It certainly seems, however, that the Syndicalists are making an unfair use of Bergson.  They have got hold of three or four points rather out of relation to their context, and are making the most of them.  These points are, chiefly, his remarks against the Intellect, his appreciation of Instinct and Intuition, his insistence on Freedom and on the Indeterminateness of the Future.  In the hands of the Syndicalists these become in effect:  “Never mind what you think, rouse up your feeling intensely; act as you feel and then see what you think.”  Briefly this amounts to saying:  “Act on impulse, behave instinctively and not rationally.”  In too many cases, as we know, this is equivalent to a merely selfish “Down tools if you feel like it.”  Now so far from Bergson really giving any countenance to capricious behaviour, or mere impulse, he expressly condemns such action.  Although the future is being made, he does not admit that it will be merely capriciously made, and he condemns the man of mere impulse along with the dreamer, in a fine passage where he speaks of the value of an intelligent memory in practical life.[Footnote:  See p. 48 of the present work.] When the Syndicalists assert that elan, instinct, impulse, or intuition are a better guide than intelligence and reasoned principles, and cite Bergson as their authority, they omit an important qualification which upsets their theory entirely, for Bergson’s anti-intellectualism is not at all of the type which they advocate.  He does not intend to rule Intellect out of practical affairs.  Indeed it is just the opposite that he asserts, for, in his view, the Intellect is pre-eminently fitted for practical life, for action, and it is for this very reason that he maintains it does not give us insight into reality itself, which Intuition alone can do.  He does not wish, however, to decrease the small element of rationality manifested in ethical and political life, least of all to make men less rational, in the sense that they are to become mere creatures of Impulse.

Nevertheless, Bergson’s great emphasis on Will and Creativeness condemns any laissez-faire type of political theory.  It would be wrong for us to accept the social order which is felt to be imperfect and unjust in so many ways, simply because we find ourselves in it and fear we cannot work a way out.  We have great power of creation, and in large measure we can create what we will in the world of politics and social life, and it is good that men generally should be made to see this.  But it is of very vital importance that we should will the right thing.  This we are not likely to do impulsively and without reflection.  Even if we admit Mr. Russell’s contention that “impulse has more effect than conscious purpose in moulding men’s lives” [Footnote:  Principles of Social Reconstruction,