are by far the most revolutionary. [Footnote:  See article Des Ouvriers syndiques et le Syndicalisme jaune, Revue de metaphysique et morale, 1912] The C.G.T. and the Industrial Workers of the World are out for what they call “direct action.”  Their anarchy is really an organization directed against organization, at least against that organization we know as the modern State.  They have no hope of salvation for themselves coming about through the State in any way.  It has become somewhat natural for us to think of the social reformer as a Member of Parliament and of the revolutionary socialist as a “strike-agitator.”  The cries of “Don’t vote!” “Don’t enlist!” are heard, and care is taken to keep the workman from ceasing to quarrel with his employer.  Any discussion of the rights or wrongs of any Strike is condemned at once. [Footnote:  Ramsay MacDonald was condemned by the Syndicalists for claiming that a strike might be wrong.] All Strikes are regarded as right and as an approach to the ideal of the General Strike.  Sorel cites Bergson as calling us to turn from traditional thought, to seek reality in the dynamic, rather than the static.  He claims that the Professor of Philosophy at the College de France really co-operates with the C.G.T.  An unexpected harmony arises “between the flute of personal meditation, and the trumpet of social revolution, and the workman is inspired by being made to feel that the elan ouvrier est frere de l’elan vital.” [Footnote:  Quoted by C. Bougie in the article previously mentioned.] As Bergson speaks of all movement as unique and indivisible, so the triumphant movement of the General Strike is to be regarded as a whole, no analysis is to be made of its parts.  As the portals of the future stand wide open, as the future is being made, so Bergson tells us, that is deemed an excuse by the Syndicalists for having no prearranged plan of the conduct of the General Strike, and no conception of what is to be done afterwards.  It is unforeseen and unforeseeable.  All industries, however, are to be in the hands of those who work them, the present industrial system is to be swept away.  The new order which is to follow will have entirely new moral codes.  Sorel justifies violence to be used against the existing order, but says he wishes to avoid unnecessary blood-shed or brutality. [Footnote:  Reflections on Violence.  It is interesting to note that Bergson refers briefly to Sorel as an original thinker whom it is impossible to place in any category or class, in La Philosophie, p. 13.] He remarks however, in this connexion, that ancient society, with all its brutality, compares favourably with modern society which has replaced ferocity by cunning.  The ancient peoples had less hypocrisy than we have; this, in his opinion, justifies violence in the overthrow of the modern system and the creation of a nobler ethic than that on which the modern State is based.  For this reason, he disagrees with most of his Syndicalist colleagues, and condemns sabotage and also the ca canny policy, both of which are a kind of revenge upon the employer, based on the principle of “bad work for bad pay.”  He would have the workers produce well now, and urges that moral progress is to be aimed at no less than material progress.