“By accepting the idea of the general strike, although we know that it is a myth, we are proceeding exactly as a modern physicist does who has complete confidence in his science, although he knows that the future will look upon it as antiquated. It is we who really possess the scientific spirit, while our critics have lost touch both with modern science and modern philosophy; and having proved this, we are quite easy in our minds.”
–Georges Sorel
Sorelianism is a political philosophy developed by Georges Sorel, a French revolutionary syndicalist. Sorelians are against bourgeois democracy, the ideas of the 18th century, secularism, and the French Revolution, while supporting Classicism. Sorel had a different view of Marxism, believing that the working class could only win in the struggle against the ruling class through powerful myths and a general strike. He thought that after the class conflict, both the bourgeoisie and the working class would be rejuvenated.
When syndicalism seemed to fail, Sorel stopped reading socialist literature in 1910. By 1914, he declared that "socialism is dead" because Marxism was falling apart. He then turned to support Charles Maurras-style integral nationalism, which he saw as having similar moral goals as syndicalism, even though they were enemies in practice. This shift led some to see Sorelianism as a forerunner to fascism. However, Sorel grew disenchanted with these ideas during World War I. From 1918 until his death in 1922, he supported the Russian Revolution and communism, seeing it as a revival of syndicalism.
Philosophical Beliefs[edit | edit source]
Myths[edit | edit source]
Sorel’s conception of the myth came about as a way of taping into the psychological components of revolutions, such as why would a person willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of a rebellion’s success. His answer was that all movements possessed an expression of their own will to action, this expression is what Sorel labeled as a “myth”. Sorel uses the Christian apocalyptic myth, as well as Marx’s myth of the catastrophic collapse of capitalism, to explain what exactly a myth is. He then constraints it with utopias. Myths, unlike utopias, do not attempt to create some abstract ideal to be imagined. Rather, they are the purest form of propagandized action, the opposite of idealist fantasies.
Revision of Marxism[edit | edit source]
Sorel emphasized the ethical aspect of Marxism, seeing it as valuable for analyzing history and transforming society. However, he criticized what he saw as the rigid and mechanistic parts of Marxist theory. He believed that many interpretations of Marx's ideas were unfaithful to Marx's original intentions. Sorel pointed out that Marx did not view human psychology as solely determined by economic factors, and he acknowledged Marx's recognition of the importance of non-economic aspects like law, religion, and art in shaping society. Sorel believed that great philosophies, including Marxism, needed to be rooted in art and religion.
Sorel noted Marx's evolution in thought, recognizing Marx's synthesis of ideas from both Blanquism and Proudhonism. He supported the idea that Marxism underwent a crisis in the late 19th century, particularly during the founding of major socialist parties in France. Sorel saw non-Proudhonian socialism as oppressive and argued that the blending of Blanquism and positivism in Marxism led to its decomposition. He believed that Proudhon's ideas were more in line with the original goals of Marxism than Blanquism, which he considered a distorted and rigid interpretation of Marx's theories.
Political Beliefs[edit | edit source]
General Strike[edit | edit source]
Although he began as a Marxist, Sorel later rejected what he saw as the rigid determinism of orthodox Marxism. He believed that the emerging social sciences offered a new moral compass. Inspired by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's idea that a fair society required active opposition to an adversary, Sorel thought that a class war between the working class and the bourgeoisie would erupt through a general strike. He saw this as more than just redistributing wealth through the state; to him, it was the heart of Marxism and socialism, essential for improving living conditions.
Sorel had disagreements with Proudhon, particularly concerning idealism. Proudhon separated justice from power dynamics, or class relations. Although Sorel admired Friedrich Nietzsche, he was only slightly influenced by him. Sorel believed that an empowered working class would create a new ruling class, which he thought would organize society for its own benefit, serving as the ultimate authority. He also thought that violence by the working class would actually strengthen the bourgeoisie. Sorel's focus was on morally revitalizing society and preserving civilization, not just on the working class. He saw socialism as a way to revolutionize society, not merely as a movement of the proletariat or an end in itself.
Individualism[edit | edit source]
Sorel believed that conflict was closely linked to freedom. He was inspired by liberal institutions and the pluralistic ideas of William James, rejecting the imitation of military structures and promoting a type of individualism he likened to the "American spirit." He admired the American ethos, which he saw as driven by a sense of liberty.
He criticized totalitarian movements for their rigid organization, advocating instead for a more decentralized approach. Sorel saw the myth of the general strike as a unifying force for syndicalism, providing a sense of purpose and authority. While Nietzsche's Übermensch celebrated individual greatness, Sorel contrasted this with what he called "apocalyptic myths" or the independent spirit of the American settler, which he believed did not suppress individual freedom.
Rather than centralized control, Sorel favored a balanced approach inspired by Proudhon, emphasizing care for the vulnerable and a commitment to family bonds as part of a warrior ethic. He believed that this, along with a strong work ethic, would lead to true freedom.
Social Peace[edit | edit source]
Sorel supported the idea of keeping different social groups separate, favoring a syndicalist model where proletarian workers would have their own autonomy apart from bourgeois industrialists. He rejected the notion of class collaboration, opposing negotiations between the proletariat and bourgeoisie during their struggle. However, Sorel also believed that it was the proletariat's role to rouse the bourgeoisie from intellectual lethargy, helping them regain their moral compass and sense of dignity lost due to democratic ideals. Ultimately, Sorel thought that class conflict would lead to the revitalization of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Reformism and Syndicalism[edit | edit source]
This theoretical approach led to a somewhat voluntaristic version of Marxism. While he disagreed with the idea that capitalism would inevitably collapse, and rejected the notion of predetermined historical laws because he believed in the power of human action to shape society, he was also cautious about supporting insurrectionary tactics. Instead, he emphasized the importance of the institutional development of the working class and the role of unions in creating new social relations beyond capitalism.
He argued that reducing unions to mere resistance groups would hinder the progress of the working class, leaving it vulnerable to the influence of bourgeois leaders and preventing it from shaping its own future. He believed that the working class needed to become conscious of its own interests and develop its own distinct identity. Initially, he believed that participating in parliamentary democracy was the best way to achieve these goals. However, his views shifted in the early 20th century, partly due to the success of the republican party in the 1902 French elections and his analysis of the emergence of welfare capitalism. He began to see prolonged engagement in bourgeois politics as detrimental to the revolutionary potential of the working class.
Instead, he proposed a strategy of intense social conflict, known as the "grève prolétarienne" or proletarian strike, to revitalize the revolutionary spirit of the working class. He believed that such conflicts would highlight the class divide and prevent the bourgeoisie from weakening its own power.
Personality[edit | edit source]
How to Draw[edit | edit source]
- Draw a ball
- Fill it with grey (#111111)
- Draw the logo of the Cercle Proudhon in red (#fe0000) on it
- Draw eyes
- Done
Relationships[edit | edit source]
Friends[edit | edit source]
Marxist Theory - If we are to truly understand modern struggle more clearly, we must return to Marx himself.
Nietzscheanism - A great philosopher indeed! The proletarian struggle is a battle against the decadence of modernity you described.
Labriolianism - A great Marxist who saw quite clearly the need to return to Marx himself to understand the philosophy of praxis that is socialism in a more clear sense.
Proudhonism - Petit bourgeois, but I cannot deny your influence on me and the rest of the syndicalist movement.
Leninism - I became a great supporter of you and your revolution in the last years of my life.
Neutral[edit | edit source]
Maurrassisme - My short collaboration with Action Française… we don’t talk about that. Let it be known I only joined up with them out of disillusionment, and not out of ideological agreement. You also ended up ruining my reputation, so..
Pragmatism - I originally called you bourgeois in The Illusions of Progress but I eventually warmed up to you later on.
Enemies[edit | edit source]
Mussolinism - You are not me, stop trying to claim me as being your inspiration! You’re just another Thermidorian reactionary and a street arab.
Social Peace - Weak and decedent. You are the only thing in the way of the acceleration of class tensions to their breaking point.
Optimism - “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.”
Blanquism and 
Positivism - You are the reason Marxism is in a state of decomposition!
Further Information[edit | edit source]
Wikipedia[edit | edit source]
Literature[edit | edit source]
- Reflections on Violence - Georges Sorel
- The Socialist Future of the Syndicates - Georges Sorel
- The Decomposition of Marxism - Georges Sorel
- The Dreyfusian Revolution - Georges Sorel
- The Illusions of Progress - Georges Sorel
- Anarchism and Syndicalism - Edouard Berth
| Medieval | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Renaissance | |||
 Enlightenment |
| ||
| Modern | |||
| Contemporary | |||
- ↑ According to David Graeber and others, Lenin was influenced by Sorel, and Lenin admitted this.
- ↑ Sorel had praised Lenin's revolutionary movement of direct violence, though not communes in Russia as he had hoped.
- ↑ The Italian right believed that Mao was merely using Marxism-Leninism as a cover, and that the real ideas lay in the mythological violence of the Cultural Revolution and the Platonic and Spartan ideals of popular unity and asceticism.