and by moderating the resistance of the employers in strikes, it has been observed that, more than once, the conflicts have become more acute than formerly.[1] This is often explained away by saying that it was an accident, the result simply of the survival of old usages; people like to lull themselves with the hope that everything will go perfectly well on the day when manufacturers have a better understanding of the usages of social peace.[2] I believe, on the contrary, that we are in the presence of a phenomenon which flows quite naturally from the conditions in which this pretended pacification is carried out.
I observe, first of all, that both the theories and action of the peacemakers are founded on the notion of duty, and that duty is something entirely indefinite—while law seeks rigid definition. This difference is due to the fact that the latter finds a real basis in the economics of production, while the former is founded on sentiments of resignation, goodness, and of sacrifices; and who can judge whether the man who submits to duty has been sufficiently resigned, sufficiently good, sufficiently self-sacrificing? The Christian is convinced that he will never succeed in doing all that the gospel enjoins on him; when he is free from economic ties (in a monastery) he invents all sorts of pious obligations, so that he may bring his life nearer to that of Christ, who loved men to such an extent that he accepted an ignominious fate that they might be redeemed.
In the economic world everybody limits his duty by his unwillingness to give up certain profits. While the employer will be always convinced that he has done the
- ↑ Cf. G. Sorel, Insegnamenti sodali, p. 343.
- ↑ In his speech of May 11, 1907, Jaurès said that nowhere had there been such violence as there was in England during the period when both the employers and Government refused to recognise the trade unions. "They have given way; there is now vigorous and strong action, but which is at the same time legal, firm, and wise."
