Two dissidents: Sorel and Andler
Georges Sorel is a controversial figure but is highly representative of the ongoing diversity of socialist ideas (Charzat 1986; Gervasoni 1997). His thoughts owe much to his reading of Proudhon, and he remained highly critical of the process of unification peculiar to collectivism and integral socialism, being for a while a supporter of the influential revolutionary syndicalism socialist movement.
Sorel’s economic ideas stem mainly from an acerbic criticism of Marx, but also occasionally from a more respectful interpretation. First, he argued that there is no real theory of value in Marxism (Sorel 1897). This theory stems from the first sphere of value, whereas in a second sphere, which includes variable capital and competition, prices establish themselves to level out profit rates. Basing himself on Italian critiques of Marxism (Benedetto Croce and Antonio Labriola), Sorel argued that Marx had only come up with a theory of economic equilibrium, which is reduced to the case of an overly simplified economy, or a kind of pure economy (in a Paretian sense) found in a homogenous form of capitalism. Once the theory is applied to a real and more complex economic system, simple values representing labour time are no longer equivalent to prices. Marx made a methodological error by applying the method which was used in an abstract context, and none of his conclusions was confirmed when he had to analyse actual facts. According to Sorel there is an ambiguity as regards the notion of labour, due to a confusion between the work of society with its tools - in which case it is justified to claim that wealth is produced by work - and the labour of a worker without tools, in which case it is unjustified to claim that wealth is produced by their work. The notions of paid and unpaid work are also obscure and this is even more pronounced among readers of Marx (Jaures, Guesde, and so on), since the thoroughly non-Marxist concept of theft reappears. Marx’s economic concepts should thus be interpreted as being hypotheses for further deliberation. From a more general standpoint, Sorel challenged the evolutionary reading of Marx inherent to Malonian and Jauresian socialism and its sole focus on the economic aspects of social issues.His attempt to construe an economic analysis of a concrete economic system (Sorel 1903 [1924]) uses the rural economy as a field study to reveal the errors, ambiguities and superficial pragmatism of the socialist vision of collectivism, such as the mistaken assumptions regarding the growing proletarization in the countryside, the role of the large property or mechanization. The line between private property and state administration must be based on the Proudhonian approach, which distinguishes production from its economic environment. The issue of property in the agricultural sector must be addressed by socialization of the exchange process of products, but not of production. The latter would call into question the very nature of the producer, their spirit of ownership, their myths (images which have the power to instinctively trigger feelings) within a whole encompassing production, the family, habits, social authority, which Sorel called juridical consciousness of the people. In this way, authors who have understood the rural economy and voice criticism against state or federalist solutions could attempt to apply the same kind of approach to industrial production and to workers in order to gain a better understanding of possible socialization.
Sorel did not identify himself with the historiography produced by Malonian socialists. In his view, prior to 1848, socialist thinking (from Saint-Simon to Pecqueur) was largely based on a vision of the economy founded on kindness, enthusiasm, religion, with declarations of rights and invocation of the spirit of association. Proudhon and Marx were the only authors to oppose this line of thought and argued that the division of labour and exchange represents the only truly collective force. The Second Empire and the Third Republic led to the development of a sophisticated industrial sector, with exchange and credit as well as state support: that period confirmed the role of material and economic forces and condemned the sentimental socialism.
However, different from Marxist predictions, capitalism did not collapse. Socialism was lagging behind once again: it was busy debating Marx and the crisis of Marxism in a society which saw Marx already as an outdated thinker. Socialism thus needed to become rooted in struggle. Filiation with the Proudhonian school of thought led Sorel to argue in favour of a struggle against the state and the transfer of state functions to workers’ unions, independently of political socialism. According to Sorel, general strikes and violence are a legitimate response to the extension of the state’s functions, and meet the working class’ need for a socialist myth (Sand 1985). This belief is at the basis of his support of revolutionary syndicalism which was influential in the years 1903-07 - with, in particular, Hubert Lagardelle and Edouard Berth - and which led to some anarcho-syndicalist echoes being carried forward to the 1906 trade union charter.Charles Andler was an eminent germanist and one of the rare readers of Marx’s works that had not yet been translated into French, and contributed to the collectivist school of thought. He provided a subtle appraisal of the crisis of Marxism and, in his well-informed commentary of the Communist Manifesto (Andler 1901), he stressed the French influence (mainly Saint-Simonianism and Pecqueur) on the text, without avoiding thorny issues, for example, the role of the middle class, sustainability of the petty bourgeoisie, relationships between material improvement and alteration of morality and mentality under capitalism. However, in the same way as Sorel, he challenged an approach that focused merely on the economic dimension of social issues and drew attention to juridical and moral dimensions. Furthermore, the non-deterministic nature of the link between infrastructure and superstructure had to be considered. From an analytical standpoint, Andler was critical of Marx’s theory of value. He initially sided with Otto Effertz - labour is not the only source of value, land is a second one, which is not produced - but seemed to finally settle for a theory of value determined by social opinion (Andler 1911 [2010]).
Most often, Andler (1900 in particular) abandoned the theory of exploitation and returned to a conception in which capitalists are rentiers who do not pay a fair wage to the workers, in which landowners and traders have an advantageous situation compared with consumers. Andler, inspired by the reading of Proudhon, advocated the establishment of a social Republic of cooperators (Andler 1900), which would be capable of tackling that “triple surplus value abuse” (ibid.: 127). As this triple profit is accomplished through sale, and as, contrary to Marx’s doctrine, the surplus is created through exchange and ends up impacting the worker-consumer, the collectivist cause can only truly be served, as in Gide’s recommendation (Gide 1924), by setting up a complete network of consumption cooperatives connecting towns and the countryside and setting up purchase cooperatives and production workshops. This peaceful revolution can occur without bringing about any moral transformation in mankind, and will simply serve to satisfy the legitimate requirements of “poor quality human materials” (Andler 1900: 500). Nonetheless, Andler then echoed Nietzsche and claimed that the morality of producers needed to be enhanced in order to establish a socialist civilization - that is, solidarity, joy brought about by selfless attitude to work, not turned towards production but towards an ideal which is both ethical and aesthetic.