The Socialistic Programme—Fighting a Compromise—Opposition to the
Eight-hour Movement—The Memorial to Congress—Eight Hours’ Work
Enough—The Anarchist Position—An _Alarm_ Editorial—“Capitalists
and Wage Slaves”—Parsons’ Ideas—The Anarchists and the Knights
of Labor—Powderly’s Warning—Working up a Riot—The Effect of
Labor-saving Machinery—Views of Edison and Wells—The Socialistic
Demonstration—The Procession of April 25, 1886—How the
_Arbeiter-Zeitung_ Helped on the Crisis—The Secret Circular of 1886.
WHILE the Socialists are bent on a revolution in the economic condition
of the working class, or, as they choose to term it, the proletariat,
they have conclusively shown that they do not desire to further that
movement by pacific means. Imbued with the doctrines of violence and
intent on the complete destruction of government, they do not seek
their end by orderly, legitimate methods. This fact has been most
thoroughly established by the extracts from their public declarations
which I have already given.
But if any doubts still exist with reference thereto, they are
completely dissipated by an examination into the attitude assumed by
the Socialists toward the labor problem as it exists at the present
day. It is not my purpose to enter into a detailed review of the whole
field. I will simply call attention to one fact, and in that fact one
sweeps the labor horizon, viewed from the Socialistic standpoint, as
the astronomer sweeps the heavens with his telescope, striking the most
prominent objects within the range of observation. This one fact is the
position of the Socialists toward the eight-hour movement.
It is generally known that many economists and agitators, with neither
affiliations nor sympathy for Socialism, have been contending for
years that with the rapid increase in labor-saving machinery and the
consequent displacement of labor, reduction in the hours of service
has become an absolute necessity. The points made in support of this
position are numerous, and as the most salient ones appear in a
memorial on the part of a National Labor Convention to the Committee on
Depression in Labor and Business of the Forty-sixth Congress, drafted
November 10, 1879, I may briefly quote a few. The memorial asked a
reduction:
1. In the name of political economy. “All political economists are
agreed,” they said, “that the standard of wages is determined by the
cost of subsistence rather than by the number of hours employed.
Wages are recognized as resulting from the necessary cost of living
in any given community. The cost of subsistence for an average family
determines the rate, and it is for this reason that single men can save
more if they will.”
2. In the interest of civilization. “The battle for a reduction of
the hours of labor is a struggle for a wider civilization.” With less
hours, more leisure is afforded for mental and social improvement. In
proof the memorialists appealed to the past and to the fact that one
day of rest in seven has raised the social condition of the people.
Besides, they urged, the “history of the short-hour movement in
England proved conclusively that every reduction of time in the United
Kingdom had invariably been followed by an increase of wages,” and the
consequent improvement of workingmen.
3. The changed relations between production and consumption demand
remedial legislation. A reduction of hours would give more men
employment. Under existing conditions, capital and production have
increased while the number of persons employed has fallen off.
These are doctrines one would think the Socialist, pretending to have
the interests of labor at heart, would unquestionably and heartily
indorse. Far from it. True to his nature as a social disturber,
disorganizer and malcontent, he sees in it a possible solution of
many labor troubles and the approach to a rearrangement of existing
conditions on a basis different from his own theories. When this
question arose in Chicago in the winter of 1885-86, the _Alarm_ entered
its most emphatic protest. In its issue of December 12, 1885, it had
this to say, under the heading, “No Compromise”:
We of the Internationale are frequently asked why we do not give our
active support to the proposed eight-hour movement. Let us take what
we can get, say our eight-hour friends, else by asking too much we may
get nothing.
We answer: Because we will not compromise. Either our position that
capitalists have no right to the exclusive ownership of the means
of life is a true one, or it is not. If we are correct, then to
concede the point that capitalists have the right to eight hours of
our labor, is more than a compromise; it is a virtual concession
that the wage system is right. If capitalists have the right to own
labor or to control the results of labor, then clearly we have no
business dictating the terms upon which we may be employed. We cannot
say to our employers, “Yes, we acknowledge your right to employ us;
we are satisfied that the wage system is all right, but we, your
slaves, propose to dictate the terms upon which we will work.” How
inconsistent! And yet that is exactly the position of our eight-hour
friends. They presume to dictate to capital, while they maintain the
justness of the capitalistic system; they would regulate wages while
defending the claims of the capitalists to the absolute control of
industry.
These sentiments were frequently reiterated by A. R. Parsons, who was
the editor of the _Alarm_; and in August Spies he found an energetic
ally. Among other things Spies said concerning the movement:
We do not antagonize the eight-hour movement. Viewing it from the
standpoint that it is a social struggle, we simply predict that it
is a lost battle, and we will prove that, even though the eight-hour
system should be established at this late day, the wage-workers would
gain nothing. They would still remain the slaves of their masters.
Suppose the hours of labor should be shortened to eight, our
productive capacity would thereby not be diminished. The shortening of
the hours of labor in England was immediately followed by a general
increase of labor-saving machines, with a subsequent discharge of a
proportionate number of employés. The reverse of what had been sought
took place. The exploitation of those at work was intensified. They
now performed more labor, and produced more than before.
The movement, however, took a firm hold of the laboring classes. They
saw in it a chance to secure more leisure, and, inspired by their
anti-Socialistic leaders, did all in their power to further it. There
were then in Chicago a great many unemployed, and under the plea that
a reduction in the hours of toil would not only give more time for
self-improvement, but necessitate the employment of many of the idle
throng, the leaders advocated its speedy introduction. At this time
the general sentiment prevailed that it was simply a movement for a
reduction in working-time, the question of wages not being involved.
Some few irresponsible talkers of the Socialistic stamp, it is true,
held out that it was to be a contention for wages as well, but the most
influential and conservative representatives of labor insisted that
they only wanted eight hours’ work for eight-hours’ pay. Grand Master
Workman Powderly held to the latter view and repeatedly urged the
members of the Knights of Labor not to go beyond that demand. He even
intimated a doubt if it were the part of wisdom and policy to undertake
at the time a strike of the kind, in view of the complications then
growing out of the Missouri Pacific Railway—known as the Gould
system—“tie-up.” Traffic and industry had been seriously affected
throughout the West by Martin Irons’ stubbornness, and it is evident
that Powderly had his misgivings about the outcome of an eight-hour
strike. However, the leaders continued their agitation, and it was
decided that the resolution adopted in 1884 by a number of trades
organizations in national session for an eight-hour strike on May 1,
1886, should be carried out in Chicago, as in other large manufacturing
and trade centers. Had this simple proposition not been “loaded,” the
result of the movement might have been different, but, as the time drew
near, it became quite apparent that, despite Powderly’s warnings, the
question of wages was to cut a leading figure. It was developed that
the demand for a reduction of hours was to be accompanied with a demand
for the same wages as under the old ten-hour system. This was the rock
upon which they subsequently foundered. Had they been content to accept
decreased wages and relied upon increased efficiency and skill and the
logic of events to secure increased pay in the future, they might have
scored many victories, if not a complete success.
But they were alike unmindful of Powderly’s advice and the teachings
of history. They seemingly forgot that the employers would naturally
resist any such sweeping concession, and that, as in other instances,
the unemployed would at once be installed, whenever possible, in
their places, and that in industries where there did not exist an
over-production, the capacity of machines would be more heavily taxed
and new machines would be introduced to do work hitherto done by hand.
A London publication has shown how, in recent years, in the extremity
of bitter strikes, manufactories have increased their labor-saving
machinery to offset the absence of their workmen and how invention in
the line of new machines has been greatly stimulated by a stubborn
conflict between employer and employé. Hon. David A. Wells has also
pointed out a similar result in this country. Identically the same
thing happened in several establishments in Chicago. The unemployed and
new machines were called into requisition whenever possible.
But labor-saving machinery need not necessarily be regarded as an enemy
of labor. That doctrine, which had its origin at the time when a riot
in Spain followed the introduction of a machine to make woolens, and
which continued until the invention of the sewing-machine, has in this
day come to be regarded by all enlightened economists as a nightmare
of the musty past. The fact is labor has been aided and benefited by
machinery.
Prof. Edison, the great inventor, is authority for the statement
that the increase in machinery and inventions during the last fifty
years has doubled the wages of workingmen and reduced the cost of the
necessaries of life 50 per cent. “For the first time in the world’s
history,” he says, “a skilled mechanic can buy a barrel of flour with a
single day’s work.” Hon. David A. Wells, in an article in the _Popular
Science Monthly_ for October, 1887, treating of the depression of
prices since 1873, also demonstrates the fact that the reductions,
which he states to be 30 per cent., during the time under his review,
are due to inventions. Edison goes still further in his statement
with reference to the enhancement of wages. He predicts, rather too
glowingly perhaps, that in another generation even “the unskilled
laborer, if sober and industrious, will have a house of his own, a
library, a piano and a horse and carriage,” with all the comforts that
these imply.
Anarchist Spies evidently took no stock in such a condition as the
result of new and improved mechanical appliances, for in his early
opposition to the inauguration of the eight-hour movement he declared
that “for a man who desires to remain a wage slave, the introduction of
every new improvement and machine is a threatening competitor.”
I have thus pointed to some facts bearing on strikes and wages because
it has since transpired that the Anarchists or Socialists, intent on
precipitating the “social revolution,” were the principal instigators
of the demand for ten hours’ pay for eight hours’ work, thereby hoping
to irritate the employers to determined resistance and the workingmen
of non-Socialistic ideas to the point of violence. Past experience was
cast aside under their clandestine guidance. While the movement was in
its infancy the Socialists, as such, held aloof, but, the moment they
saw that it was gaining strength and was likely to involve all the
wage-workers in the city, and that eight hours on a basis of reduced
pay might be secured, they perceived their opportunity to complicate
matters by the introduction of a demand for the old wages with reduced
time. This at once threw down the gauntlet. While before they had
opposed the movement, they now became active agitators in its behalf
and appeared more solicitous about its certain inauguration than they
were about its successful ending. Their organs bristled with incendiary
language. Their speakers could hardly find words strong enough to
fire their auditors in the demand for eight hours. They even got up
a procession under the auspices of the Central Labor Union, and, on
Sunday, April 25, 1886, paraded the streets with red flags and red
badges.
Among some of the mottoes displayed were: “The Social Revolution,”
“Workingmen, Arm Yourselves,” “Down with Throne, Altar and Moneybags,”
and “Might makes Right, and You are the Strongest.”
The procession massed on the Lake Front. There the leading speakers
were loud in encouraging the strike for eight hours. Parsons maintained
that “if the demands of workingmen were met by a universal lock-out,
the signal would be taken as one of ‘war, and war to the knife.’” Spies
declared that “the eight-hour day had been argued for twenty years. We
at last can hope to realize it.” Schwab and Fielden were alike emphatic.
The _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ likewise heartily indorsed the movement. In its
issue of April 26, 1886, appeared an editorial of which the following
is the concluding paragraph:
What a modest demand, the introduction of the eight-hour day! And
yet a corps of madmen could not demean themselves worse than the
capitalistic extortioners. They continually threaten with their
disciplined police and their strong militia,—and these are not empty
threats. This is proved by the history of the last few years. It is a
nice thing, this patience, and the laborer, alas! has too much of this
article; but one must not indulge in a too frivolous play with it. If
you go further, his patience will cease; then it will be no longer a
question of the eight-hour day, but a question of emancipation from
wage slavery.
In the same paper two days later the editor said:
What will the first of May bring? The workingmen bold and determined.
The decisive day has arrived. The workingman, inspired by the justice
of his cause, demands an alleviation of his lot, a lessening of his
burden. The answer, as always, is: “Insolent rabble! Do you mean to
dictate to us? That you will do to your sorrow. Hunger will soon rid
you of your desire for any notions of liberty. Police, executioners
and militia will give their aid.”
Men of labor, so long as you acknowledge the gracious kicks of your
oppressors with words of gratitude, so long you are faithful dogs.
Have your skulls been penetrated by a ray of light, or does hunger
drive you to shake off your servile nature, that you offend your
extortioners? They are enraged, and will attempt, through hired
murderers, to do away with you like mad dogs.
When the eventful day—May 1—arrived, the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ became
more menacing than ever, and the following appeared:
Bravely forward! The conflict has begun. An army of wage-laborers
are idle. Capitalism conceals its tiger claws behind the ramparts of
order. Workmen, let your watchword be: No compromise! Cowards to the
rear! Men to the front!
The die is cast. The first of May has come. For twenty years the
working people have been begging extortioners to introduce the
eight-hour system, but have been put off with promises. Two years ago
they resolved that the eight-hour system should be introduced in the
United States on the first day of May, 1886. The reasonableness of
this demand was conceded on all hands. Everybody, apparently, was in
favor of shortening the hours; but, as the time approached, a change
became apparent. That which was in theory modest and reasonable,
became insolent and unreasonable. It became apparent at last that the
eight-hour hymn had only been struck up to keep the labor dunces from
Socialism.
[Illustration:
1. Government is for Slaves Freemen Govern Themselves.
2. Stairbuilder Union Chicago
3. Every Government is a Conspiracy of the Rich Against the People.
4. “We mourn the death of a workingman more than the death of a Gen.
Grant.”
6. “Down with Throne, Altar and Moneybags.”
7. “Workingmen, arm yourselves.”
8. “Every Government is a conspiracy against the People.”
9. Not to be a Slave is to Dare and Do! (Vic Hugo.)
BANNERS OF THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION—IV. FROM PHOTOGRAPHS.]
That the laborers might energetically insist upon the eight-hour
movement, never occurred to the employer. And it is proposed again
to put them off with promises. We are not afraid of the masses of
laborers, but of their pretended leaders. Workmen, insist upon
the eight-hour movement. “To all appearances it will not pass off
smoothly.” The extortioners are determined to bring their laborers
back to servitude by starvation. It is a question whether the
workmen will submit, or will impart to their would-be murderers an
appreciation of modern views. We hope the latter.
In the same issue of the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ also appeared the
following, in a conspicuous place:
It is said that on the person of one of the arrested comrades in New
York a list of membership has been found, and that all the comrades
compromised have been arrested. _Therefore, away with all rolls of
membership, and minute-books, where such are kept. Clean your guns,
complete your ammunition. The hired murderers of the capitalists, the
police and militia, are ready to murder. No workingman should leave
his house in these days with empty pockets._
The consummate inconsistency of the Socialists is thus no better
illustrated in what has already been shown than in their record in
Chicago. They have always been eager to jump on top of the band wagon,
to paraphrase a famous expression of Emery A. Storrs, when they thought
that it gave them a chance to join in the lead of the procession; and,
the moment they had a voice in directing the music, they led it beyond
the mere sentiments of a Marseillaise. Take each formidable strike in
the city, and invariably they have instigated the rabble to deeds of
disorder and violence. What care they for labor reforms accomplished
through peaceable agitation? It is only when a pretext is presented
for widening the breach between capital and labor, and hastening the
time for revolution, that the Socialists join in any movement looking
to the real benefit of labor. It is true, they have figured in labor
reforms, such as the agitation for national and State bureaus of
labor statistics, the abolition of convict labor in competition with
outside industries, the prevention of child labor in factories and
work-shops, the sanitary inspection of tenement-houses and factories;
but all these have been merely side issues to their one and controlling
purpose—Revolution. For appearance’ sake they have boasted of their
achievements in the lines indicated, but it is a fact of history that,
without the efforts of non-Socialistic labor, none of the reforms
so far accomplished would ever have been secured. The fact is that
Socialists and Anarchists are radically opposed to the whole wage
system and only join in the demands of law-observing and peace-loving
labor as a means to one end—opportunity for disturbance. For this
purpose alone they have become members of the Knights of Labor, and,
once in, they have proved an element of disorder and contention. So
pronounced had they become in fomenting trouble during the eight-hour
agitation that Mr. Powderly finally found it necessary to issue a
secret circular to the order in the spring of 1886. In that circular,
among other things, he said:
[Illustration: INTERIOR VIEW OF NEFF’S HALL.—From a Photograph.]
Men who own capital are not our enemies. If that theory held good,
the workman of to-day would be the enemy of his fellow-toiler on the
morrow, for, after all, it is how to acquire capital and how to use
it properly that we are endeavoring to learn. No! The man of capital
is not necessarily the enemy of the laborer; on the contrary, they
must be brought closer together. I am well aware that some extremists
will say I am advocating a weak plan and will say that bloodshed and
destruction of property alone will solve the problem. If a man speaks
such sentiments in an assembly read for him the charge which the
Master Workman repeats to the newly initiated who join our “army of
peace.” If he repeats such nonsense put him out.
Wise words and well spoken.