reactionary trade-unionists in local emergencies and in certain
temporary situations to effect some specific purpose, which may or may
not be in harmony with our revolutionary program. No possible good can
come from any kind of a political alliance, express or implied, with
trade-unions or the leaders of trade unions who are opposed to socialism
and only turn to it for use in some extremity, the fruit of their own
reactionary policy.
Of course we want the support of trade-unionists, but only of those who
believe in socialism and are ready to vote and work with us for the
overthrow of capitalism.
The American Federation of Labor, as an organization, with its Civic
federation to determine its attitude and control its course, is deadly
hostile to the Socialist party and to any and every revolutionary
movement of the working class. To kowtow to this organization and to
join hands with its leaders to secure political favors can only result
in compromising our principles and bringing disaster to the party.
Not for all the vote of the American Federation of Labor and its
labor-dividing and corruption breeding craft-unions should we compromise
one jot of our revolutionary principles; and if we do we shall be
visited with the contempt we deserve by all real Socialists, who will
scorn to remain in a party professing to be a revolutionary party of the
working class while employing the crooked and disreputable methods of
ward-heeling politicians to attain their ends.
Of far greater importance than increasing the vote of the Socialist
party is the economic organization of the working class. To the extent,
and only to the extent, that the workers are organized and disciplined
in their respective industries can the Socialist movement advance and
the Socialist party hold what is registered by the ballot. The election
of legislative and administrative officers, here and there, where the
party is still in a crude state and the members economically and
politically unfit to assume the responsibilities thrust upon them as the
result of popular discontent, will inevitably bring trouble and set the
party back, instead of advancing it, and while this is to be expected
and is to an extent unavoidable, we should court no more of that kind of
experience than is necessary to avoid a repetition of it. The Socialist
party has already achieved some victories of this kind which proved to
be defeats, crushing and humiliating, and from which the party has not
even now, after many years, entirely recovered.
We have just so much socialism that is stable and dependable, because
securely grounded in economics, in discipline and all else that
expresses class-conscious solidarity, and this must be augmented
steadily through economic and political organization, but no amount of
mere votes can accomplish this in even the slightest degree.
A vote for socialism is not socialism any more than a menu is a meal.
Socialism must be organized, drilled, equipped, and the place to begin
is in the industries where the workers are employed. Their economic
power has got to be developed through efficient organization, or their
political power, even if it could be developed, would but react upon
them, thwart their plans, blast their hopes, and all but destroy them.
Such organization to be effective must be expressed in terms of
industrial unionism. Each industry must be organized in its entirety,
embracing all the workers, and all working together in the interests of
all, in the true spirit of solidarity, thus laying the foundation and
developing the superstructure of the new system within the old, from
which it is evolving, and systematically fitting the workers, step by
step, to assume entire control of the productive forces when the hour
strikes for the impending organic change.
Without such economic organization and the economic power with which it
is clothed, and without the industrial co-operative training, discipline
and efficiency which are its corollaries, the fruit of any political
victories the workers may achieve will turn to ashes on their lips.
Now that the capitalist system is so palpably breaking down, and in
consequence its political parties breaking up, the disintegrating
elements with vague reform ideas and radical bourgeois tendencies will
head in increasing numbers toward the Socialist party, especially since
the greatly enlarged vote of this year has been announced and the party
is looming up as a possible dispenser of the spoils of office. There is
danger, I believe, that the party may be swamped by such an exodus and
the best possible means--and, in fact, the only effectual means--of
securing the party against such a fatality is the economic power of the
industrially-organized workers.
The votes will come rapidly enough from now on without seeking them and
we should make it clear that the Socialist party wants the votes only of
those who want socialism, and that, above all, as a revolutionary party
of the working class, it discountenances vote-seeking for the sake of
votes and holds in contempt office-seeking for the sake of office. These
belong entirely to capitalist parties with their bosses and their boodle
and have no place in a party whose shibboleth is emancipation.
With the workers efficiently organized industrially, bound together by
the common tie of their enlightened self-interest, they will just as
naturally and inevitably express their economic solidarity in political
terms and cast a united vote for the party of their class as the forces
of nature express obedience to the law of gravitation.
PIONEER WOMEN IN AMERICA.
Progressive Woman, April, 1912.
In looking over some old letters a day or two ago I found a postal card
which Susan B. Anthony had written to me over thirty years ago, and,
strangely enough, it was held fast by a letter that was written to me
about the same time by Wendell Phillips, as if these two epistles had
been attracted to each other and held together in the bonds of mutualism
as were the great souls who had written them in their heroic struggle
for human enfranchisement.
The faded and time-worn old card carried me back to the day I met Miss
Anthony at the depot on her arrival at Terre Haute, where she was to
speak in public for her sex. At that time Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, who
afterward became Miss Anthony's confidential friend and authorized
biographer, and I, and two or three others, were about the only people
in Terre Haute who believed that woman was a human being and entitled to
the rights of citizenship. We had arranged these meetings for Miss
Anthony and her three active coadjutors in woman's cause at that time,
and they arrived according to the schedule.
I shall never forget how Miss Anthony impressed me. She had all the
charm of a real woman and all the strength of a perfect man. Style,
personal adornment, she did not know; vanity found no lodgment in her
great soul. She was born with a heroic purpose, and she set out in
fulfillment of that purpose with a spirit of dauntless valor and
determination which knew "no variableness or shadow of turning" to the
day that ended her consecrated life and she passed from the scenes of
men.
The trials, privations, insults borne by this grand old pioneer will
never be known by those who are in the ranks today. An event
characteristic of the struggle in which she engaged almost
single-handed for so many years was her arrest and trial for voting in
the presidential election of 1872. A fine of one hundred dollars and
costs was imposed upon her, which she vowed she would not pay, even if
she were sent to jail. When Miss Anthony said a thing she meant it. That
fine was never paid.
It was, after all, a stroke of good fortune that Miss Anthony was the
victim of this barbarous indignity. It inspired one of the greatest
speeches of her life. In opening this dramatic plea and protest she
said:
"Friends and Fellow-Citizens: I stand before you tonight under
indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last
presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall
be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting I not only
committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights,
guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National
Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny."
She then quoted from the preamble of the Federal Constitution: "We, the
_people_ of the United States," etc., and proceeded:
"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we the
male citizens; but, we the whole people, who formed the union. And we
formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not
to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole
people--women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to
women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are
denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this
democratic-republican government--the ballot. The early journals of
Congress show that when the committee reported to that body the original
articles of confederation, the very first article which became the
subject of discussion was that respecting equality of suffrage. Article
4 said: 'The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
intercourse between the people of the different States of the Union, the
free inhabitants of each of the States (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives
from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of the free citizen, of the several States.'
"Thus, at the very beginning did the fathers see the necessity of the
universal application of the great principle of equal rights to all, in
order to produce the desired results--a harmonious union and a
homogeneous people."
Miss Anthony then quoted the New York State Constitution: "No member of
this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of the rights or
privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land
or the judgment of its peers."
She then proceeded with her argument, which has never been and never
will be answered. It is to be regretted that space forbids more ample
quotation in this article. Here is a glowing paragraph from her
impassioned plea which is characteristic of the entire address:
"To them (women) this government has no just powers derived from the
consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It
is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of
sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the
globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An
oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even
an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be
endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers,
husband, sons the oligarch over the mother and sisters, the wife and
daughters of every household; which ordains all men sovereigns, all
women subjects; carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every
home of the nation."
There has never been a more logical unanswerable argument for the
political enfranchisement of women than was here made by Miss Anthony.
And yet only a very few of the people were fair enough to listen,
intelligent enough to understand, or candid enough to give approval, if
they did.
Susan B. Anthony's whole career was one tempestuous struggle for the
rights of her sex. She never wavered and she never wearied in the
conflict. She had the moral courage of a martyr, and such she was as
certainly as any that ever perished at the stake.
On my visit to Johnstown, N. Y., recently, the comrades pointed out the
spot where Elizabeth Cady Stanton, another pioneer heroine of the
movement, was born. Mrs. Stanton has long since been gathered to her
fathers, but her work remains an imperishable monument in memory of her
achievements.
It was at the first Woman's Rights convention ever held in the United
States, July 19, 1848, that Mrs. Stanton delivered an oration that will
forever have a place in the literature of woman's struggle for freedom.
The doctrine she advocated was at that time little less than treason,
but she knew it was _true_, and she boldly took her stand and maintained
it to the end. In her speech at this first convention she said:
"Now is the time for the women of this country, if they would save our
free institutions, to defend the right, to buckle on the armor that can
best resist the keenest weapons of the enemy--contempt and ridicule. The
same religious enthusiasm that nerved Joan of Arc to her work nerves us
to ours. In every generation God calls some men and women for the
utterance of the truth, a heroic action, and our work today is the
fulfilling of what has long since been foretold by the prophet. * * * We
do not expect our path will be strewn with the flowers of popular
applause, but over the thorns of bigotry and prejudice will be our way,
and on our banner will beat dark storm-clouds of opposition from those
who have entrenched themselves behind the stormy bulwarks of custom and
authority, and who have fortified their position by every means, holy
and unholy. But we will steadfastly abide the result. Unmoved we will
bear it aloft. Undauntedly we will unfurl it to the gale, for we know
that the storm cannot rend from it a shred, that the electric flash
will but more clearly show to us the glorious words inscribed upon it:
'Equality of Rights.'"
There was thrilling power in the burning eloquence of Mrs. Stanton, but
only they who had a part in the struggle at that time could have any
conception of what bitter hatred, blind prejudice and malign persecution
there were to overcome.
In February, 1854, Mrs. Stanton made a notable plea for the political
rights of women to the legislature of New York. In mentally invoicing an
average legislature today one gets some idea of the self-imposed task of
this brave old pioneer, and the indomitable spirit required to undertake
it, of arousing a body of sodden bourgeois legislators, ward
politicians, to recognize the right of women to breathe the air of
civilized citizenship and belong to themselves. In this thoroughly
militant and inspiring appeal she said:
"The tyrant, Custom, has been summoned before the bar of Common Sense.
His majesty no longer awes the multitude; his scepter is broken; his
crown is trampled in the dust; the sentence of death is pronounced upon
him. All nations, ranks and classes have, in turn, questioned and
repudiated his authority; and now, that the monster is chained and
caged, timid woman, on tiptoe, comes to look him in the face, and to
demand of her brave sires and sons, who have struck stout blows for
liberty, if, in this change of dynasty, she, too, shall find relief.
* * *
"We demand the full recognition of all our rights as citizens of the
Empire State. We are persons; natives, free-born citizens; property
holders, taxpayers, yet we are denied the exercise of our right to the
elective franchise. We support ourselves, and, in part, your schools,
colleges, churches, your poor-houses, jails, prisons, the army, the
navy, the whole machinery of government, and yet we have no voice in
your councils. We have every qualification required by the constitution
necessary to the legal voter but the one of sex. We are moral, virtuous
and intelligent, and in all respects quite equal to the proud white man
himself, and yet by your laws we are classed with idiots, lunatics and
negroes."
These two sturdy pioneers in woman's struggle present a magnificent
picture in the perspective. They did not know the meaning of
discouragement. They were strangers to weakness and fear.
Both were of heroic mould. Both were born and endowed for great service
and both made their names synonymous with the struggle of their sex to
shake off the fetters of the centuries.
Mrs. Stanton was born in 1815, ante-dating Miss Anthony by five years.
They were inseparable friends, and they who saw them together say that
their love and fealty toward each other was so beautiful and touching
that it was an inspiration to all their co-workers and shamed to silence
all their bickerings and petty jealousies.
They both lived to be over eighty years. After full half a century of
unrelaxing fidelity to their principles and unceasing battle for their
cause they saw but the beginning of the glorious fruition of their
consecrated service. Such has been the fate of all who, like these great
souls, loved principle better than popularity and humanity more than
themselves.
The women who are in the ranks today may well rejoice that these grand
women and others who shared in their bitter persecution blazed the way
through the dense wilderness of ignorance, prejudice and hatred for what
is now a world movement, with millions proudly bearing its banner,
inscribed with the conquering shibboleth: Equal Freedom and Equal
Opportunities for All Mankind.
SPEECHES
UNITY AND VICTORY.
Speech Before State Convention of American Federation of Labor,
Pittsburg, Kansas, August 12, 1908.
* * * * *
Introduction by Chairman Cable.
Gentlemen of the Convention: I assure you it is a great privilege on my
part to present to you at this time a gentleman who needs no
introduction at my hands; a gentleman who is known to you and who is
known to the workingmen throughout the length and breadth of this
country as a true and tried trade unionist and the candidate of the
Socialist party for President of the United States. I, therefore, take
great pleasure in presenting to you Brother Eugene V. Debs.
Mr. Chairman, Delegates and Fellow Workers: It is with pleasure, I
assure you, that I embrace this opportunity to exchange greetings with
you in the councils of labor. I have prepared no formal address, nor is
any necessary at this time. You have met here as the representatives of
organized labor and if I can do anything to assist you in the work you
have been delegated to do I shall render that assistance with great
pleasure.
To serve the working class is to me always a duty of love. Thirty-three
years ago I first became a member of a trade union. I can remember quite
well under what difficulties meetings were held and with what contempt
organized labor was treated at that time. There has been a decided
change. The small and insignificant trade union has expanded to the
proportions of a great national organization. The few hundreds now
number millions and organized labor has become a recognized factor in
the economics and politics of the nation.
There has been a great evolution during that time and while the power of
the organized workers has increased there has been an industrial
development which makes that power more necessary than ever before in
all the history of the working class movement.
This is an age of organization. The small employer of a quarter of a
century ago has practically disappeared. The workingman of today is
confronted by the great corporation which has its ironclad rules and
regulations, and if they don't suit he can quit.
In the presence of this great power, workingmen are compelled to
organize or be ground to atoms. They have organized. They have the
numbers. They have had some bitter experience. They have suffered beyond
the power of language to describe, but they have not yet developed their
latent power to a degree that they can cope successfully with the great
power that exploits and oppresses them. Upon this question of
organization, my brothers, you and I may differ widely, but as we are
reasonable men, we can discuss these differences candidly until we find
common ground upon which we can stand side by side in the true spirit of
solidarity--and work together for the emancipation of our class.
Until quite recently the average trade unionist was opposed to having
politics even mentioned in the meeting of his union. The reason for this
is self-evident. Workingmen have not until now keenly felt the necessity
for independent working class political action. They have been divided
between the two capitalist parties and the very suggestion that the
union was to be used in the interest of the one or the other was in
itself sufficient to sow the seed of disruption. So it isn't strange
that the average trade unionist guarded carefully against the
introduction of political questions in his union. But within the past
two or three years there have been such changes that workingmen have
been compelled to take notice of the fact that the labor question is
essentially a political question, and that if they would protect
themselves against the greed and rapacity of the capitalist class they
must develop their political power as well as their economic power, and
use both in their own interest. Workingmen have developed sufficient
intelligence to understand the necessity for unity upon the economic
field. All now recognize the need for thorough organization. But
organization of numbers of itself is not sufficient. You might have all
the workers of the country embraced in some vast organization and yet
they would be very weak if they were not organized upon correct
principles; if they did not understand, and understand clearly, what
they were organized for, and what their organization expected to
accomplish.
I am of those who believe that an organization of workingmen, to be
efficient, to meet the demands of this hour, must be organized upon a
revolutionary basis; must have for its definite object not only the
betterment of the condition of workingmen in the wage system, but the
absolute overthrow of wage slavery that the workingman may be
emancipated and stand forth clothed with the dignity and all other
attributes of true manhood.
Now let me briefly discuss the existing condition. We have been
organizing all these years, and there are now approximately three
millions of American workingmen who wear union badges, who keep step to
union progress. At this very time, and in spite of all that organized
labor can do to the contrary, there is a condition that prevails all
over this country that is well calculated to challenge the serious
consideration of every workingman. To begin with, according to the
reports furnished us, twenty per cent of the workingmen of this country
are now out of employment. I have here a copy of the New York World
containing a report of the labor commissioner of the State of New York
who shows that during the quarter ending June 30 there were in that
state an army of union men out of employment approximating thirty-five
per cent of the entire number; that is to say, in the State of New York
today, out of every one hundred union men (these reports are received
from the unions themselves, verified by their own officers, so there can
be no question in regard to them), out of every 100 union men in New
York, 35 are out of employment. The percentage may not be so large in
these western states where the industrial development has not reached
the same point, but go where you may, east or west, north or south, you
will find men, union men, who are begging for the opportunity to work
for just enough to keep their suffering souls within their famished
bodies. A system in which such a condition as this is possible has
fulfilled its mission, stands condemned, and ought to be abolished.
According to the Declaration of Independence, man has the inalienable
right to life. If that be true it follows that he has also the
inalienable right to work.
If you have no right to work you have no right to life because you can
only live by work. And if you live in a system that deprives you of the
right to work, that system denies you the right to live. Now man has a
right to life because he is here. That is sufficient proof, and if he
has the right to life, it follows that he has the right to all the means
that sustain life. But how is it in this outgrown capitalist system? A
workingman can only work on condition that he finds somebody who will
give him permission to work for just enough of what his labor produces
to keep him in working order.