DOCTRINAIRE VERSUS DIRECT-ACTIONIST
(1908)
For a period of nearly two years following the financial panic of
1907, the I. W. W. had a precarious and for the most part uneventful
existence. The organization made practically no headway with its
recruiting and propaganda work. Indeed, it probably lost ground. There
was a falling off in the number of locals in the organization and, at
least for 1909, in the number of local union charters issued. Vincent
St. John, at that time General Organizer, said in his report to the
fourth convention:
The big majority of the locals that have disbanded can be
traced to the inability of the general organization to finance
the number of organizers needed to see that the membership
of these locals have a thorough understanding of the aims
and objects of the I. W. W. before leaving them to their own
devices. There are several cases where the disbanding of locals
is the result of the combined opposition of the employers'
associations and their zealous allies, the officials of
"harmony of interests" organizations which call themselves
labor organizations for no other purpose than to better
accomplish their task of deluding the workers.[404]
It is probable also that there was during the same period a decline
in membership, as indicated by the figures furnished by the
Secretary-Treasurer.[405] But even during these lean years there was
some activity in the textile industry. From first to last, so far
as the eastern part of the United States is concerned, it has been
among the textile operatives that the I. W. W. has been most active
and most successful. In this industry the I. W. W. has a much larger
proportion of the total number of organized workers than it has in
any other. In the West, of course, the I. W. W. is most strongly
entrenched in the _unorganized_ extractive industries--lumber,
agriculture, and construction work.[406] In April, 1908, the General
Executive Board issued an official call (printed in English, French,
German and Italian) for that "First Convention of Textile Workers"
to be held May 1, 1908, in Paterson, N. J. In his document the claim
is made that "over 5,000 textile workers have already been organized
into the Industrial Workers of the World...."[407] During the eighteen
months' period following the financial crisis of 1907 the I. W. W.
almost entirely gave up its strike activities.[408] Furthermore, the
organization seemed to have secured no permanent foothold in those
communities where it had been particularly militant and aggressive
during the preceding year. Secretary Trautmann admitted this in his
report to the Fourth Convention. "There is nothing left in Bridgeport,"
he said, "nothing in Skowhegan, but in the Portland [Oregon] district
the name of the I. W. W. is cheered and gloried...."[409]
One of the leaders of the Detroit I. W. W. (now the Workers'
International Industrial Union) says that at this time "the whole
organization was in a state of unrest."[410] In reference to such a
distractingly unrestful organization as the I. W. W. has always been,
this comment is significant. He attributes this unrest to two causes,
internal dissension and the financial panic.
The membership, upon discovering that the officials were
acting in a manner that foreshadowed ... conflict within the
organization, withdrew in large numbers. The financial and
industrial panic which was then on had also a very bad effect
upon the newly founded local unions of the I. W. W., and many
of these lost members.[411]
The outlook was certainly not encouraging for those who had pinned
their faith to the idea of industrial unionism. The prospect for the
new unionism was not bright. In 1908 the United Brewery Workmen,
another large and important industrial union, patched up their
differences with the American Federation of Labor and went back into
the craft-union fold. The Western Federation of Miners--the most
militant and one of the two or three really powerful unions organized
on the industrial plan--had withdrawn, and finally, in May, 1911,
joined the American Federation. At the sixteenth convention of the
Western Federation, held in the summer of 1908, President Moyer said:
I believe it is a well-established fact that industrial
unionism is by no means popular, and I feel safe in saying
that it is not wanted by the working class of the United
States. The Knights of Labor, the American Railway Union, the
Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance, the Western Labor Union,
the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, the American Labor
Union, and last, the Industrial Workers of the World ... [went
down] because they failed to receive the support of the working
class....[412]
The breach between the Industrial Workers of the World and the Western
Federation of Miners continued to grow wider. Until April, 1908,
William D. Haywood was a member of both organizations. Even after
the complete and formal separation had been accomplished, Haywood
had been, since his acquittal at Boise, serving in the capacity of
lecturer and organizer for the Federation. His views must have been
profoundly intensified in a more radical direction than ever during
his incarceration and trial for murder. That his speeches became too
rabid even for such a decidedly militant organization as the Western
Federation of Miners seems unlikely, although the Federation was
gradually growing more conservative. The determining and, in the
eyes of the W. F. M., incriminating fact about Haywood now was that
he remained an I. W. W. after the administration and presumably the
majority of the W. F. M. had renounced and "cast off" the "larger"
organization of which it had been a part. So it is not surprising that
the following should have appeared on the first page of the _Miners'
Magazine_ for April 23, 1908:
NOTICE.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to inform you that the Executive Board of the Western
Federation of Miners has decided to terminate the services
of William D. Haywood as a representative of the Western
Federation of Miners in the field, the same to take effect on
the 8th day of April, 1908.
E. MAHONEY, _Vice-Pres., W. F. M._
A writer in the _Evening Post_ (New York) thinks that but for this
official ousting of Haywood by the W. F. M., the I. W. W. might never
have survived the trouble, dissension and "hard times" of 1908. "It is
doubtful," he says, "if either faction of the Industrial Workers of
the World [Detroit or Chicago] would have survived but for a change
in the attitude of the Western Miners' Federation ... which left
Haywood free to devote all his energies to the Industrial Workers
of the World."[413] If we can credit the evidence presented at the
1912 convention of the W. F. M., the I. W. W. had at least sufficient
vitality to be plotting, through its officials, to regain control of
the Western Federation. In the published proceedings of its twentieth
convention is printed a letter, dated August 4, 1908, from Vincent St.
John to Albert Ryan, a member of the Western Federation. This letter
reads in part:
I believe we could turn in now and lay the wires to defeat the
machine at the next W. F. M. convention, and it can be done
in this way: by picking out good reliable men with ability,
and getting them to place themselves in local unions of the
Federation for the purpose of getting to be delegates to
the next convention. To do this they should cultivate the
sentiment of the membership in the local to which they go. If
the local is a Moyer local, let them be Moyer men. Let them
outdo the best of them in worship at his shrine. If the local
is indifferent, let them be likewise, but let them be elected
as delegates.... Once we can control the officers of the W. F.
M. for the I. W. W. the big bulk of the membership will go with
them, and the prestige of the W. F. M.... is worth something
to the revolutionary movement, and we should make an attempt
to get it with us, ... take up the matter with Bechtel and
Oppman and have them work with you to control Arizona for the
next convention. Pick out a man or two for every local in the
state, let them get into them and do the work.... I will try to
handle Michigan and Minnesota from here. If you are shy [of]
men, or have any to spare, we can trade with the different
districts....[414]
President Moyer said that this letter was found among Ryan's effects
"after he had received a sentence of life imprisonment in San Quentin
penitentiary for having applied direct action in Los Angeles, which
resulted in the death of two men."[415] These or similar charges had
evidently been made at about the time this letter was supposed to have
been written. St. John, in his report to the fourth I. W. W. Convention
as General Organizer, denied certain "insinuations of a serious nature"
which had been made against him.[416]
The question of "political action" and the bitter and disruptive
controversy which waged on that subject at the fourth convention had
now become the overshadowing issue. The "Wobblies" use the expression
"political action" in referring to almost every conceivable form of
political activity, voting, elections, legislation, _etc._, and also,
more vaguely, in regard to the relationship which does or should
obtain between labor organizations and political parties, particularly
between radical labor bodies and radical political parties. For some
time before this gathering it was evident that the administration was
becoming fatally divided against itself. The DeLeon-St. John-Trautmann
faction had survived in 1906, to be _the administration_--the I. W.
W.--but in less than two years the sentiment in the organization had
developed two sub-factions, so to speak. The I. W. W. appears to
develop by fission. The organization originally was a compound of
adherents of
Sherman DeLeon { St. John or } Trautmann.
{ Haywood. }
{ Socialist } { Anarchist, or }
Socialist Party. { Labor Party.} { _Industrial_ } Nihilist.
{ Socialist. }
The Socialists were "abandoned" in 1906, leaving the field to the
"proletarian rabble":
DeLeon ... St. John ... Trautmann.
The "Socialist Laborites" were sloughed off (or they "ditched the
Anarchists," as they themselves would put it) in 1908, and we had
I. II.
The DeLeonites. The St. John-Trautmann
(S. L. P. or Detroit I. W. W.) group.
(Chicago I. W. W., "Bummery.")
Later Trautmann abandoned the "Bummery" and joined the DeLeonites. We
now have in 1917:
I. II.
The DeLeon-Trautmann The St. John-Haywood
group. group.
(The Workers' International (Surely _the_ I. W. W.!)
Industrial Union.)
which is the present setting, primed for further hyphen-smashing!
One of the two factions is thus seen to consist, for the most part, of
members of the Socialist Labor party--supporters of the revolutionary
Marxian tradition and believers in political action--the doctrinaire
group. Their prophet was Daniel DeLeon. The other group was composed
more largely of Westerners--intellectually more nearly philosophical
Anarchists than orthodox Socialists--inclined to scoff at political
action and emphatically opposed to allowing the I. W. W. to have
any connection with any political body--or to hold any political
policy--disbelievers in the state and in both the Socialist parties
because they accept the state--"industrialists with their working
clothes on"--the essence of the "proletarian rabble." The first group
was ultimately to constitute a socialistic I. W. W. with headquarters
at Detroit--the doctrinaire wing; the second group an anarchistic I. W.
W. with headquarters at Chicago--the direct-action wing, referred to by
the Detroiters as "the Bummery."[417]
Rudolph Katz, a member of the Socialist Labor party, writes that after
the third convention
all the efforts of DeLeon to preserve harmony in the I. W.
W. were unavailing. St. John, Trautmann, Edwards, and the
majority of the five members of the General Executive Board
turned over night ... against the fundamental principles of
industrialism as laid down in the I. W. W. preamble. They no
longer recognized political action as necessary.[418]
When the convention was called to order by Mr. St. John on September
21, 1908, there were twenty-six delegates in attendance, controlling
an aggregate of seventy votes. Two delegates were debarred from seats
in the convention--Max Ledermann of Chicago and Daniel DeLeon of New
York--and St. John was made permanent chairman.[419]
The West--especially the Pacific Coast--was well represented for the
first time. There were delegates in attendance from Seattle, Portland,
Los Angeles, and Spokane. The West was spoken of as furnishing the
"genuine rebels--the red-blooded working stiffs," and this was said to
be the first revolutionary convention ever held in Chicago composed of
"purely wage-workers."[420] The largest and most important delegation
from the West was popularly known as the "Overalls Brigade," brought
together in Portland and Spokane by one J. H. Walsh, a national
organizer of the I. W. W. The "Brigade" numbered about twenty men who
"beat their way" from Portland to Chicago, holding propaganda meetings
en route. A member of the delegation reported this propaganda trip:
We were five weeks on the road [he said]. We traveled over two
thousand five hundred miles. The railroad fare saved would have
been about $800. We held thirty-one meetings. The receipts
of the first week from literature sales and collections were
$39.02. The second week, $53.66. The third week, $45.78. The
fourth week, $28.10. The fifth week, $8.57. Total, $175.13.
These figures do not include the song sales. The song sales
were approximately $200.[421]
In the _Industrial Union Bulletin_ for September 19 was published
a long letter from Organizer Walsh giving a detailed record of the
trip. It was given such heads as these "I. W. W. Red-Special! Overall
Brigade,"--"On its way through the continent--Thousands listen to the
speakers--Gompers and his satellites furious with rage!" "The Overall
Brigade," according to Rudolph Katz, "consisted of that element that
traveled on freight trains from one western town to another, holding
street meetings that were opened with the song, 'Hallelujah, I'm a
Bum,' and closing with passing the hat in regular Salvation Army
fashion."[422]
The Socialist Labor party group take the position that DeLeon was
denied a seat in the convention in order to further the designs of the
St. John-Trautmann faction. In their "nefarious plot" they had the
full coöperation of the "Overall Brigade" which "sat in judgment upon
Daniel DeLeon." Katz goes on to say that "St. John was the prosecuting
attorney."[423] The pretext for unseating DeLeon (and others) was
membership in the wrong local union. DeLeon was present as a delegate
of the Office Workers' Local Union. His opponents insisted that he
should, as an editor, be enrolled in the Printing Workers' Local.
On such technicalities enough delegates were refused seats to give
the Overall Brigade all the powers of a steam-roller.[424] "It was
a 'machine' of the capitalist political design," said the _Weekly
People_, "organized ... among the boys from the West."[425] "In the
case of Fellow Worker DeLeon representing 'Store & Office Workers'
Union' No. 58, the committee recommended that the protest be sustained
and the delegate not seated because he is not a member of the local
of the industry in which [he is] working, such a local being in
existence."[426]
"The very same fellows," writes Katz, "who dared DeLeon to come to the
Fourth Convention, closed the doors to him when he arrived ... and his
credentials were rejected on flimsy pretenses."
DeLeon was given the floor to state his case, and he did state
it in his characteristic fashion. The "Overall Brigade" were
seated all in a row on one side of the hall, a tough-looking
lot. Vincent St. John was in the chair with sinister mien,
wielding the gavel and everything that could be wielded to
keep DeLeon out of the convention. Alongside of St. John sat
Trautmann, ... [and] he, too, looked as though he had traveled
all the way from Seattle by freight train.[427]
"Such remarks as 'I would like to get a punch at the pope' (meaning
DeLeon) were overheard in the hall among the 'Overall Brigaders'."
"DeLeon told them whither they were drifting--to Shermanism, to
Anarchy, to the movement's destruction."[428] DeLeon's speech in
defense of his right to a seat in the convention was published in the
_Industrial Union Bulletin_ (October 10, 1908) under the title, "The
Intellectual against the Worker." Extracts from St. John's reply and
his arguments for refusing DeLeon a seat are published in the same
issue of the _Bulletin_ under the title, "The Worker against the
Intellectual." Katz says that this published version of DeLeon's speech
was full of "the basest kind of misrepresentation." He further declares
that the reports of the convention published in the _Bulletin_ were
"doctored."[429]
DeLeon expressed his opinion of the "Overall Brigade" very soon after
the convention:
Out of this [hobo] element [he declared] Walsh picked ... the
"Overall Brigade"; and to the tune "I'm a bum, I'm a bum," very
much like the tune of "God wills it! God wills it!" with which
Cuckoo Peter led the first mob of Crusaders against the Turks,
Walsh brought this "Brigade" to the convention. Some of them
... were among the "delegates." Most of them, I am credibly
informed, slept on the benches on the Lake Front, and received
from Walsh a daily stipend of 30 cents. This element lined the
walls of the convention.[430]
For four days the convention did practically nothing but protest
credentials and debate the question whether or not the Socialist Labor
party, through Daniel DeLeon, was trying to control the I. W. W. All
this was a prelude to the contest over the retention of the political
clause of the preamble which was fought out on a personal issue--the
admission of DeLeon as a delegate. The DeLeonites accused the St.
John-Trautmann group of trying to make the I. W. W. what they called a
"purely physical force body."[431] The DeLeonites in turn were charged
with attempting to subordinate the interests of the I. W. W. to those
of the Socialist Labor party.
Justus Ebert, himself a member of the Socialist Labor party, believed
that this charge was well founded. For this reason, in 1908, and
some time before the fourth convention met, he resigned from the
Socialist Labor party. Since that time he has been a member of the
("Anarcho-Syndicalist") I. W. W. His letter of resignation, addressed
to the members of Section Kings County, S. L. P., runs in part as
follows:
The Socialist Labor party believes that the political is the
reflection of the economic. With this belief in mind it aided
in launching the I. W. W., and protected it from the onslaughts
of reaction.... The Socialist Labor party has not, however,
had the courage of its convictions, ... [because] having aided
in founding and protecting the economic organization that is
to reflect the true political party of labor, [it] refuses to
vacate the field to its untrammeled and logical development.
Instead, it persists in being the political guide and mentor
of the I. W. W.... The I. W. W., hampered in its growth by the
illogical posture of the S. L. P., is compelled to serve notice
in big black type that it has no political affiliations of any
kind.... The fate of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance
will be the fate of the I. W. W., if it permits an external
political body to dominate its politics.[432]
Now DeLeon was at once the leader of the S. L. P. and of the political
element in the I. W. W., and the anti-parliamentarians perhaps felt
that the only way to get rid of what they called the "political
incubus of the S. L. P." was to eliminate DeLeon and enough of his
supporters to make it possible for the Wobblies from the West to carry
the resolution to eliminate that fearsome political clause. They were
somehow vaguely apprehensive that that phrase in the preamble which
declared that the toilers must "come together on the political field"
would make possible the subjugation of the I. W. W. by the Socialist
Labor party. This despite the fact that the paragraph in question
closes with the words: "without affiliation with any political party."
The report of the General Secretary-Treasurer expresses the position of
the simon-pure industrialists of the St. John-Trautmann faction.
Shall the economic organization [the Secretary asks] be
permitted to outline and pursue its course in the efforts
[_sic_] to bring the workers together on the industrial field,
the only essential, and, if necessary, on the political [field]
without the interference and self-assumed guardianship of
any political party,... or shall the economic organization,
the Industrial Workers of the World, be turned into a tail
of a political party and its functionaries and its officers
be obedient to the commands and the whims emanating from the
emissaries of such political party?[433]
One member of the anti-parliamentarian group--F. W.
Heslewood--expressed his opposition to any change in the preamble,
saying that he did not want to be called a dynamiter. He insisted
that "the changing of the preamble by taking out the word 'political'
will inevitably give somebody a chance to denounce the I. W. W. as an
anarchist organization."[434] The I. W. W. was precisely so denounced
soon after the convention: "The political clause has been stricken out
and with that all semblance of the I. W. W. has been wiped out. The
clause was considered 'confusing.' Fact is the clause was so clear that
it was a thorn in the side of veiled dynamiters."[435]
The proposition to strike out the seductive and dangerous words about
the "political field" was adopted and the second paragraph of the new
preamble now reads: "Between these two classes a struggle must go on
until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession
of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage
system."[436]
The "straight industrialists" had now accomplished their _coup_.
By "killing" the political clause they had, presumably, saved the
organization from the insidious peril of Socialist Labor party
domination; briefly, they had exorcised the demon of DeLeonism. This
was the sentiment of the Trautmann-St. John faction. The sentiments of
the DeLeonites are officially expressed in a leaflet issued later on
by the new but "only genuine and original I. W. W." organization which
they proceeded to establish at Detroit:
At the fourth annual convention in September, 1908, [it runs]
"certain prominent members of the organization, some of them
being officials, endeavored to capture the organization
and make of it a purely physical force body. Through their
machinations they seated delegates not entitled to a seat, and
unseated delegates entitled to a seat, threatening violence
to, and committing [it] upon, _bona fide_ delegates assembled
there. The general officers acquiesced in, and endorsed,
the actions of the irresponsible element that packed the
convention against the organization. The delegates who were
illegally debarred from a seat in the convention returned to
their respective union constituencies and reported the actions
of the anarchistic crew who were conducting the so-called
convention."[437]
The fourth convention did very little of importance except to split
the organization very decisively, if discursively, on the rock of
"politics." A few unimportant constitutional changes were made[438] and
the following officers elected: General Secretary-Treasurer, Vincent
St. John; General Organizer, Wm. E. Trautmann; General Executive
Board, Fellow Workers Cole, Miller, Ettor, Whitehead and Gains.[439]
The records and property of the organization remained with the St.
John-Trautmann faction,[440] which will be referred to in the following
pages as the Industrial Workers of the World, or simply by the three
letters, "I. W. W."
Whether or not the St. John contingent was now legitimately entitled
to be recognized as the Industrial Workers of the World is a question
which will be discussed in another place. Whether they were usurpers
or not, they held and retained control of the offices and property of
the organization. The Socialist Labor or DeLeon contingent faced the
situation as best they could. These "_bona fide_ industrial unionists
rallied," says one of their number, "and held a convention in Paterson,
N. J., and elected a new set of general officers and a new General
Executive Board."[441]
On November 5, 1908, [reads an official announcement] a
conference assembled in Paterson, N. J., of delegates sent
by the locals that remained true to the principles of the
Industrial Workers of the World. They attended to the
interrupted work of the general organization, electing a
General Executive Board and other officials, and attended to
such other work as the organization required for its growth and
progress.[442]
At this rump convention, "credentials were read for twenty-one
delegates from locals of Philadelphia, Boston, Bridgeport, Brooklyn,
and Paterson, of which [number] eighteen were present...."[443] This
Paterson conference was virtually a meeting of the two District
Councils of New York City and Paterson and a handful of Eastern
locals. The delegates declared the proceedings of the Chicago
convention illegal and naïvely read the "anarchist usurpers" out of
the organization. "The pirates in Chicago," says Rudolph Katz in his
later reminiscences, "were repudiated by the I. W. W. organizations
generally." He adds that only three issues of the _Industrial Union
Bulletin_ (official organ of the St. John faction) appeared "after that
packed 'convention' had done its deadly work."[444]
The most important action of the convention was to reduce the monthly
per-capita to five cents for locals and three cents to National
Industrial Departments and National Industrial Unions, the idea
being that the money should be controlled locally for organization
purposes.[445] Steps were taken toward the publication of an official
journal, temporary officials were elected to form a kind of _ad
interim_ administration, and New York City was decided upon for the
location of General Headquarters.[446] Within a few months, however,
the location of national headquarters was changed to Detroit, Michigan.
The Daily and Weekly _People_ served as official journal for the
Detroit organization until January, 1912, when the first number of the
(monthly) _Industrial Union News_ made its appearance. C. H. Chase (New
York) was General Secretary-Treasurer. The Executive Board consisted of
C. H. Chase, A. J. Francis (New York), Wm. Glanz (Paterson), R. McClure
(Philadelphia), C. E. Trainor (Denver), and H. Richter (Detroit).
Richter is at present General Secretary-Treasurer. He was a delegate to
the 1905 convention from one of the local unions of the Socialist Trade
and Labor Alliance.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether the "pirates in Chicago" were really
"repudiated by the I. W. W. organizations generally." The figures
presented in Appendix IV, (Table A) indicated that a large proportion
of the 200 locals (to take the lowest estimate) in the I. W. W. in 1907
had in some way vanished. The Chicago faction admitted that 17 locals
went over to Detroit,[447] and Secretary Richter writes that when the
Detroit faction was reorganized at Paterson twenty-two locals reported
to headquarters.[448] During the months of November and December,
1908, the _Weekly People_ published in its correspondence columns
about a dozen letters from locals--chiefly Eastern locals--which
expressly repudiated the "Chicago pirates." Both organizations sent
out official referendum sheets for the votes of the rank and file of
the membership on the resolutions, _etc._, adopted by the Chicago and
Paterson conventions.[449] The writer has not learned of any definite
reports concerning the returns from these referendums. It is quite
certain that the Chicago group lost many locals which did not go over
to Detroit, inasmuch as only 100 locals are reported for 1909.[450]
Secretary Richter reports that in 1909 the Detroit I. W. W. had
twenty-three locals.[451]
Now, as to the merits of the controversy. The I. W. W. set out in
1905, somewhat on the order of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance,
proposing to wage war on the capitalist, primarily on the "economic
field," _viz._, in the shop, "on the job"; by strikes and boycotts,
_etc._, but expecting to go forward, as DeLeon put it, "under the
protecting guns of a labor political party." No particular party was
endorsed, however, and any desire for the endorsement of any political
party was specifically disclaimed. The words, "without endorsing
or desiring the endorsement of any political party," were inserted
at the close of the preamble in 1906, but stricken out in 1908 (or
possibly 1907). The Detroit I. W. W. at first carried in its preamble
the words, "without endorsing any political party," but later struck
them out.[452] The western membership was especially bitter in its
hostility to the Socialist party as well as the Socialist Labor party,
and felt convinced that the I. W. W. was mortgaging its future in
allowing itself to get into any entangling political alliances, formal
or informal. The western I. W. W.s had not borrowed any theoretical
criticism of the state from the French syndicalists, but the actual
concrete experiences of the lower grades of workers in the western
states had developed in their minds a conception of the political party
(reactionary or socialistic) very similar to that of the revolutionary
syndicalists of France.
Félicien Challaye, one of the intellectuals among the French
syndicalists, expresses this common idea very concisely. He says that,
"... le parti politique est un agrégat d'éléments hétérogènes, réunis
par le lieu artificiel d'une opinion analogue: des hommes venus de
toutes les couches sociales s'y condoient, échangent leurs obscurs et
stériles bavardages, cherchent à associer par de louches compromis
leurs intérêts antagonistes."[453]
Indeed, the Western American Wobblies looked upon the whole modern
system of congressional or parliamentary government in much the same
way. Parliaments, they say, are little more than clearing-houses for
the exchange of "vague and sterile platitudes." In so far as they do
more than this, they merely further the designs of the big business
groups whom they serve as retainers. In this regard the I. W. W.s
are sufficiently Marxian and they would accent with italics Marx's
strictures on the "disease of parliamentarism." The Industrial Workers'
_feeling_ toward parliamentary government cannot be better described
that in the words of the great Socialist. In a letter written to the
_New York Tribune_ in 1852 Karl Marx describes
that incurable malady, _parliamentary crétinism_, [as] a
disorder which penetrates its unfortunate victims with the
solemn conviction that the whole world, its history, and
future, are governed and determined by a majority of votes in
that particular representative body which has the honor to
count them among its members and that all and everything going
on outside the walls of their house--wars, revolutions, railway
constructing, colonizing of whole new continents, California
gold discoveries, Central American canals, Russian armies,
and whatever else may have some little claim to influence
upon the destinies of mankind--is nothing compared with the
incommensurable events hinging upon the important question,
whatever it may be, just at that moment occupying the
attention of their honorable house.[454]
The I. W. W. makes the bald accusation that the political groups which
make up national congresses are simply (though perhaps indirectly and
adroitly) managing public affairs in behalf of the dominant economic
and commercial interests of the country. To whatever degree this is
true the I. W. W. is sure of its ground in declaring that parliaments
are corrupt. But this no more demonstrates the inherent folly of
parliamentary government than the admitted corruption--perhaps even
_industrial crétinism_--of the industrial union proves the inherent
folly of industrial unionism. There is a lamentable amount of inherited
idiocy in both labor and legislative organizations. Anything in the
constitution, and more particularly anything in the preamble (which I.
W. W.s looked upon as a Magna Carta of the proletariat), that seemed
to commit the organization to any particular _political_ policy was a
source of great uneasiness. This uneasiness was much intensified by
the constantly increasing sentiment of opposition to the (political)
state as it exists today, and to all forms of authority, especially
centralized authority.[455] The "Overall Brigade" was the group which
was most conspicuously saturated with this anarchistic feeling. These
men from the West were suspicious of all parties; thought voting and
legislating pleasant forms of ritual for deluding the workers; actively
antagonized the craft unions, which also they considered industrial
anomalies of use only as "coffin societies"; and were very doubtful
about the necessity for leaders of any kind--even leaders of the
Wobblies!
The eastern membership, on the other hand, more nearly approximated
the State Socialist type of radicalism. They were inspired by a
group of Socialist Labor party men at whose head was Daniel DeLeon.
They abjured anarchy, believed in authority (and in its instruments:
leaders), were disillusioned about State Socialism and spared no
bitterness and pettiness in criticizing the Socialist party and its
program of State Socialism and reform in general. Reform in general was
to them anathema. They were revolutionary Marxists--doctrinaire to the
bone--saturated with the dialectic.
This doctrinaire faction claimed to be the custodian of the original I.
W. W. idea. It felt itself to be the keeper of the original tradition
of the founders. This original tradition was expressed in the first
preamble if it was expressed anywhere. The DeLeonites held to that
original preamble, and the fact that they did so lends weight to their
claim that they, and they alone, are the true exponents of the spirit
and purpose which animated the first convention. They probably do
represent the spirit of the fathers--the men of 1905--more exactly than
does the "Bummery outfit" at Chicago. The Direct-Actionists might just
as well concede this much to the "Impossibilists." The latter represent
revolutionary unionism in the original bottle; the former represent the
changed form of militant unionism toward which most of the I. W. W.s
had drifted between 1905 and 1908--new red wine under the old label.
The Direct-Actionists kept the old label to designate the Western
American brand of "industrial unionism," invented (or blundered upon)
by the proletarian from the provincial side of the Mississippi, simply
because they had the _power_ to keep it. And the whole philosophy of
the so-called "Bummery outfit" is the philosophy of power--economic
power.
A further reason for conceding to the Direct-Actionists the original
name and label (as indeed the Detroiters wisely did when in 1915 they
rechristened themselves "The Workers' International Industrial Union")
is that the Direct-Actionists are the ones who, since 1908, have done
by far the most extensive organizing and propaganda work. It was the
"Bummery" which aroused hope and apprehension at Little Falls, at
Lawrence, at Wheatland, and on the Minnesota iron range, and baffled
the authorities in its dramatic "free speech fights" at Spokane,
Fresno, Paterson, San Diego, Seattle, and Everett. Their membership,
though small, is three times that of the Detroit organization.
Some more definite points of difference between the two organizations
should be noted. They may be set down here as representing the
contrasting viewpoints of Daniel DeLeon and Vincent St. John. The
attitude of these two men can be tentatively accepted as representing
the opinions of most of those in their respective followings. There is
good reason, then, for saying that the lifting of the hyphen between
DeLeon and St. John was largely due to their conflicting opinions about
(1) industrial union structure--the _arrangement_ of industrial groups;
(2) sabotage and direct action; and (3) political action.
(1) DeLeon believed that the workers should be grouped in the local
industrial union according to the _product_ turned out but that within
the local union the lines of demarcation for segregating trade or
shop branches must be drawn with reference to the particular _tool_
used.[456] St. John believed that _production_ should be the criterion
throughout, with all workers whose activities contribute toward the
output of a given _product_ enrolled in the same union. The driver of
a brewery wagon contributes his labor power to the production of beer
(as also does the stenographer in the office of the brewery!) and he
should be in the Brewery Workers' Union, as indeed he actually is in
this particular case.
(2) Direct action and sabotage were condemned by DeLeon and approved
by St. John. DeLeon's opposition was not based upon moral grounds.
He simply had no confidence in the efficacy of these methods. He was
firmly convinced that the habitual indulgence in sabotage and in
destructive tactics in general was a poor preparation for a working
class which expected some day to manage and control the industries of
the world. It was a poor educational policy.
(3) St. John was unconditionally opposed to political action. DeLeon
advocated it as a temporary aid in the struggle for emancipation. He
appears to have looked forward to the ultimate abolition of political
or representative government and the establishment of a literal
industrial democracy.[457]
The _constitution_ of the I. W. W. is not anti-political. It is merely
_non_-political. Any wage-earner is admitted regardless of creed, race
or political opinion. But it is also true that in actual practice, as
Levine remarks, "the Industrial Workers have played and are playing the
game of antipolitics."
"Their spokesmen," he says, "ridicule the 'politicians'; severely
criticized the Socialist party and insult its most prominent leaders.
The non-political portion of the I. W. W. is therefore practically
anti-political."[458]
The bitterness of feeling engendered in this controversy over politics
can well be imagined. The two factions of the I. W. W. hate one another
with a hearty fervor that is only equaled by their united opposition
to the American Federation of Labor. Both claim to be the simon-pure
revolutionary article. If any "malefactor of great wealth" thinks that
he is being scandalously abused by the I. W. W.s, he should read some
of the things the "red I. W. W.s" have to say about the "yellow I. W.
W.s" and, _a fortiori_, the "yellows" about the "reds," or attend a
debate between any kind of an I. W. W. and what he (the I. W. W.) calls
a "coffin society" man of the American Federation of Labor.
The Secretary of the Detroit I. W. W. (now W. I. I. U.) says that
to speak of factions of the I. W. W. is doing violence to the
facts in the case. The I. W. W. organized in Chicago, 1905,
established certain principles, methods, and aims, which can
be readily ascertained from the stenographic reports of the
first, second, and third conventions. Among them one of the
most essential and characteristic of the I. W. W. is the
distinct and specific declaration: The workers must organize
as a class, on the political and industrial field, to achieve
the emancipation from wage slavery. The so-called Chicago "I.
W. W." has repudiated this position, and carries since 1908,
falsely, the name. Its claim is bogus, as amply demonstrated by
its doings since that time....[459]
"We hold," says this official, "that our organization is _The_ I. W.
W. Chicago headquarters, and those who follow that organization, became
a different body since 1908."[460]
At the International Socialist Congress at Vienna in 1914 the Socialist
Labor party made a report in which it was declared that
... the Anarcho-Syndicalist element [which] caused the split in
the I. W. W. in 1908, went forth throughout the land under the
name, Industrial Workers of the World, and by its advocacy of
Anarchy, sensationalism, sabotage, "direct action," and "free
speech," riots, and similar disorderly tactics, has cast an
odium upon the name of the I. W. W.[461]
Such a characterization of the Chicago faction is hardly to be wondered
at in view of some of the statements made by organs representing the
direct-actionists. Thus we are told that what "the now famous 'Hobo
Convention' ... actually did was to restore the preamble to its
pristine syndicalist purity...."[462]
The break was not, however, entirely caused by disagreement over
political and economic principles. It was partly a matter of personal
temperament--and primarily the personal temperament of Daniel DeLeon.
We have seen that, rightly or wrongly, DeLeon has been, time after
time charged with being the instigator of trouble and dissension.
It's difficult to say just why his presence so often seemed to bring
friction and revolt. It was partly due, no doubt, to the really heroic
and rigidly uncompromising way in which he adhered to his beliefs.
It must be attributed in part, the writer believes, to defects of
temper. "The strain of love and hate aroused by DeLeon's peculiar
personality," writes one who knew him, "colors all judgments of his
career."[463] The same writer says that DeLeon was temperamentally a
Jesuit, and that his personal attacks were Jesuitical.[464] This fact
surely should be kept in mind when considering the controversies in
the socialist movement which have been laid at his door. The present
Socialist party broke away from DeLeon's leadership nearly twenty years
ago,[465] and has since thrived, while the Socialist Labor party has
been reduced to a negligible quantity. In the same way, in 1908, the
followers of DeLeon seceded and their fate has been about the same.
Eugene Debs thought that DeLeon's critics made too little allowance
for his peculiar temper. He insists that whatever "opposition to the
Industrial Workers [is] inspired by hatred for Daniel DeLeon and the
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, is puerile, to say the least....
DeLeon is sound on the question of trade unionism," Debs continues,
"and to that extent, whether I like him or not personally, I am with
him."[466] In another place Debs writes:
The fact is that most of the violent opposition of Socialist
party members to the I. W. W. is centered upon the head of
DeLeon and has a purely personal animus.... DeLeon is not the
I. W. W., although I must give him credit for being, since its
inception, one of its most vigorous and active supporters.
It may be [he continues] that DeLeon has designs upon the Socialist
party and expects to use the I. W. W. as a means of disrupting it in
the interest of the Socialist Labor party, and if he succeeds it will
be because his enemies in the Socialist party, in their bitter personal
hostility to him, are led to oppose ... the revolutionary I. W. W. and
support the reactionary A. F. of L....[467]
DeLeon's name was synonymous with revolutionary socialism--that
socialism which rejects compromise, recognizes the social
value of reform but refuses to deal in reform, and considers
revolutionary industrial unionism as the indispensable basis
of socialist political action and the revolutionary movement
as a whole. DeLeon saw clearly the impending menace of State
Socialism, particularly within the Socialist movement: and his
whole program was an answer to that menace.... Nearly every
American expression of revolutionary theory and action bears
the impress of his personality and activity; and revolutionary
unionism hails him as its philosopher and foremost American
pioneer.[468] ... DeLeon's espousal of Industrial Unionism and
the I. W. W. and his development of an industrial philosophy
of action, constitute his crowning contribution to American
socialism.[469]
DeLeon's personal character and intellectual leanings were curiously
reflected in the party to which he so unselfishly gave the best years
of his life. The Socialist Labor party is doctrinaire, unyielding,
Jesuitical as was its leader. It has always seemed to be suspended
after a fashion in an atmosphere charged with a kind of a pedantic
essence of the Marxian dialectic. It is so impressed with the
importance of its own "mutterings in the Marxian law," that when, for
example, one of Fellow Worker Walsh's "blanket stiffs" asks what the
western lumberjack is to do when he is "fleeced" for a three-day job,
the party, metaphorically speaking, simply loses its temper and rails
at him and all the rest of the "Overalls Brigade." The Socialist Labor
party has been pretty accurately summed up by Fraina:
The S. L. P. ignored the psychology of struggling workers [he
says]. Its propaganda was couched in abstract formulas; just as
its sectarian spirit developed a sort of subconscious idea that
revolutionary activity consisted in enunciating formulas. This
sectarian spirit produced dogmas, intemperate assertions, and a
general tendency toward caricature ideas and caricature action;
and discouraged men of ability from joining the S. L. P.[470]
Since the first edition of this book was published some references
to DeLeon have appeared in the dispatches from Russia. Robert Minor,
in an interview with Nikolai Lenin, quotes him as declaring that
"the American Daniel DeLeon, first formulated the idea of a soviet
government, which grew up in Russia on his, DeLeon's idea." In the
same interview Lenin is further quoted as saying: "Future society will
be organized along soviet lines. There will be soviet [occupational]
rather than geographical boundaries for nations. Industrial unionism is
the basic state...."[471]
Additional light on the relation between Bolshevism and I.W.W-ism as
conceived by Lenin appears from the following account given by Arthur
Ransome:
Lenin said he had read in an English socialist paper a comparison of
his own theories with those of ... DeLeon. He
had then borrowed some of DeLeon's pamphlets from Reinstein
(who belongs to the [Socialist Labor] party which DeLeon
founded in America), read them for the first time, and was
amazed to see how far and how early DeLeon had pursued the
same train of thought as the Russians. His theory that
representation should be by industries, not by areas, was
already the germ of the soviet system.... Some days afterwards
I noticed that Lenin had introduced a few phrases of DeLeon's
... into the draft for the new program of the Communist
[Bolshevik] party.[472]
Finally, mention should be made of the fact that the National Labor
Committee of the Socialist Labor party has just published a memorial
volume on DeLeon. It is written by a group of his friends and
co-workers in the Socialist Labor party.[473]
FOOTNOTES:
[404] _Industrial Union Bulletin_. Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1. _Cf._ appendix
vi.
[405] See Appendix iv, Table A. Professor Barnett's returns, however,
indicate a net gain in membership from 1907 to 1909. (_Quarterly
Journal of Economics_, August, 1916.) His figures, too, were secured
from the I. W. W. general headquarters. The writer is not able to
reconcile the two sets of figures.
[406] _Cf._ appendix iv, Table B.
[407] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 11, 1908, col. 1.
[408] In April, 1908, there was a strike of [presumably] I. W. W.
quarry workers at Marble, Colo. The I. W. W. papers reported that it
was successful. There is also reported in August, a strike against
reductions in wages by the French branch of the textile workers' local
at Lawrence, Mass.
[409] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908.
[410] Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 18,
1915, p. 3, col. 1.
[411] _Ibid._
[412] _Proceedings, Sixteenth Convention, W. F. M._, p. 18. This report
of the death of the I. W. W. was, to say the least, premature.
[413] "The Industrial Workers of the World," _Evening Post_ (N. Y.)
Saturday Supplement, Nov. 9, 1912, p. 3, col. 5. This article is one
of a series of three published under the above title in the _Evening
Post's_ Saturday Supplements beginning November 2, 1912. The reader is
referred to them for an excellent short historical sketch and general
estimate of the I. W. W.
[414] _Proceedings, Twentieth Convention, W. F. M._, pp. 283-4.
[415] _Ibid._, p. 283.
[416] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[417] From one of the favorite songs of the floating "Wobbly" of the
West. The refrain begins: "Hallelujah, I'm a bum." _I. W. W. Songs to
Fan the Flames of Discontent_ (5th ed.), p. 34. _Vide_ appendix ix.
[418] "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 11, 1915, p. 2,
col. 1.
[419] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 10, 1908, p. 2. The proceedings
were published in the _Bulletin_ and in the _Daily People_ (New York
City). Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was the only woman delegate present.
[420] _Ibid._, col. 3.
[421] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908.
[422] "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 18, 1915, p. 3,
col. 1.
[423] _Ibid._, Dec. 25, 1915, p. 5, col. 4.
[424] _Ibid._
[425] Oct. 10, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[426] "Report of the Committee on Credentials," _Industrial Union
Bulletin_, Oct. 10, 1908, p. 4, col. 3.
[427] _Weekly People,_ Dec. 18, 1915, p. 3.
[428] _Ibid._
[429] Katz, _op. cit._, Dec. 25, 1916, p. 5, col. 5.
[430] "The I. W. W. Convention," _Weekly People_, Oct. 3, 1908, p. 1,
col. 7.
[431] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet. _The Two I. W. W's._
[432] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 18, 1908, p. 2, col. 4.
[433] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908.
[434] "Proceedings of the Fourth Convention," _Industrial Union
Bulletin_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 3, col. 4.
[435] Editorial, _Weekly People,_ Oct. 10, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[436] The new preamble, which has survived five subsequent conventions
unscathed, is reproduced in Appendix ii. For the original preamble of
1905, _vide_, Brissenden, _Launching of the Industrial Workers of the
World_ (University of California Press), p. 46.
[437] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet, _The Two I. W. W.'s._
[438] _Cf._ report of the eighth day's session, _Industrial Union
Bulletin_, Dec. 12, 1908, p. 3.
[439] _Ibid._, March 6, 1909, p. 4, col. 2.
[440] H. Richter, General Secretary-Treasurer of the Detroit (S. L. P.)
I. W. W., now officially known as the Workers' International Industrial
Union, in a letter to the author, dated February 17, 1915.
[441] H. S. Carroll, "The Industrial Workers of the World. A brief
sketch of some history of the organization." _Weekly People_, Dec. 21,
1912.
[442] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet. _A message to the membership of the
Industrial Workers of the World and the working class in general._
[443] _Weekly People_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[444] "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 25, 1915, p. 5.
The _Bulletin_ was published more or less regularly until the Spring of
1909. The issue of March 6 appears to have been the last. On March 18,
No. 1 of Vol. 1 of the _Industrial Worker_ [II] was issued at Spokane,
Wash.
[445] _Weekly People_, Nov. 7, 1908, p. 1, col. 6.
[446] _Ibid._
[447] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, No. 7, 1908, p. 2, col. 2.
[448] Letter to the author, Feb. 17, 1915.
[449] The referendum on the Chicago convention, sent out by the
Trautmann-St. John administration, was published in the _Industrial
Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908. The DeLeonites issued a special
referendum circular signed by the _ad interim_ officers.
[450] Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, _Annual Reports on
Labor Organisations_, 1909-1914. _Cf._ also Appendix iv (Table A).
[451] Letter to the author, Feb. 17, 1915.
[452] _Vide Preamble and Constitution_ of the W. I. I. U. (1915), pp.
3-4.
[453] _Syndicalisme révolutionnaire et syndicalisme réformiste_, pp.
13-14.
[454] _Revolution and Counter-Revolution_ (2nd ed., 1904), pp. 109-10.
[455] _Cf. infra_, ch. xiii, where the controversy at the seventh and
eighth conventions between the "Centralizers" and the "Decentralizers"
is described.
[456] DeLeon, _Industrial Unionism_ (New York: N. Y. Labor News Co.,
1918), pp. 8-9.
[457] The author wishes to take this opportunity to express his
indebtedness to Emil J. Kern, of the Socialist Labor party, for many
suggestive ideas, especially in connection with the DeLeon-St. John
controversy. Whatever merit there may be in the above comparison is due
to him. On the second point, however, Mr. Kern simply states that the
difference was merely a difference of views in regard to _stealing_.
St. John, he says, approved of it. (Not per se, of course, but because,
as he assumed--[on Kern's hypothesis], it helped the interests of the
workers.) DeLeon disapproved of it, not on moral grounds, but for the
reasons given above in paragraph 2. The author does not know whether
St. John approves of stealing or not. Some color may be given to Mr.
Kern's contention by the charges which were circulated in Goldfield,
Nev., that the W. F. M. sanctioned the wholesale stealing of ore by its
members. _Cf. supra_, p. 198. and E. J. Kern, "Socialism and Direct
Action" (_San Francisco Labor Clarion_, May 31, 1912).
[458] Louis Levine, "The Development of Syndicalism in America,"
_Political Science Quarterly_, vol. xxviii, p. 474 (Sept., 1913). This
is perhaps the best short record and general description of the career
of the I. W. W. as a whole.
[459] Herman Richter, private correspondence, March 30, 1912.
[460] Private correspondence, Oct. 23, 1911.
[461] _Weekly People_, Aug. 22, 1914, p. 2, col. 2.
[462] "Some Preamble History," _Voice of the People_ (Los Angeles),
Oct. 30, 1913, p. 3, col. 3.
[463] Louis Fraina, "DeLeon," _The New Review_, July 1914, p. 391. This
excellent portrayal of DeLeon's personality and achievements as well
as the rôle he played in the I. W. W. and the socialist movement in
general makes it unnecessary to attempt more than the briefest comment
here.
[464] Fraina, _op. cit._, p. 397.
[465] _Cf._ Hillquit, M., _History of Socialism in the United States_
(5th ed.), pp. 294-301. "The disintegration of the Socialist Labor
party."
[466] "The Coming Labor Union," _Miners' Magazine_, vol. vii, no. 122,
Oct. 26, 1905, p. 13.
[467] "The Socialist Party and the Trade Unions," _The Worker_ (New
York), July 28, 1906. Reprinted in the _Miners' Magazine_, Aug. 30,
1906, p. 9.
[468] Fraina, "DeLeon," _New Review_, July, 1914, vol. ii, p. 390.
[469] _Ibid._, p. 394.
[470] "DeLeon," _New Review_, vol. ii, p. 398 (July, 1914).
[471] _The World_ (New York), February 4, 1919, p. 2, col. 1. Reprinted
in the _Liberator_, March, 1919. p. 6.
[472] Ransome, Arthur. _Russia in 1919_ (New York, B. W. Huebsch,
1919), pp. 120-121. The section of the book containing this paragraph
is reprinted in the _Liberator_, August, 1919, p. 31.
[473] _Daniel DeLeon, the Man and his Work: a Symposium_ (New York,
1919), 336 pp. The volume includes a reprint of the series of articles
by Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon since '89", first published serially in
the columns of the _Weekly People_.