MIA > Archive > Foster > Syndicalism
For various reasons — but principally because of the great opportunities that have existed until recent years for individual workers to better their conditions — American workers as a class are more backward in the defense of their interests than are the workers of any other country. Their labor unions, with their antique fighting tactics and obsolete philosophy, are the laughing stock of revolutionists the world over. They are utterly unfit to combat the modern aggregations of capital. The working class, whose sole defense they are against the capitalist class, is in retreat before the latter’s attacks. If this course is to be arrested and the workers started upon the road to emancipation, the American labor movement must be revolutionized. It must be placed upon a Syndicalist basis.
This revolution must be profound, as American labor unions — save that they are aggregations of workers organized to fight their employers — have but little in common with Syndicalist unions. Some of the principal changes necessary in ideals, forms, tactics, etc., will be indicated in the following pages.
“A Fair Day’s Pay For a Fair Day’s Work.”— This formula expresses the vague ideal for which the majority of American labor unions are striving. Such unions grant the right to their masters to exploit them, only asking in return that they be given a “fair” standard of living. It is a slave ideal.
The eradication, through education, of the ignorant conservatism from whence this slave ideal springs, is the most important step to be taken in the placing of the American labor movement upon an effective basis. The workers must learn that they are the producers of all wealth, and that they alone are entitled to enjoy it. Inspired by this knowledge, they will refuse to recognize the claim of their masters to even the smallest fraction of this wealth. They will then have a keen sense of their wrongs and a bitter hatred for capitalism, instead of their present indifference. They will then war in earnest upon their masters and will rest content until, by the abolition of the wage system, they will have forced them to disgorge their ill-gotten booty.
Harmony of Interests of Capital and Labor.— Along with the slave ideal of “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” must go the idiotic doctrine of the harmony of interests of capital and labor, which many labor leaders are so fond of enunciating.
This doctrine is a veritable monument to the ignorance of American workers, and the participation of their union officials in the notorious Civic Federation — which is founded on this doctrine — is a crime and a disgrace to their movement. The workers will have to learn the self-evident fact that in almost every respect the interests of the workers and their employers are diametrically opposite and unharmonizable; that the workers produce just so much, and that it is to their interest to retain as much of this product as they can, through higher wages, shorter hours, better working conditions, etc., whereas it is to the interest of their employers to rob them of as much of this product as possible, through low wages, long hours, wretched working conditions, etc. They must learn that the great strikes now convulsing the world are battles in the inevitable world-wide warfare between the capitalists and working classes over the division of the product of labor, and that his warfare must go on until the working class has vanquished the capitalist class and abolished the wage system. And, finally, they must learn that any labor leader who preaches the harmony of interest doctrine is either an incompetent ignoramus or a traitor to the working class, and should be treated as such.
Craft Unionism and the Contract.— Craft Unionism — or, more properly, Sectional Unionism, as all non-revolutionary labor unions, whether organized on craft or industrial lines, are alike commonly designated “craft” unions — is a prolific source of weakness to the labor movement. By its division of the working class into various sections, each of which, knowing and caring little about the interests of the others, shortsightedly tries to defend the narrow, immediate interests of its own members, Craft Unionism cripples the fighting power of the workers. It sends the working class piecemeal to fight the united capitalists, who, in addition to their own power, artfully use that of the great mass of workers at peace with them to crush the few in revolt.
Their usual method of pitting one section of the working class against another is by the contract. An employer will make contracts, each of which expires at a different date, with the various “craft” unions of his workers. When the first contract expires and the “craft” union directly concerned goes on strike, the balance remain at work and thus help to defeat it. These unwise unions are similarly trounced, one at a time, at the expiration of their contracts. So common has this custom become that Craft Unionism has come to signify but little better than union scabbery. As it robs the workers of their fighting force, Craft Unionism is rightfully looked upon as one of the strongest supports of the capitalist system.
The fundamental error of Craft Unionism is that it takes no cognizance of the class struggle. It attempts to successfully pit small fractions of the working class against not only the great power of the capitalist class, but also against that of the balance of the working class. The remedy for it and the contract evil, which is its inseparable companion, is for the workers to learn that they all have interests in common and that if they will develop their tremendous power and make their interests prevail, they must act together as a unit. Having learned this, they will discard the suicidal “craft” union motto of “Each for himself and the devil take the hindmost,” and adopt the revolutionary slogan of “An injury to one is the concern of all.” They will replace the inefficient partial strike of Craft Unionism with the potent general strike of Syndicalism and forge forward on the road to economic liberty.
Autonomy.— The scabbery of the “craft” unions upon each other is chiefly ascribed by Industrial Unionists to the fact that these unions — both A. F. of L. and independent — are autonomous; that is, each reserves to itself the right to work or strike as it sees fit, and to otherwise generally transact its own affairs regardless of the others. They claim that if the workers were organized into strongly centralized unions and under the direct control of an all-powerful executive board, this union scabbery would cease. Their theory is that this beneficent executive board — which in some miraculous way is going to be revolutionary, no matter what the condition of the rank and file — would always force all the unions out in support of all strikers, however few they might be.
This absurd remedy flows naturally from the Industrial Unionists’ shallow diagnosis of the cause of union scabbery. Even the most cursory examination of labor history will show that while occasionally organized workers, through pure ignorance, will scab on each other, by far the greater part of union scabbery is due not to the autonomy of the unions, but to the lack of it; to the dictatorial powers of the officials of the various national unions. These officials, either through the innate conservatism of officialdom, fear of jeopardizing the rich funds in their care, or downright treachery, ordinarily use their great powers to prevent strikes or to drive their unions’ members back to work after they have struck in concert with other workers.
Indeed, it is almost the regular order of procedure for the rank and file of “craft” unions, during big strikes, to surge in revolt in support of the striking workers, and for the union officials to crush this revolt — often with the most unscrupulous means. Every big American strike produces instances of this repression of the rank and file. The present newspaper strike in Chicago furnishes a couple of typical ones. The stereotypers pooled their grievances with the pressmen and struck. For this their local union was immediately expelled from the national union by the general officers on the pretense that it had violated its contract. As a companion feat to this, Jim Lynch, the notorious head of the International Typographical Union, personally prevented the printers from also joining the strike.
The evil of centralized power in labor unions is by no means confined to the American labor movement. It is a world-wide phenomenon. For instance, the great English working-class revolt of the past couple of years has occurred in the face of the most determined opposition of the union leaders, who, instead of being in the van of the movement, as they should be according to the Industrial Unionist theory, are being dragged along, willy nilly, in its wake. The immense German labor unions also give abundant proofs of the evils of centralization. These unions are the nearest approach in form to the Industrial Unionist ideal of any unions in the world. They are all ruled by powerful executive boards — the local unions being destitute of the right to strike at will, raise strike funds, or even to elect their own local officers. The result is that they rarely go on strike, their union dictators simply refusing to allow them to do so. The type of ultra revolutionary executive board, dreamed of by the I. W. W., which will force the workers to strike together, has not developed in practice.
Syndicalists have noted this universal baneful influence of centralized power in labor unions and have learned that if the workers are ever to strike together they must first conquer the right to strike from their labor union officials. Therefore, it is a fundamental principle with them the world over that their unions be decentralized and that the workers alone have the power to decide on the strike.
The C. G. T. of France, which is, for its size, by far the most powerful labor organization in the world, is a typical decentralized Syndicalist union. In it the various national craft and industrial unions[25] are strictly independent of each other; they being bound together by only the most general regulations regarding per capita tax, etc. The federated unions in the various localities (bourses du travail) are also autonomous, each deciding for itself all important matters, such as the strike, etc. For instance, the National Federation of Building Trades Workers is divided locally in Paris into thirty-four local craft unions. Each of these local unions individually retains the right to work or strike at will, regardless of the decision of the other thirty-three local unions in the same national union, or of the decision of the national union itself. And yet these thirty-four autonomous local unions can show a better record of solidarity and general strikes than any other building trades organization in the world. The matchless solidarity that characterizes them is due to the understanding of their members that they have interests in common, and not to the compulsion of some beneficent, omnipotent executive board a la I. W. W. Indeed, long experience has taught the French unions that the first consideration for solidarity is the abolition of meddling executive boards.
What is needed in the American labor movement is not less autonomy, but more of it. The executive boards of the various national unions will have to be stripped of their legislative powers and these powers vested in the local unions where they belong. Even though these local unions at present may be hampered by ignorance of their true interests, they are a hundred times rather to be trusted with power than a few national officials who are exposed to all kinds of corrupt and conservative influences. The working class can never emancipate itself by proxy even though its proxies be labor union officials.
Labor Fakers.— The American labor movement is infested with hordes of dishonest officials who misuse the power conferred upon them to exploit the labor movement to their own advantage, even though this involves the betrayal of the interests of the workers. The exploits of these labor fakers are too well known to need recapitulation here. Suffice to say, the labor faker must go.
The French labor movement presents several excellent methods of exterminating and preventing the labor faker. The chief of these is the decentralized form of the unions. This form, by taking the power out of the hands of executive committees, takes away the very foundation of labor fakerism, viz., delegated power. Another method is to make official positions financially unattractive to fakers by attaching but small salaries to them (the two secretaries of the C. G. T. receive only $50.00 per month.) This custom of paying small salaries has also the wholesome effect of making labor union officials feel like working men, instead of like capitalists, as many American labor leaders do. Another faker deterrent is to make official positions so dangerous — owing to the “illegal” tactics of the unions their officials are in constant danger of imprisonment — that fakers have small taste for them. French Syndicalists also object strenuously to individuals making a profession of labor leading, and it is a common occurrence for high union officials to go back to the ranks on the expiration of their terms of office.
The result of these methods is that the French labor movement is remarkably free from labor fakers. As a rule, only the best and most courageous of the workers accept the dangerous and poorly paid official positions. These workers vie with each other in venturesomeness and keep the prisons full. If, however, in spite of these checks, a faker does develop, he is given short shrift. He is disposed of with the most convenient expedient, “legal” or “illegal.” American workers couldn’t do better than to apply French methods to their faker pest.
The Unskilled.— The pernicious and widely prevalent policy of excluding unskilled workers from the labor unions must cease. For their own immediate interests — not to mention class interests — the skilled workers, for two leading reasons, must have the co-operation of the unskilled workers in their industries. In the first place, labor is so specialized and simplified in modern industry that when the ordinary so-called skilled worker goes on strike his place can readily be filled by an unskilled worker who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of the trade. Skilled workers have lost innumerable strikes from this cause. The only way to prevent this scabbery is to take into the union all skilled and unskilled workers directly connected with a given craft or industry. This will make them all realize their common interests and prevent their scabbing upon each other.
And in the second place, the skilled workers in the larger industries are in such a minority that they cannot seriously disorganize these industries — and without this disorganization of industry they cannot win concessions from their employers. To be able to win they must pool their demands with those of the unskilled workers, and, by striking with them, bring whole industries to a standstill. This involves letting the unskilled workers into their unions.
Job Trusts.— The job trust unions are a curse to the American labor movement. With their high initiation fees, closed books, apprenticeship restrictions, etc., they are prolific producers of the scab. Like the strictly skilled workers’ unions, and for the same reasons, they must go. They must be succeeded by broad unions with low initiation fees and a universal free transfer system. These unions must be inspired by class ideals and organized on the principle of “Once a union man, always a union man.”
Legality.— The campaign for “law and order” tactics that is continually carried on in the unions by various kinds of legalitarians and weaklings exerts a bad influence upon them. It must cease. The workers must be taught to use all kinds of successful tactics — whether these have been sanctioned by the ruling class or not. Had the workers awaited legal permission they never would have built up their labor unions, as these organizations and their fighting tactics have always been illegal, and have been developed in the face of most drastic governmental persecution. For the labor unions to become legal would be for them to commit suicide. All laws calculated to hinder their growth and activities have been made only to be broken. A vigorous campaign must be waged in the unions to apprise the workers of this fact.
Overtime Fast Working and Piece Work.— These three factors, by increasing the army of the unemployed, are very detrimental to the labor movement. They must all three be abolished. The workers must refuse to work overtime and by the piece. They must also give up their present rapid rate of work, and, by systematically saboting their work, turn out as little as possible of it. This slowing down of production will have the same effect as a shortening of the working day. It will provide employment for thousands of workers now unemployed, and will place the whole working class in a much better position to enforce their demands upon their employers.
Sick and Death Benefits.— The beneficial institutions with which American labor unions are loaded unquestionably very seriously lessen the fighting abilities of these unions. They prostitute the unions from their true functions as aggressive organizations to the false ones of defensive organizations. They do this by causing great sums of money to be piled up in the hands of national committees, who, of course, have full power to protect these funds. These committees, wishing to prevent their funds from being jeopardized by strikes, ordinarily use this power to prevent strikes and to direct the minds of the workers into insurance channels. Such funds are fruitful sources of harmful centralization. Rebels all over the world are unanimous in their condemnation.
Strike Benefits.— Large strike benefits are doubly detrimental to the labor movement. On the one hand, like sick and death benefits, they cause centralization and weaken the action of the unions by placing large funds in the hands of powerful national committees, who keep these funds intact by preventing strikes. And, on the other hand, they cause the workers to depend for success upon their niggardly savings — which are utterly eclipsed by the immense funds of the capitalists — instead of upon their economic power, which is invincible.
The modern strike, dependent upon funds for success, is ordinarily long, legal and a failure. Such strikes are obsolete. The successful type of modern strike is short and depends for its success upon the disorganization of industry it causes. The funds, if any are needed to finance it, are usually raised in the heat of the battle from non-striking workers, who at such times are ready givers.
Small strike funds held by local unions may be permissible, but large strike funds held by national committees are strictly to be condemned.
The Unions and Politics.— A word of caution on this point: The Syndicalists in the United States have ahead of them a long and hard fight with the politicians for the control of the labor movement. They run but one serious danger in this fight, and that is that their hatred for the politicians may lead them to write anti-political clauses into the preambles and constitutions of the unions under their control.
Labor unions are organizations of workers organized on the basis of their common economic interests. To be successful they require the co-operation of workers of all kinds, regardless of their personal opinions. Consequently they cannot, without disastrous consequences to themselves, make personal convictions — whether in regard to politics, religion or any other matter foreign to the labor unions — a qualification for membership in them. Therefore, Syndicalists must keep the unions under their control officially neutral toward politics. Let their policy be “No politics in the union.” As individuals they can safely fight the politicians to their hearts’ content.
This is the policy of the French Syndicalists and has proven very successful in the C. G. T. This organization, though controlled by the Syndicalists, is officially neutral toward politics. As a consequence it has in its ranks several unions controlled by Socialists, not to mention the thousands of Socialists in the other unions under the control of Syndicalists. If the C. G. T. took an anti-political stand it would undoubtedly lose this large Socialist element and the French labor movement would suffer the calamity of being split into two warring factions.
In the foregoing pages only the more important evils afflicting American labor unionism have been gone into, and their remedies indicated. Lack of space forbids the discussion of the many minor ones with which it bristles. But the rebel worker, in his task of putting the American labor movement upon a Syndicalist basis, will have no difficulty in recognizing them and their antidotes when he encounters them.
To revolutionize the American labor movement, Syndicalists must follow the course taken by successful Syndicalists the world over, viz., develop the existing unions and organize unions for those workers for whom at present none exist.[26] The natural course of evolution for a labor movement — even as for individual workers — is gradually from the conservative to the revolutionary. Syndicalists are natural educators and leaders of the working class and by actively participating in the labor movement they can greatly hasten this evolution. They can best make their influence felt upon the labor movement through the medium of the organized militant minority.
In every group of human beings, be it Y. W. C. A., A. F. of L., M. & M., Salvation Army or what not, there are to be found a certain few individuals who exercise a great influence over the thoughts and actions of the rest of the mass of individuals composing the group. They are the directing forces of these groups, the sluggish mass simply following their lead. They are natural leaders and maintain their leadership through their superior intellect, energy, courage, cunning, organizing ability, oratorical power, etc., as the case may be. They are militant minorities.
The labor movement, owing to its peculiar nature, is especially fertile in and responsive to the efforts of militant minorities of various sorts, such as Syndicalists, Anarchists, Socialists, Craft Unionists, Clericals, etc., who are each striving to control it for their own ends. All over the world it will be found following the lead of one or more of these militant minorities. The most potent of all the militant minorities in the labor movement are the Syndicalists, whose vigorous philosophy, ethics and tactics — which are those par excellence of the labor movement-coupled with their unflagging energy and courage, born of the revolution, make them invincible in the struggle between the various militant minorities for the control of the labor movement. Scattered through conservative unions, they simply compel the great mass of workers into action and to become revolutionary, in spite of the contrary efforts of other militant minorities. It was for the Syndicalist militants that the term “militant minority” was coined, and it is ordinarily applied solely to them — a somewhat incorrect usage, which, however, will henceforth be complied with in this pamphlet.
Organization and Power of the Militant Minority.— French Syndicalists have noted the great power of the militant minority, and by thoroughly organizing and exploiting it have made their labor movement the most revolutionary and powerful in the world. The Syndicalists in England, Spain, Italy, etc., patterning after the French, have achieved their success by using similar tactics.
The usual French method of organizing the militant minority in a given union is for the Syndicalists in this union to establish a paper devoted to their interests. Through the columns of this paper, which is the nucleus of their organization, they at once propagate revolutionary ideas, standardize their policies, instigate strike movements, and organize their attacks on the conservative forces in the unions. A fighting machine is thus built up which enables the Syndicalists to act as a unit at all times and to thoroughly exploit their combined power.
The power of the militant minority when so organized is immense. Let us cite the recent French railroad strike as an illustration of it. Until a couple of years ago the French railroad unions, dominated by Socialists, were so conservative that it was a common saying that they would never strike again. But a few months after the militant minority deposed the Socialist railroad union dictator, Guerard, France was shaken by the recent great strike of 50,000 railroad workers. This strike, which, though broken by the Socialists (as related in an earlier chapter), was one of the most remarkable demonstrations of working-class power and solidarity that have ever occurred, was directly due to the activities of the militant minority. The persecution which followed the strike enables us to estimate approximately the numerical strength of this minority. In all 3,300 workers were discharged from throughout the railroad service — non-striking roads included — on the pretense that they were responsible for the strike. But of this number it is doubtful if more than 1,000 were militant Syndicalists, as the persecution was so rigorous that hundreds of men were discharged for simply saying the strike was justified, or something similar, and other hundreds were discharged as agitators by bosses who had stored up petty grievances against them and seized this favorable opportunity to get rid of them.
And it is to the activities of these approximately 1,000 militants that this epoch-making strike must be credited. They were the real moving force behind the strike. By their vigor, courage, arguments, etc., they drew the mass of workers after them in spite of their own indifference, governmental opposition, Socialist hostility, etc. They were the life of the strike — the leaven that leaveneth the whole. The rest of the workers were but little better than pawns or putty — to be manipulated as the militants chose.
Similar instances of the power of the militant minority might be cited from the history of almost every union in France, in all of which the militant minority is more or less organized. The handfuls of organized rebels in these unions, with the co-operation of their national organization, which, like that in the individual unions, is formed through rebel papers, are rapidly winning the labor movement from Socialist control, and are infusing it with revolutionary spirit and making a vigorous fighting machine of it.
The Militant Minority in the United States.— The militant minority, which is such a potent factor in the French labor movement, is utterly disorganized in the American labor movement. Even its existence as a factor in the labor movement — to say nothing of its potentialities — is unsuspected by all save a comparatively few observers. This state of affairs is directly due to the I. W. W.
Ever since its foundation, seven years ago, the I. W. W. has carried on a vigorous propaganda of the doctrine that the old conservative unions are incapable of evolution and must be supplanted by a “ready-made” revolutionary movement. Beginning as it did, at a time when American revolutionists were almost entirely unacquainted with the principles and powers of the militant minority, this doctrine has produced a profound effect upon them. In fact, practically all of them — Anarchists, Socialists and Industrial Unionists alike — have accepted it unquestioningly as true. They have become obsessed with the notion that nothing can be accomplished in the old unions, and that the sooner they go out of existence the better it will be for the labor movement. As a natural consequence they, with rare exceptions, have either quit the old unions and become directly hostile to them, or they have become so much dead material in them, making no efforts to improve them. The result is a calamity to the labor movement. It has been literally stripped of its soul. The militants who could inspire it with revolutionary vigor have been taken from it by this ridiculous theory. They have left the old unions, where they could have wielded a tremendous influence, and gone into sterile isolation. They have left the labor movement in the undisputed control of conservatives and fakers of all kinds to exploit as they see fit.[27]
Practically all the unions showed marked evil effects of the desertion and disarming of their militants. Of the innumerable instances of such that might be cited let us mention only the typical case of the Western Federation of Miners.
According to a statement made recently by Vincent St. John — at present secretary-treasurer of the I. W. W. — the W. F. of M., when it was in its best fighting days, several years ago, was dominated and controlled by a fighting minority of about ten percent of its membership. This militant minority was so well organized and effective, however, that it compelled the whole W. F. of M. to be a fighting organization. It was a living proof of the power of the militant minority.
But today the W. F. of M. is a conservative organization. It has lost its former vigor and is rapidly developing into a typical Socialist labor union-voting machine. This decline is due to the disorganization of the W. F. of M.’s once powerful militant minority, which occurred when the W. F. of M., because of a factional quarrel, withdrew from the I. W. W. On this event the bulk of the W. F. of M. militants, being obsessed with the patriotic I. W. W. doctrine that none other than an I. W. W. union can be revolutionary, either quit the W. F. of M. or became inactive in it. The Haywoods, St. Johns, Heslewoods, and the other strong militants, who had made the W. F. of M. the fighting organization that it once was, quit fighting to control their union. They became merely onlookers so far as it was concerned. The result is that the Socialists are left in almost undisputed control of it, to the sad detriment of its fighting spirit.
Many similar instances of the disorganization of the militant minority in the various unions might be cited did space permit. But American direct-actionists are finally arousing themselves from the inaction that has crippled them so long. They are beginning to realize that the dream of the I. W. W. is impossible and that the American labor movement, in becoming revolutionary, will follow the natural evolutionary course taken by the labor movements of all countries. They are beginning to realize that while they have been separated from the labor movement, mumbling phrases about the impossibility of doing anything in the old unions, the Socialists — who are rapidly freeing themselves from the I. W. W. idea — have been driving the old line craft union fakers before them and taking charge of the labor movement. They are getting an inkling of the powers and possibilities of the militant minority and are proceeding to organize it. This organization is the Syndicalist League of North America.
The Syndicalist League of North America is an organization of Syndicalists, formed for the purpose of effectively propagating Syndicalist tactics, principles, etc., among all groups of organized and unorganized workers. IT IS NOT A LABOR UNION, AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW ITS BRANCHES TO AFFILIATE WITH LABOR UNIONS. It is simply an educational league with the task of educating the labor movement to Syndicalism.
The S. L. of N. A. plan of organization, somewhat similar to that of the Industrial Syndicalist League, which is playing such a prominent part in the present revolution in the English labor movement, is a variation from the French plan. In addition to founding Syndicalist papers in the various industries, it organizes the rebels into dues-paying leagues. These Syndicalist leagues, which enable the militants in many ways to the better exploit their power, are of two kinds, viz., local and national. A local Syndicalist league consists of all the Syndicalists in a given locality, and a national Syndicalist league consists of all the Syndicalists in a given craft or industry.
The S. L. of N. A. is a possibilist organization with a practical program. It considers the utopian policy of a universal dual organization a most pernicious one because it at once introduces disastrous jurisdictional wars in the labor movement and destroys the efficiency of the militant minority. Its first principle is unity in the labor movement. It is based on the demonstrated fact that the labor movement will become revolutionary in the measure that the individuals composing it become educated. It is, therefore, seeking to bring about this education by the exploitation of the militant minority. Consequently, it seizes every opportunity to introduce betterments, great or small, into the labor movement. Though in existence but a few months, it has already achieved remarkable success. It is responsible for the removal of a number of abuses from, and the introduction of a number of improvements into several international unions. It is also a potent factor in the various localities where it has branch leagues established.
The S. L. of N. A. is demonstrating that the American labor movement is ripe for a revolution and that the conservative forces opposed to this revolution are seemingly strong only because they have had no opposition. It is making them crumble before the attacks of the militant minority, organized and conscious of its strength.
All workingmen interested in this movement to place the American labor movement upon a Syndicalist basis can secure full information regarding the S. L. of N. A. by communicating with
W. Z. FOSTER
SECY. OF S. L. OF N. A.
1000 S. PAULINA ST.
CHICAGO
[25] There are both craft and industrial unions in the C. G. T. Syndicalists by no means put as strong emphasis upon the industrial form of labor union as the Industrial Unionists do. They know that industrial unions, when properly organized, viz., in a decentralized form, by bringing the workers into closer touch with each other, eliminating many useless officers, headquarters, etc., are undoubtedly superior to a number of craft unions covering the same categories of workers, and they appreciate them accordingly. But they also know that when industrial unions are improperly organized, viz., in a centralized form, by throwing vast masses of workers under a small dictatorial executive board, they are inferior to a number of craft unions covering the some categories of workers. This is obvious, as the workers in the various craft unions — even though these be centralized — are able to exert a certain amount of influence upon their executive boards; whereas, Where each category of workers is but a small unit in a big centralized industrial union their demands for a strike, etc., are ignored by the conglomerate executive board. This is well illustrated in Germany where the unions have decidedly lost in vigor by massing themselves into centralized industrial unions.
[26] The I. W. W. plan of building an entirely new and revolutionary labor movement,
on the theory that the old conservative unions are incapable of evolution and must go out of existence, is a freak.
It was arbitrarily invented by the Socialist politicians who founded the I. W. W. a few years previous, these politicians,
in launching their political movement, had condemned all existing political parties as nonworking class by nature
and founded the Socialist Party, to which they gave a monopoly of representing the political interests of the working class.
When they felt the need for an economic “wing” to their movement, as the Socialist Party was progressing favorably,
they followed exactly the same course as they had pursued at the latter’s founding:
they condemned all existing unions and founded the I. W. W. to which they generously gave a monopoly
on representing the economic interests of the working class. They made absolutely no investigation of the problems
presented by a universal dual labor organization - as the minutes of the first I. W. W. convention show.
They jumped at the conclusion that if a new political party could succeed, so could a new universal labor organization.
The dual organization theory of the I. W. W. has no justification in this country — where the I. W. W.
is a distinct failure and the old unions are showing marked capacities for evolution — nor in any other country in the world.
In every European country, where similar attempts have been made to ignore the old conservative unions
and build new revolutionary movements — as in Germany. England (I. W. W., and Sweden — these attempts have been failures
and the Syndicalist movements are weak, while in every European country where efforts have been made
to revolutionize the old unions — as in France, England (Syndicalist leagues), Spain, Italy, Portugal —
they have been successful, and the syndicalist movements are strong.
The comparative effectiveness of the two methods has been recently strikingly illustrated in the English labor movement.
For several years the I. W. W. had unsuccessfully tried to found a new revolutionary movement
independent of the old trade union movement, when a couple of years ago a few Syndicalists, headed by Tom Mann,
began propagating revolutionary ideas in the old unions. The recent series of great strikes and the rapid growth of Syndicalism
in England are eloquent testimonials to the effectiveness of their tactics.
[27] Had the militant majority of French railroads adopted this course of tactics, there is little doubt but that their great strike would never have occurred.
Last updated on 20 March 2023