the treasures contained in the work of Vico.”

— Georges Sorel, Critical Essays In Marxism

Here, Sorel provides insight into the governing process of history, emphasizing that man is ultimately the architect of his own fate. However, the actions and outcomes of individuals are influenced by both the development of the forces of production and the psychological laws governing the population. Sorel argues that historical progress is the result of conscious human effort, with the regime of coercion playing a crucial role in preparing a class like the proletariat to overthrow this regime and transition into a system of voluntary association.

According to Sorel, if history is shaped by deliberate human actions, then the most logical form of social relations would be based on voluntary association and free contracts. This concept of voluntarism, inherited from Marx or at least true to the spirit of Marx, underpins Sorel's ideas. In Materials For a Theory of the Proletariat, Sorel critiques democratic socialists and their opposition to federalism.

“Proudhons republic contains too many libertarian, anti-militarist and federalist elements for it to be developed by our modem democrats, who have an unlimited confidence in the economic capacities of the state, are deluded by chauvinism and are as fanatical about unity as the most ultramontane Catholics. Proudhon believed that the state can usefully intervene in the economy in order to create new institutions (insurance, banks, railroads), but that it should immediately turn over management to citizens. In 1860 he had seen the maneuvers of agents sent by the Emperor into Belgium in order to prepare its annexation; he advised the Belgians (like the Swiss) to avoid any act that French chauvinists could interpret as a provocation to justify a war of conquest. He was convinced that the treaties which guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium and Switzerland did not protect the two countries against the voracity of our democracy. Proudhon undoubtedly recognized the impossibility of attaining federalism through democratic development, for he seems to have believed that this regime should be imposed on France by victorious outsiders, just as the parliamentary monarchy had been imposed on our fathers.”

— Georges Sorel, Materials For a Theory of The Proletariat

Here, Sorel draws a comparison between the statist unity advocated by the democrats and the aspirations of the ultramontanist Catholics. He aligns with Proudhon's view that the economy should be controlled by civil society, with minimal state intervention. This illustrates that while syndicalism is a socialist system that involves planning, it also embodies libertarian principles, voluntarism, and a laissez-faire approach, particularly outside of decentralized planning for capital goods.

Socialism of Free Association and Mutual Contracts

Georges Sorel, despite writing little about the composition of a socialist society to avoid utopianism, offers insights into his vision of socialism. Through his consistent criticisms of statism and the prioritization of production over social morality, it is evident that he strongly opposes the state. Sorel advocates for what he terms the "association of producers," a central hub within a society of autonomous productive federations governed by free contracts. In the following quote from Socialist Future of The Syndicates, we will explore Sorel's stance towards the statist socialists of his era, such as Jean Jaurès.

“Sociologists confront socialists with the evidence of all known revolutions and ask how one can accept a hypothesis which is based on no historical example. Marx knew the answer very well for he wrote: "All social movements until now have been carried out by minorities for the benefit of minorities.” This empirical law is easily explained when we recall what state ownership has been in modem history. Moreover, the state has played a substantial role in the formation of present industry: “The emerging bourgeoisie could not do without the constant intervention of the state.” The thinking of bourgeois socialists is dominated by the statist prejudices of the bourgeoisie.

In a recent book, the most gifted sociologist of the universities, Emile Durkheim, proposes that the organization of corporations and professional federations be subject to the “general action of the state.” In the conclusions of his speeches of June 19 and 26 and July 3, 1897, on agriculture, Jaurès proved to be less favorable to associations than the professor from Bordeaux. He declared that henceforth one can form a rather exact idea of what the socialist world will be: “We know that in the property of tomorrow, in the society of tomorrow, the four essential forces which are beginning to form and appear today will combine and function. The first force is the individual—the right of the individual to develop freely without any other limit except to prevent him from exploiting others in any way. . . . There is another element. . . the emerging syndicates, reactionary today, socialist tomorrow, but in any case . . . the first units, in certain respects, of a more collective organization of labor. Then above these agricultural or worker syndicates, or professional groupings by trade, there is the town which, in certain respects and in spite of the division of labor among the diverse parts of the territory, is the first complete unit—richer than the professional organizations, which include only an exclusive and limited element. And finally, above the town, there is the nation, the central organism of unity and perpetuity.” It will be noticed that in replacing professional federations by the commune as a middle ground between the local corporations and the state, Jaurès markedly increases the economic power of the state.

I will not stop to discuss in detail this idea which I do not understand clearly, so much is this language devoid of any precision. Besides, is all this really new? Are they not old theories dressed up in beautiful new clothing? The unification of trade associations in the commune seems to be a pure replica of medieval history. If the word “nation” is changed to “kingdom,” this becomes a traditional conservative idea. I simply want to call attention to the difficulty which the most intelligent people have in delineating a plan that is independent of traditional political forms. Not only does Jaurès not exclude the state, but he makes it the regulator and master of industrial life!”

— Georges Sorel, Socialist Future of The Syndicates

Here, Sorel criticizes the top-down statist models of the bourgeois socialists in France, led by Jean Jaurès' French Socialist Party, for resembling a feudal regime that restricts the productive forces based on a certain social morality. This type of socialism is vehemently opposed by Sorel as it goes against the vitality of the proletariat and his vision of socialism characterized by autonomous self-governing federations. Additionally, he establishes a strong connection between the corporatist guild administration proposed by Jaurès and conservative or feudal socialism, both of which prioritize the subordination of production in the name of social morality.

Regarding the replacement of the state, Sorel later quotes Georges Platon's article advocating for the "Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat," a concept he supports. However, Sorel coins his own term for this, the "association of producers," a phrase also used by Marx. In the subsequent excerpt from Socialist Future of The Syndicates, Sorel delves into the nature of these productive federations.

“The tactics of the new unions are justified perfectly by the exigencies of the situation. But people have tried to give it a theoretical basis—wrongly so, in my humble opinion. Experience having shown how difficult it is to keep workers in syndicates, it seems strange to abandon the mutualist idea. Besides, even in the dockers' union, which was at first conceived in a spirit entirely opposed to that of the old trade-unionism, it was very quickly recognized that it would be useful to give family aid of 100 francs in case of death.

In this question, as in all practical questions, we must keep our sense of proportion. The rules of the old unions were not flexible enough; dues for all benefits should not be made obligatory, so as not to alienate the less fortunate; only unemployment or health insurance need be mandatory, but types of assistance vary according to circumstances. If quality is an essential element of success in social struggles as well as in battles, numbers must not be neglected entirely. The question of principles does not appear to be in doubt: to reduce the syndicates to societies of resistance only is to pose a formidable barrier to the development of the proletariat; to open the workers to surrendering to the authoritative influence of bourgeois demagogues by reducing the importance of economic forces which can contribute to maintaining the autonomy of the working class; to prevent it from elaborating new juridical principles in accordance with its own manner of living; in a word, to refuse it the possibility of becoming a class for itself. The mutual societies founded by the syndicates do not function on the same principles as bourgeois banks; instead of being inspired by capitalist models, they maintain an appearance of proletarian solidarity. The more there are distinct connections in the unorganized and confused milieu of workers, the more one is sure new elements of social reorganization are being carefully prepared. There is much talk of organizing the proletariat: but to organize does not consist in placing automatons on boxes! Organization is the passage from order which is mechanical, blind and determined from the outside, to organic, intelligent and fully accepted differentiation; in a word, it is a moral development. It is reached only by long practice and experience acquired in life. All institutions are formed in the same way; they do not result from decisions by great statesmen, any more than by scholars' calculations. They are made by embracing and condensing all the elements of life. On what grounds would the proletariat then escape the necessity of “developing itself’ by this method?

One thing has always astonished me: the aversion of many Marxists to cooperatives. They maintain that the workers, once occupied with minute details of grocery and bakery, would be lost to socialism and would cease to understand the class struggle. From this desertion would come, at least in Italy, the increasing influence of the petit bourgeois mentality in the Socialist Party. What is the evidence for this lamented desertion? Only one thing: the bad composition of the Italian Socialist Party, and this bad composition has led to numerous articles in Critica Sociale. The test of practice is the true test of ideas: if the workers perceive that their leaders are not capable of directing them, they abandon them as soon as they leave the realm of vague manifestoes and come into contact with economic life. The leaders of the Socialist Movement are supposed to serve men, just as theory exists for practice. What would happen, then, if, after the social revolution, industry should be directed by groups who are today incapable of managing a cooperative?”

— Georges Sorel, Socialist Future of The Syndicates

While Sorel may have moments of alignment with Vaush, he makes a valid observation regarding cooperatives. He suggests that although not inherently socialist institutions, they serve a crucial role in dual power and in training the proletariat to manage production. Additionally, Sorel highlights the function of syndicates in providing services that bourgeois socialists typically advocate for state provision, such as health and employment insurance. He emphasizes the importance of the moral development of the proletariat to enable self-organization and the evolution into a coherent class, a recurring theme in Sorel's works. 

Sorel concludes Socialist Future of The Syndicates with this statement:

“The development of the proletariat includes a powerful moral discipline exerted on its members: it can be exercised through its syndicates, which are supposed to remove all the forms of organization inherited from the bourgeoisie. In order to sum up my thinking in capsule form, I say that the whole future of socialism rests on the autonomous development of the workers’ syndicates.”

— Georges Sorel, Socialist Future of The Syndicates

Therefore, it can be inferred that Sorelian socialism advocates for a system of autonomous self-governing productive entities or federations. The formation of syndicates instills in the proletariat the necessary moral discipline to confront the demands of modern industrial production and evolve into a coherent class. This concept is rooted in the principle of Elan Vital borrowed by Sorel from Bergson and applied to the social sciences, despite his critical stance on creative evolution. The objective is to liberate civil society from state control and entrust it to the autonomous direction of syndicates, fostering the emergence of new post-capitalist social relations. Elan vital, translating to "vital impetus" in French, refers to a creative energy that Bergson attributed to all organisms, driving their self-development. While Sorel disagreed with the biological aspects of creative evolution, he adopted the term to depict the period following a general strike, where the proletariat would reorganize industry into independent productive units. Through the laws of capitalist development, this restructuring would hasten the disintegration of commodity production, paving the way for new post-capitalist social relations to organically emerge, propelled by the vital impetus of the Proletarian syndicates. Furthermore, Sorel delves into what can be described as Marxist accelerationism or free time accelerationism, suggesting that the social revolution would involve locking out unproductive labor.

“The intellectuals have professional interests and not general class interests. These professional interests would be injured by the proletarian revolution. Lawyers would undoubtedly find no place in the future society and it is not likely that the number of diseases will increase. Progress in science and the better organization of assistance have already had the effect of diminishing the number of doctors utilized. In big industry many high-level employees could be eliminated if large stockholders did not need to place clients. A better division of labor would allow, as in England, the concentration of the work (now done badly by too many engineers) in a small group of very learned and very experienced technicians. As the character and intelligence of the workers improve, the majority of the overseers can be eliminated. The English experience abundantly proves it. Finally for office jobs, women compete actively with men; and these jobs will be reserved for them when socialism emancipates them. Thus, then, the socialization of the means of production would mean a huge ‘lock-out.” It is difficult to believe that the intellectuals are unaware of a truth as certain as this one!”

— Georges Sorel, Socialist Future of The Syndicates

This is the precise aim of syndicalism today: to diminish managerial oversight by leveraging machine learning and automation, alongside enhancing the technical skills and morality of the proletariat. Additionally, it involves increasing free time through a more efficient economy with minimal managerial bureaucracy. By organizing production into autonomous federations, the goal is to unleash the forces of production, expedite the socialization process, and lock out unproductive labor and unnecessary managerial oversight.

Sorelianism Today

Whatever you may think about Georges Sorel, whether you disagree or agree with him, you cannot deny that in the early 20th century in France, Georges Sorel and the Sorelians were the leading authority on Marxism at that time. They established a prominent Marxist journal and worked towards translating the works of Marx and Engels into French. While Marxist-Leninists may object to Sorel’s voluntarism, much of modern-day Marxist-Leninist theory is inspired by Sorel. For instance, the writings of Antonio Gramsci, whose theory of the hegemony of the communist party and of communist ideas is influenced by Sorel’s perspective on the moral preparation of the proletarian class to seize control of modern industry. 

For Marxist-Leninists, Sorel is considered a right libertarian deviant within official Marxism, not a fascist renegade. Despite claims that Sorel abandoned Marx for Proudhon after the CGT capitulated towards democratic social peace, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Sorel always identified as a Proudhonian Marxist and his writings continue to hold value today. Sorelianism, or Neo-Sorelianism as it is sometimes referred to, is seen as remaining within the Leninist tradition. To dismantle the current bourgeois socialist system and establish autonomous syndicates, a popular dictatorship capable of initiating such a transformation is deemed necessary. Present-day Sorelianism mainly focuses on dual power and the movement to emancipate social life from state control, aiming to allocate functions to socialist dual power. 

The Infrared project seeks to create an organization to advance the goals of dual power and address the perceived leftist deterioration within the communist party. Today, Sorelianism advocates for free time accelerationism, advocating for a shortened workweek, exclusion of unproductive labor and unnecessary management, and harnessing the forces of production, including automation, blockchain technology, and machine learning, to enhance labor productivity and autonomy. This approach prepares society for a system based on free contracts and self-governing syndicates.

In bridging the gap between communists and syndicalists, within the Sorelian framework, communism is viewed not as a final destination but as a starting point. In Sorel's words, he suggests that while socialists may have the capacity to view things from one angle, they are mistaken in believing that communism is an ultimate goal. Instead, he asserts that communism should be seen as a starting point rather than a final destination, this suggests that communism as “free time and nothing else” is a beginning point, while syndicalism aims for “a world set free” as a further stage of advancement. Syndicalism seeks to surpass communism, representing its libertarian renegade counterpart. Therefore, contemporary Sorelianism advocates for a shortened workweek, gradual exclusion of unproductive labor and unnecessary managerial oversight, liberation of production forces, deregulation, budget balancing, income tax reduction, a lean government, collaboration with libertarians, implementation of smart contracts to replace bourgeois legal codes, and division of the bourgeois socialist system into self-governing syndicates.