| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The I.W.W. - A Study of American Syndicalism
Author: Brissenden, Paul Frederick
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The I.W.W. - A Study of American Syndicalism" ***
STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW
EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Volume LXXXIII] [Whole Number 193
THE I. W. W.
A Study of American Syndicalism
BY
PAUL FREDERICK BRISSENDEN, Ph.D.
_Sometime Assistant in Economics at the University of California and
University Fellow at Columbia
Special Agent of the United States Department of Labor_
SECOND EDITION
[Illustration]
New York
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS
LONDON: P. S. KING & SON, LTD.
1920
COPYRIGHT, 1920
BY
PAUL FREDERICK BRISSENDEN
TO
#R. O. L. B.#
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
No very extensive changes are made in the new edition. The chart of
early radical labor organizations, which appeared in the first edition
as Appendix I, has been omitted in this edition. There is reproduced
in its place a copy of the original industrial organization chart
the I. W. W. in 1905 and sometimes referred to as "Father Hagerty's
Wheel of Fortune". This chart is believed to be of some importance
as illustrating the earlier ideas of the revolutionary industrial
unionists on industrial organization in relation to union structure.
It has been considerably amplified by W. E. Trautmann and published in
his pamphlet _One Great Union_, and still further developed by James
Robertson who has very recently built extensions upon it in furtherance
of the shop-steward propaganda in the Pacific Northwest. His version is
published in a pamphlet entitled _Labor unionism and the American shop
steward system_ (Portland, Oreg., 1919).
The organization held its eleventh national convention in Chicago in
May, 1919. This was the first convention held since December, 1916.
It was attended by fifty-four delegates and it has been reported that
forty-eight of them had never before attended a general convention
of the organization. The General Executive Board reported that the
organization in 1919 comprised fourteen Industrial Unions, each with
its locals in various parts of the country, and a General Recruiting
Union, with a total membership of 35,000. Since the convention it is
reported that three new Industrial Unions have been formed: an Oil
Workers' Industrial Union, a Coal Miners' Union and a Fishery Workers'
Union. Nearly fifty amendments to the constitution were adopted by the
delegates at the May convention. Most if not all of these have been
since approved in a referendum to the membership. The proceedings of
the convention have not yet been published. Since the first edition of
this book appeared the I. W. W. has launched a monthly magazine called
_The One Big Union Monthly_ and several new weekly newspapers.
The writer's attention has been called to the erroneous statement (on
page 235) in regard to Daniel DeLeon's theory of industrial unionism.
This has been revised to accord with the facts. There is added on page
241 some interesting comment from Lenin, the Bolshevik premier of
Russia, on DeLeon and on the relation between revolutionary industrial
unionism, and the soviet system in Russia.
P. F. BRISSENDEN
WASHINGTON, D. C., SEPTEMBER, 1919.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
This is a descriptive and historical sketch of the present drift from
parliamentary to industrial socialism--as epitomized in the career of
the Industrial Workers of the World in the United States. The I. W.
W. is now thirteen years old. During the first half of its existence
the general public hardly knew that there was such an organization.
A few local communities, however, were startled into an awareness of
it quite early in its history. The city of Spokane had an I. W. W.
"free-speech fight" on its hands in 1909. Fresno, California, McKees
Rocks, Pennsylvania, and Missoula, Montana, all had their little bouts
with the "Wobblies" long before the Lawrence strike of 1912 made the I.
W. W. nationally prominent.
Just now the Industrial Workers of the World, as represented by more
than one hundred of its members and officials, is on trial for its
life in Chicago. The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring
to hinder and discourage enlistment and in general to obstruct the
progress of the war with Germany. The specific number of crimes alleged
to have been intended runs up to more than seventeen thousand. Since
the war-time activities of the I. W. W. most concern us now, it is
regretted that this book cannot be brought up to the minute with a
final chapter on the I. W. W. and the war. But this is impossible. The
trial is still in progress and almost no trustworthy evidence regarding
the alleged anti-war activities is available outside of the court
records.[1]
Though nowadays well aware of the existence of the I. W. W., the
public still knows little about the organization and its members.
Moreover, a great deal of what it does know is false. For thirteen
years the I. W. W. has been rather consistently misrepresented--not
to say vilified--to the American people. The public has not been told
the truth about the things the I. W. W. has done or the doctrines in
which it believes. The papers have printed so much fiction about this
organization and maintained such a nation-wide conspiracy of silence as
to its real philosophy--especially as to the constructive items of this
philosophy--that the popular conception of this labor group is a weird
unreality.
The current picture is of a motley horde of hoboes and unskilled
laborers who will not work and whose philosophy is a philosophy simply
of _sabotage_ and the violent overthrow of "capitalism," and whose
actions conform to that philosophy. This appears to be about what
the more reactionary business interests would like to have the people
believe about the Industrial Workers of the World. If, and to the
extent that these reactionary employing interests can induce the public
not only to believe this about the I. W. W. but also to believe that
the picture applies as well to all labor organizations, they will to
that extent ally the public with them and against labor.
The negative or destructive items in the I. W. W. program are
deliberately misconstrued and then stretched out and made to constitute
the whole of I. W. W.-ism. In reality they are only a minor part of
the creed. There are immense possibilities of a constructive sort in
the theoretic basis of the I. W. W., but the Press has done its best
to prevent the public from knowing it. And it must be said that the
I. W. W. agitators have themselves helped to misrepresent their own
organization by their uncouth and violent language and their personal
predilection for the lurid and the dramatic. Even what the Wobblies
say about themselves must be taken with a certain amount of salt. This
matter of the currently-received opinion of the I. W. W. has been dwelt
on because the writer believes that it is not alone important to know
what an organization is like; it is also very important to know what
people _think_ it is like.
The popular attitude toward the Wobblies among employers, public
officials and the public generally corresponds to the popular notion
that they are arch-fiends and the dregs of society. It is the
hang-them-all-at-sunrise attitude. A high official of the Federal
Department of Justice in one of our western states gave the writer
an instance. On a recent visit to a small town in a distant part of
the state he happened upon the sheriff. That officer, in reply to a
question, explained that they were "having no trouble at all with the
Wobs." "When a Wobbly comes to town," he explained, "I just knock him
over the head with a night stick and throw him in the river. When he
comes up he beats it out of town." Incidentally it may be said that in
such a situation almost any poor man, if he be without a job or visible
means of support, is assumed to be, _ipso facto_, an I. W. W. Being a
Wobbly, the proper thing for him is pick-handle treatment or--if he is
known to be a strike agitator--a "little neck-tie party."
Since we have been at war certain groups of employers, particularly
those in the mining and lumber industries, have still further confused
the issue and intensified the popular hostility to the Industrial
Workers of the World. They have done this by re-enforcing their earlier
_camouflage_ with the charge of disloyalty and anti-patriotism.
Wrapping themselves in the flag, they have pointed from its folds
to "those disloyal and anarchistic Wobblies" and in this way still
further obscured the underlying economic issues. Whatever the facts
about patriotism on either side, it appears to be true that the
greater part of the I. W. W.'s activities have been ordinary strike
activities directed toward the securing of more favorable conditions
of employment and some voice in the determination of those conditions.
These efforts have been met by charges of disloyalty and by wholesale
acts of violence by the employers, that is to say, they have been met
by the night-stick and neck-tie party policy--as witness the wholesale
deportation of "alleged Wobblies" from Bisbee, Arizona, and the hanging
of Frank Little in Butte, Montana. As the President's Mediation
Commission reported, "the hold of the I. W. W. is riveted, instead of
weakened, by unimaginative opposition on the part of employers to the
correction of real grievances."[2]
By means of an insidious extension of the I. W. W. bogey idea, either
that organization itself or some other labor body or both of them are
made the "goat" in disputes in which the I. W. W., as an organization,
has no part. If a lumber company, for example, gets into a controversy
with the shingle-weavers union of the American Federation of Labor, it
has only to raise a _barrage_ and shout through its controlled news
columns that "they are 'Wobblies!'" and public opinion is against them.
Nor does the misrepresentation stop there. All who openly sympathize
with the alleged Wobblies are, forsooth, themselves Wobblies!
Naturally the liberals in this country have no sympathy with this
night-stick attitude toward I. W. W.'s nor with the night-stick
interpretation of I. W. W.-ism. The writer is bound to say, however,
that he considers the liberal interpretation entirely inadequate. The
liberal attitude is expressed and judgment pronounced when it has
been said that the I. W. W. is a social sore caused by, let us say,
bad housing. It must be evident (unless we are prepared to take the
position that any organization which purposes a rearrangement of the
_status quo_--the Single Tax League, for example--is a social sore)
that the I. W. W. is much more than that. The improvement of working
conditions in the mines and lumber camps would tend to eliminate the
cruder and less fundamental I. W. W. activities, but it would not kill
I. W. W.-ism.
We can no more dispose of the Industrial Workers of the World by saying
that it is a social sore on the body politic than we can dispose of
the British Labor Party or our National Security League by saying
that they are sores on the Anglo-Saxon body politic. We can only
completely and fairly handle the I. W. W. problem by dealing with its
more fundamental tenets on their merits and acting courageously upon
our conclusions. We shall be obliged seriously to study the problem of
the organization of the unskilled; the question of the relative merits
of craft unionism, mass unionism and industrial unionism; the question
of the sufficiency of political democracy and of the possible future
modifications of it and, not least, the question of democracy _versus_
despotism in our economic and industrial life. The Wobblies insist
that no genuine democracy is possible in industry until those who do
the work in a business (from hired president to hired common laborer)
control its management. It so happens that the British Labor Party, in
its reconstruction report on _Labor and the New Social Order_, insists
upon practically the same thing. The fact that the B.L.P. insisted in
a more refined and intelligent manner than the I. W. W. may explain
the almost universal obliviousness of our liberals to this item in I.
W. W.-ism. The Industrial Workers of the World have even developed a
structure and mechanism (crude and inadequate, naturally) for this
control. The industrial union, they say, is to be the administrative
unit in the future industrial democracy. All these will be dominant
issues when peace breaks out, and if the Wobblies are no longer in
existence the radical end of each issue will be championed by their
successors in the field.
The most important item in the affirmative part of the I. W. W. program
is this demand that some of our democracy--some of our representative
government--be extended from political into economic life. They ask
that industry be democratized by giving the workers--all grades of
workers--exclusive control in its management. They ask to have the
management of industrial units transferred from the hands of those who
think chiefly in terms of income to those who think primarily in terms
of the productive process. The Wobblies would have "capitalism" (the
monarchic or oligarchic control of industry) supplanted by economic
democracy just as political despotism has been supplanted by political
democracy in nearly all civilized states. When the British Labor Party
asks for representative government in industry, those who do not ignore
the request give it serious attention. When the I. W. W. echoes the
sentiment in the phrase: "Let the workers run the industries," the
editors are thrown into a panic, the business world views the I. W.
W. menace with aggravated alarm and the more reactionary employers
hysterically clamor to have "these criminal anarchists shot at sunrise."
Perhaps the very best way to run an industrial enterprise is on the
currently accepted model of the Prussian State. It is simply a moot
point and the I. W. W. has challenged the Prussian method. Whatever
intrinsic merit there may be in the affirmative program of the
Industrial Workers of the World, it must be admitted by even its most
enthusiastic members that were they today given the power they ask,
they would be no less relentless Prussians than are the corporations
we have with us. Even though capitalism may be ripe for replacement,
the I. W. W. are a long way from being fit to replace it. The Wobblies
are grotesquely unprepared for responsibility. So far their own members
do not understand how relatively unimportant is their much-talked-of
_sabotage_ method. They have challenged the autocratic method, but they
have done it very crudely and with a weird misplacement of emphasis.
They whisper it in a footnote, as it were, to their strident blackface
statements about method. "If labor is not allowed a voice in the
management of the mines--apply _sabotage_!"
Unquestionably the I. W. W. ask too much when they ask that the
producers be given _exclusive_ control of industry. As to certain
phases of management the workers (including, of course, all hand and
brain workers connected with the industry) should perhaps be given
entire control. The hours of labor and the sanitary conditions in any
productive enterprise are primarily, if not exclusively, the concern of
the producers. But the amount of the product which ought to be turned
out and the price at which it ought to be sold are matters in which the
consumers have no little interest. Consumers, therefore, should share
in the management of the industry so far as it relates to prices and
the determination of the amount to be produced.
The following pages are devoted to a mere matter-of-fact description
of the Industrial Workers of the World as an organization and to a
record of the facts of its history. The purpose has been throughout to
write from the sources. The writer has tried to have the "Wobblies"
themselves do the telling, through interviews, soap-box speeches,
convention proceedings and official papers and pamphlets. The bulk of
the record is based upon documents and other materials collected and
impressions received since 1909 when the writer first became interested
in the I. W. W.
The writer has endeavored throughout to abstain from philosophizing
about the I. W. W. He is not unmindful of the fact that the
interpretation of such a significant movement as is embodied in
the Industrial Workers of the World is of very great importance.
Indeed the time has now come when it is urgently necessary. The
first intention in writing this book was to incorporate in it an
attempt at an analysis and interpretation of I. W. W.-ism, as well as
its orientation with other economic isms. But the bony skeleton of
historical record has crowded out almost everything else and perhaps
filled more pages than its importance justifies. In spite of all this
the temptation to comment has been strong and sometimes irresistible.
Despite the effort that has been made to be accurate and entirely fair
the writer realizes that the book probably contains errors both of fact
and judgment. He would greatly appreciate having his attention called
to these.
The writer is under great obligation to the secretaries of scores of
the local unions of the organization in various parts of the country
for their valued assistance in the task of gathering the material for
this study. He is especially grateful to Mr. Vincent St. John, formerly
General Secretary-Treasurer of the I. W. W., for his generous response
to repeated requests for documents and information. Thanks are also due
for like favors to Mr. William D. Haywood, General Secretary-Treasurer
of the I. W. W. and to Mr. Herman Richter, General Secretary-Treasurer
of the Workers International Industrial Union (formerly the Socialist
Labor Party or Detroit wing of the I. W. W.). Finally the writer wishes
to express his grateful appreciation of the numerous and helpful
suggestions made during the later stages of the work by Professor
Henry R. Seager of Columbia University. He has also to thank Professor
Seager and Mrs. C. A. Stewart for their kindness in the tiresome work
of reading the proof, and Mrs. M. A. Gadsby, of the staff of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for her assistance in the
preparation of the Bibliography.
P. F. B.
SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 9, 1918.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Since this went to press the trial has come to an end. On August 17
the case went to the jury which, after being out fifty-five minutes,
returned a verdict of "guilty, as charged in the indictment." On August
30 Judge K. M. Landis imposed sentence. W. D. Haywood and fourteen
others were sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and $20,000 fine
each. Thirty-three others were given six years and fined $5,000 each
on the first count; ten years and $5,000 each on the second count; two
years and $10,000 each on the third count; and ten years and $10,000
each on the fourth count. Thirty-three others were given five years
and fines of $5,000 apiece on each of counts 1 and 2 and $10,000 each
on counts 3 and 4. Twelve more were sentenced to one year and one day,
with fines of $5,000 each on the first and second counts and $10,000
each on the third and fourth counts. Two of the defendants were given
ten-day sentences. All sentences run concurrently. The fines imposed
aggregate $2,570,000 and costs. It is announced that the case will be
appealed. (U. S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Div., _Criminal Clerk's Minute Book 12_, pp. 61-62.)
[2] Report of the Commission, _Sixth Annual Report of the Secretary of
Labor_, p. 20.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 5
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION 7
PART I
BEGINNINGS
CHAPTER I
FORERUNNERS OF THE "WOBBLIES"
Early revolutionary bodies 27
English prototypes 29
Early radical unions in the United States 29
The National Labor Union 30
The Knights of Labor 30
The Internationals 35
The Sovereigns of Industry 37
The United Brewery Workmen 38
The United Mine Workers of America 38
Haymarket 39
The American Railway Union 40
The Western Federation of Miners 40
W. F. M. strikes 40
The Western Labor Union 43
The American Labor Union 44
The Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance 46
The French _Confédération Générale du Travail_ 53
CHAPTER II
THE BIRTH OF THE I. W. W.
Pre-convention conferences 57
The _rôle_ of the Western Federation of Miners 60
The January Conference 61
The Industrialist Manifesto 62
Attitude of the A. F. of L. 65
The Industrial Union Convention and the launching of the I. W. W. 67
Character of industries and unions represented 68
Numerical predominance of the Western Federation and the
American Labor Union 71
Daniel DeLeon and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance 75
Doctrinal elements represented in the convention: reformist,
direct-actionist and doctrinaire 76
The dominant personalities 79
CHAPTER III
THE I. W. W. _versus_ THE A. F. OF L.
Attitude of the revolutionary industrialists toward the
Federation. 83
Critique of craft unionism 84
"Union scabbery" and the aristocracy of labor 85
Emphasis on the unskilled and unorganized 87
The "pure and simple" union and the "labor lieutenant" 88
Repudiation of the policy of "boring from within" 89
Convention resolutions 91
The preamble and the clause on political action 92
The attitude of DeLeon and the S. L. P 93
The I. W. W. Constitution 96
Classification of industries 96
The structure of the organization 98
The local unions and other subordinate bodies 98
The General Executive Board and its powers 100
Other provisions 101
Influence of "DeLeonism" in the convention 103
The primary importance of the Western Federation of Miners 104
Samuel Gompers on the convention 106
Other comments 107
What the constitutional convention accomplished 108
Part II
THE FIRST PHASE
[The "original" I. W. W.]
CHAPTER IV
MAIDEN EFFORTS ON THE ECONOMIC FIELD
The situation at the close of the first convention 113
Progress during the first year 114
Activities among A. F. of L. locals 115
Friction with Federation unions 116
Practical compromises with the craft-union idea 118
Internal dissension 120
Breakdown of the Metals and Machinery Department 122
Defection of the Western Federation of Miners 122
Early strikes and strike activities 123
Strike policies 124
The New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference 125
The discussion on socialism and the trade unions 127
The Unity Conference resolutions 128
The second I. W. W. convention 129
Growth in membership 130
The Industrial Departments 131
CHAPTER V
THE _coup_ OF THE "PROLETARIAN RABBLE"
The "reactionaries" _vs._ the "wage slave delegates" at the second
convention 136
The DeLeon-St. John attack on President Sherman 137
Pre-convention conference of the "DeLeonite rabble" 137
The indictment of Sherman 139
Playing freeze-out with the "wage slave delegates" 142
The _per diem_ resolution and the defeat of the Shermanites 143
Abolition of the office of General President 143
The findings of the Master in Chancery 145
Contemporary comment on the quarrel 147
DeLeonism and the Socialist Labor Party at the second convention 147
The Western Federation of Miners 149
I. W. W. finances 153
CHAPTER VI
THE STRUCTURE OF A MILITANT UNION
An organization for farm laborers and city proletarians 155
The I. W. W. and the lumber workers 156
Provision for foreigners 158
Foreign language branches 160
The local union 160
Relation of locals to the General Administration 161
Centralization 161
District Industrial Councils 163
Industrial Departments 164
Further discussion of political action 168
The Moyer, Haywood and Pettibone case 170
Defense activities of the I. W. W. 171
Proposal for a general strike 174
Effect of the Moyer-Haywood case on the I. W. W. 175
CHAPTER VII
THE FIGHT FOR EXISTENCE
The third convention 178
The condition of the organization 181
Membership strength 182
The I. W. W. at the Stuttgart Congress 183
Political parties and the trade unions 185
The political clause of the Preamble again under discussion.... 188
CHAPTER VIII
"JOB CONTROL" AT GOLDFIELD
The A. F. of L. and the I. W. W. in Goldfield, Nevada 191
Character of the Goldfield local of the I. W. W 192
The town unionists and the mine unionists 192
Proposed consolidation of the two groups 193
Attitude of the Mine Owners' Association 193
Federal military intervention and investigation 195
Report of the Commission 196
What the I. W. W. accomplished at Goldfield 200
The I. W. W. and the Western Federation in Nevada politics 201
I. W. W. strike activities in other parts of the country 203
General organizing activities 207
CHAPTER IX
DOCTRINAIRE _versus_ DIRECT-ACTIONIST
Condition of the organization on the eve of the schism of 1908 213
Effect of the financial panic of 1907 214
The widening breach between the I. W. W. and the Western Federation
of Miners 216
The line-up in the I. W. W. on political action 218
The personnel of the convention 220
Walsh's "Overalls Brigade". 221
The Socialist Labor Party Delegation and the unseating of Daniel
DeLeon 222
The issue between the DeLeonites and the Direct-actionists 223
"Straight industrialism" _versus_ parliamentarianism 225
The preamble purged of politics 226
Rump convention of the DeLeonites at Paterson, New Jersey 228
A bifurcated I. W. W 229
The issue between the Detroit I. W. W. and the Chicago I. W. W. 231
The Wobblies' criticism of parliamentary government 232
The doctrinaire state socialism of the Detroiters 234
The issue illustrated in the contrast between Daniel DeLeon and
Vincent St. John 235
I. W. W. constitution non-political rather than anti-political 236
Influence of DeLeon on the I. W. W. 238
DeLeonism and Bolshevism 241
CHAPTER X
THE I. W. W. ON THE "CIVILIZED PLANE"
The development of the Detroit I. W. W 243
Strike activities and friction with the "Bummery" or Direct-actionist
faction 246
The Anarcho-syndicalists _versus_ the parliamentarians 252
The Detroit I. W. W. on _sabotage_ 253
Eugene Debs' plea for a union of the two I. W. W.s. 253
The Detroit I. W. W. becomes The Workers International Industrial
Union 255
Part III
THE ANARCHO-SYNDICALISTS
[The Direct Actionists]
CHAPTER XI
FREE SPEECH AND _Sabotage_
Condition of the Direct-actionist faction after the split with the
Doctrinaires 260
The Wobblies establish the "free-speech fight" as an institution 262
The procedure in free-speech fights 262
I. W. W. tactics 263
Community reactions 266
The conventions of 1910 and 1911 267
Growth in membership 268
The I. W. W. press 271
Local unions organized and disbanded 272
The I. W. W. and the French syndicalists 273
International labor politics 275
The Syndicalist League of North America 276
The I. W. W. and the MacNamara case 277
Franco-American _sabotage_ 278
Demonstration against _sabotage_ at the 1912 convention of the
Socialist party 280
Article II, section 6 280
CHAPTER XII
LAWRENCE AND THE CREST OF POWER
Strike activities in 1912 283
The Lawrence strike 284
The use of violence at Lawrence and the responsibility for it 286
Dynamite planting 288
The I. W. W. and the A. F. of L. at Lawrence 289
Results of the strike 290
I. W. W. patriotism and I. W. W. morals 293
The 1912 convention 295
The beginning of the conflict over decentralization 297
CHAPTER XIII
DUAL UNIONISM AND DECENTRALIZATION
The policy of "boring from within" 299
Dual unionism 299
An I. W. W. defense of "boring from within" 300
Tom Mann joins in the attack on dual unionism 303
Rejoinders from Ettor and Haywood 303
The 1913 convention 305
Centralization _versus_ decentralization 305
The proposals of the "decentralizers" 306
The relation of the locals to the general organization 307
The Pacific Coast District Organization 311
The East against the West in the decentralization debate 313
The western Wobbly and the eastern 314
Geographical differences in I. W. W. local unions 315
An anarchist's impressions of the 1913 convention 318
CHAPTER XIV
RECENT TENDENCIES
Continued hostility between the I. W. W. and the Western Federation
of Miners 320
The labor war in Butte, Montana 321
The United Mine Workers and the I. W. W 325
The 1914 convention 327
The I. W. W. and the unemployed 329
The resolution against war 331
Constitutional changes 331
Time agreements 332
Growth in membership 333
The slump in 1914-1915 335
Revival of activity 337
The Agricultural Workers Organization 337
The Everett free-speech fight 339
The 1916 (tenth) convention 340
Present strength of the I. W. W. 341
Character of the membership 341
The I. W. W. abroad 342
Anti-militarist campaign of the I. W. W. in Australasia 342
Australian "Unlawful Associations" Act 343
The Workers' Industrial Union of Australia 345
"Criminal Syndicalism" laws in the United States 346
The turnover of I. W. W. members and locals 349
Conclusion 350
APPENDICES
I. Father Hagerty's "Wheel of Fortune" 351
II. The I. W. W. Preamble: Chicago and Detroit versions 351
III. The structure of the organization in 1917. (Chart) 353
IV. Membership statistics:
Table A. Membership of Chicago and Detroit branches.
(1905-1916). 354
Table B. Membership of the I. W. W. compared with the
aggregate number of organized workers in the U. S., by
industries 356
Table C. Membership of the I. W. W. and of certain other
selected organizations and industrial groups. (1897-1914) 358
Table D. Membership of (1) the I. W. W. and (2) all
American trade unions 359
V. Geographical distribution of I. W. W. locals in 1914. (Chicago
and Detroit) 360
VI. Reasons assigned for locals disbanding. (1910-1911) 366
VII. Free-speech fights of the I. W. W. (1906-1916) 367
VIII. I. W. W. strikes. (1906-1917) 368
IX. Selections from the I. W. W. Song Book. 370
X. Copies of State "Criminal Syndicalism" statutes. 381
BIBLIOGRAPHY 387
INDEX 429
PART I
BEGINNINGS
CHAPTER I
FORERUNNERS OF THE I. W. W.
The revolutionary doctrines of the I. W. W. are spoken of today as
constituting the "new unionism" or the "new socialism". It cannot
be too strongly emphasized, however, that neither I. W. W.-ism nor
the closely related but materially different French syndicalism are
brand-new codes which the irreconcilables, here and in France, have
invented out of hand within the last quarter of a century. Industrial
unionism, as a structural type simply, and even _revolutionary_
industrial unionism--wherein the industrial organization is animated
and guided by the revolutionary (socialist or anarchist) spirit--hark
back in their essential principles to the dramatic revolutionary period
in English unionism of the second quarter of the nineteenth century.
In America the labor history of the seventies, and especially the
eighties, teems with evidences of the industrial form and the radical
temper in labor organizations. The elements of I. W. W.-ism were
there; but they were not often co-existent in the same organization.
Contemporary writers have not failed to call attention to the striking
similarity between the doctrines of the English Chartists and those
of our modern I. W. W. The bitter attacks of the Industrial Workers
upon politics and politicians and their appeal to all kinds and
conditions of labor were also fundamental articles in the creed of the
Chartists--who stressed the economic factor almost as forcibly as do
the I. W. W.'s today.[3]
In both America and England, especially during the periods referred
to, there was abundant evidence of those tactics which we characterize
today as syndicalistic. I. W. W. strikes were not invented in 1905.
The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the Knights of Labor, the
International Working People's Association, the "New Unionists" in
the days of Robert Owen--all these and many another group have sought
to push their cause by methods now once again made notorious by the
French syndicalists and the American Wobblies. The general strike--mass
action--the sympathetic strike--the solidarity of all labor--these
concepts seem to have their prototypes and very possibly were put
into action in still more ancient periods. Osborne Ward reports some
revolutionary labor activities in years preceding the Christian era.
He describes a strike of the silver miners in Greece--at Laurium, some
thirty miles south of Athens. "The inference is unequivocal," says
Ward, "that in 413 B. C. twenty thousand miners, mechanics, teamsters,
and laborers suddenly struck work; and at a moment of Athens' greatest
peril, fought themselves loose from their masters and their chains."
He concludes that the strike "must have been well concerted, violent
and swift," and "must have been plotted by the men themselves."[4] This
strike, apparently, was widely heralded, but seems to have brought no
more permanent results than has the average I. W. W. strike of today.
The evidence for this very ancient prototype of syndicalism is not
entirely conclusive. It was dug out of the old red sandstone--and there
are missing links! It will be safer not to try to trace the lineage
of syndicalist organizations--much less syndicalist activities and
ideas--back more than one century.
There is no doubt that the idea of _economic_ emancipation through
economic as opposed to political channels, and to be achieved by
_all_ classes of workers as workers, _i. e._, as human cogs in the
industrial, rather than the political, state had been very definitely
formulated before the end of the last century.[5] Indeed, the
conception runs back well toward the beginning of the nineteenth
century. The "one big union" of which we now hear so much was surely
in existence in England in the early thirties. Robert Owen at that
time outlined his great plan for a "General Union of the Productive
Classes." Sidney and Beatrice Webb report the establishment, in 1834,
of a "Grand National Consolidated Trades Union":
Under the system proposed by Owen [they say] the instruments
of production were to become the property, not of the whole
community, but of the particular set of workers who used
them. The trade unions were to be transformed into "national
companies" to carry on all the manufactures. The agricultural
union was to take possession of the land, the miners' union of
the mines, the textile unions of the factories. Each trade was
to be carried on by its particular trade union, centralized in
one "Grand Lodge."[6]
The leaders of the New Unionists "aimed not at superseding existing
social structures but at capturing them in the interests of the wage
earners."[7]
American prototypes of I. W. W.-ism appear much later than in
England. As early as 1834, however, workingmen in the United States
were discussing the attitude of the union toward politics. There was
some discussion at that time by members of the National Trades Union
of a proposal to have resolutions drawn up to express the views of
the convention on the social, civil, and political condition of the
laboring classes, and after considerable argument the word "political"
was omitted.[8]
In 1864 an unsuccessful attempt was made to organize in this country a
national federation of trade unions. Two years later, in Baltimore, a
National Labor Congress launched a conservative political organization,
called the National Labor Union--a short-lived predecessor of the
Knights of Labor. Ely says that it lived only about three years and
died of the "disease known as politics."[9] It is probable that a
general apathy and financial weakness were contributing causes.
The most important of these forerunners of the "Wobblies" was the
Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor which was organized in
1869 and for the following decades carried on a remarkably successful
propaganda. It had a membership of more than a million in the late
eighties.[10] Soon after that the Knights suffered a decline that
was even more rapid than their meteoric expansion in the early
eighties and ultimately broke down and degenerated into the shadow
of an organization that it has been for more than twenty years past.
Carroll D. Wright thought that the Knights of Labor reached its highest
membership point in 1887 when it had probably about a million enrolled.
In 1898 there were about 100,000 in the organization. Colonel Wright
believed that this great falling-off in membership was due to the
socialistic tendencies of the organization, especially to the attempt
to place all wage workers on the same level.[11]
The characteristic motto of the Knights of Labor was: "An injury to
one is the concern of all"--the same slogan which is today prominent
among the watchwords of the I. W. W. The Knights proposed, first to
bring within the folds of organization every department of productive
industry, making knowledge a standpoint for action and "industrial,
moral worth, not wealth, the true standard of individual and national
greatness"; second, "to secure to the toilers a proper share of the
wealth that they create ..."; third, the substitution of arbitration
for strikes; and, fourth, the reduction of hours of labor to eight per
day.[12] The Knights advocated government ownership of telephones,
telegraphs, and railroads; emphasized the principle of coöperation;
admitted women and negroes, and believed in having working-class
politics in the union and the union in working-class politics.
"The fundamental principle on which the organization was based was
coöperation," said Grand Master Workman Powderly, "... the barriers of
trade were to be cast aside; the man who toiled, no matter at what, was
to receive and enjoy the just fruits of his labor...."[13]
It was originally a secret organization, but that feature was
later abandoned. The following restriction on membership appears in
the constitution of the Local Assemblies: "... no lawyer, banker,
professional gambler, or stock broker can be admitted." Prior to 1881
physicians were also excluded. It is composed of Local Assemblies
(local unions) controlled by District Assemblies, a General Assembly
and a Grand Master Workman. These parts were closely related to each
other in a centralized system. Centralization of administrative
authority was considered highly important--indeed, it was thought
indispensable in order successfully to unite every branch of skilled
and unskilled labor--a task the Knights considered of prime importance.
They differed, however, from our more radical I. W. W.'s of today in
placing no little confidence in political methods, maintaining as they
did for many years a legislative lobbying committee at Washington. In
addition they believed, with the I. W. W., in the sympathetic strike,
the boycott--and the necessity of solidarity among all the ranks of
labor. The following excerpt from the _Final Report of the United
States Industrial Commission_ (1900) explains the administrative policy
of the organization:
The fundamental idea of the Knights of Labor is the unity
of all workers.... It regards this unity of interest as
necessitating unity of policy and control; it conceives that
unity of control can be effected only by concentrating all
responsibility ... in the hands of the men who may be chosen to
stand at the head of affairs. The control of the organization
rests wholly in the general assembly, and ... the orders of
the executive officers, elected by the general assembly, are
required to be obeyed by all members. The several trades are
separately organized within the order.... The Knights desired
to include all productive workers, whether or not they received
their compensation in the form of wages.[14]
The emphasis placed by the Knights upon the union of skilled and
unskilled is significant in relation to the later efforts of the I. W.
W. to effect such a union. "I saw," said Grand Master Workman Terence
V. Powderly, "that labor-saving machinery was bringing the machinist
down to the level of a day laborer, and soon they would be on a level.
My aim was to dignify the laborer."[15] Mr. Powderly is reported in
the same interview as saying that his greatest difficulty in getting
machinists and blacksmiths to join the Knights of Labor lay in the
contempt with which they looked upon other workers.
There was a much closer connection in the Knights of Labor between
the central organization and the local bodies than is today the case
with the American Federation of Labor, which, as its name implies,
is a comparatively loose _federation_ of autonomous "international
unions." This high degree of centralization of power in the hands of
the General Assembly and the national officers was a factor in the
disintegration of the order. More important still was the fact of
internal dissension, especially the bitter animosity arising out of
the Knights' participation in politics. "... There came the question
whether the organization should go into politics as a body or not. That
question was probably discussed in every Local Assembly in
America ... [and] those political questions coming up drove men out of
the organization...."[16]
The Knights were a curious mixture of conservative and radical
elements. The organization was socialistic, but rather state
socialistic than anything else. Despite their arbitration clause they
did not believe in the identity of interest of employer and employee.
As trade unionists they were innovators and steered far from the
narrow trade type of union imported from England. They said--_in
words_--that they wanted to destroy the wage system. "To point out a
way to utterly destroy this system would be a pleasure to me," said
Grand Master Workman Powderly.[17] As to the Knights of Labor policy
in regard to violence, Perlman says that "... although the leaders of
the Knights preached against violence and what we now call _sabotage_
both were nevertheless extensively practiced, as, for instance, in
the Southwest Railway strike of 1886." He goes on to draw a parallel
between the Knights and the "Wobblies," declaring that the latter
preach violence without practicing it, while the Knights practiced
it without preaching. He adds that the Knights of Labor adopted
coöperation as their official philosophy and the I. W. W. adopted
syndicalism and declares that neither practiced their doctrines very
much.[18] The disrupted condition of the Knights of Labor in 1902,
three years before the organization of the I. W. W., may be understood
from the following press dispatch:
The rival factions of the Knights of Labor will each hold a
congress at Albany this week beginning Tuesday. Each congress
claims to represent the Knights of Labor in this State....
The Hayes faction has at present the books, property and
paraphernalia of the Knights of Labor which were awarded to it
by the courts some time ago.[19]
Simultaneously with the rise of the Knights of Labor in America came
the International Workingmen's Association, the famous "International"
which, springing up in Europe in the late sixties, soon spread to both
sides of the Atlantic. It was first established in the United States in
1871. This first American section of the International made a slogan
of the declaration that the emancipation of the working classes must
be achieved by the working classes themselves.[20] The organization
appears to have been short-lived; for ten years later, in 1881, another
body calling itself the International Workingmen's Association was
organized at Pittsburgh. This organization, says Tridon, was "made up
mostly of laborers and farmers who rejected all parliamentary action
and advocated education and propaganda as the best means to bring about
a social revolution."[21] In 1887, when they had about 6,000 members,
they attempted to amalgamate with the Socialist Labor party, but the
negotiations failed and they disbanded.[22]
Meantime the anarchists had been busy in this country. In 1881,
the year which marks the birth of the American Federation of Labor
(then called the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions
of the United States and Canada), the difference between them and
those who advocated political action finally assumed definite form
in the organization by the anarchist advocates of physical force of
the Revolutionary Socialist party. In 1883 there was held a joint
convention of the "revolutionary socialists" and the anarchists
which resulted in the birth of the International Working People's
Association.[23] At this convention were gathered representatives of
anarchist and revolutionary socialist groups from twenty-six cities.
These delegates drafted the famous Pittsburgh proclamation which
demanded "the destruction of the existing government by all means,
_i. e._, by energetic, implacable, revolutionary and international
action" and the establishment of an industrial system based upon
"the free exchange of equivalent products between the producing
organizations themselves and without the intervention of middlemen and
profit-making."[24] In the course of two years the membership of the
International grew to about 7,000. Then in 1888 came the Haymarket
tragedy and the International soon passed out of existence. The
anarchists were in control of this organization and great stress was
laid upon revolutionary tactics and direct action, with a corresponding
depreciation of political action. John Most, the anarchist, had come to
this country in 1882 and the organization of the International Working
People's Association was largely due to his agitation here.
There is no doubt that all the main ideas of modern revolutionary
unionism as exhibited by the I. W. W. may be found in the old
International Workingmen's Association.[25] The I. W. W. organ, _The
Industrial Worker_, asserts that "we must trace the origin of the
ideas of modern, revolutionary unionism to the International."[26]
Comparing the French cousin of our modern I. W. W. with the older
Association, James Guillaume asks, "et qu'est-ce que la confédération
générale du Travail si non la continuation de l'internationale?"[27]
Many items in the program originally drafted by the famous anarchist,
Michael Bakunin, for the International in 1868 are very similar to the
twentieth century slogans of the I. W. W.
It began by declaring itself atheist, "_L'alliance se déclare athée_,"
and went on to assert that its chief work was to be the abolition of
religion and the substitution of science for faith. It advocated the
political, social and economic equality of the classes, to achieve
which end all governments were to be abolished. It opposed not only all
centralized organization, but also all forms of political action, and
believed that groups of producers, instead of the community, should
have control of the processes of industry.[28]
"Ennemie de tout despotisme, ne reconnaisant d'autre forme politique
que la forme républicaine, et rejetant absolument toute alliance
réactionnaire, elle repousse aussi toute action politique qui
n'aurait pas pour but immédiat et direct le triomphe de la cause des
travailleurs contre le capital."[29]
A secret organization, known as the Sovereigns of Industry, was
launched at Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1874. It admitted both men
and women. Its Preamble stated that it was "an association of the
industrial working classes without regard to race, color, nationality
or occupation; not founded for the purpose of waging any war of
aggression upon any other class or fostering any antagonism of labor
against capital ... but for mutual assistance in self-improvement and
self-protection."[30] Its ultimate purpose, however, appeared to be the
elimination of the wage system.
In the same year was formed a socialist organization called "The
Association of United Workers of America."[31] This body, together
with several other organizations of socialists, merged to form the
Workingman's Party in 1876. The following year the name was changed to
the Socialist Labor Party. The year 1874 also marks the birth of the
Industrial Brotherhood, an organization somewhat similar to the Knights
of Labor but which did not survive the seventies.[32]
A decade later (1884) the National Union of the United Brewery Workmen
of the United States[33] was organized. Next to the United Mine Workers
this is today the strongest industrially organized union in America.
This union has almost from the beginning admitted to its membership
not only brewers but also drivers (of brewery wagons), maltsters,
engineers and firemen employed in breweries, _etc._--all workmen, in
fact, who are employed in and around the breweries. Until 1896 the
Brewers were a part of the Knights of Labor. Since then they have been
almost continuously affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
They have, however, always insisted upon industrial unionism so far as
structure is concerned and have more than once been at loggerheads with
the Federation on this score. The Brewery Workmen's Union, although
conservative in every other way, is cited by I. W. W.'s, no less than
the Mine Workers, as a model of the correct thing in labor-union
_structure_. In 1890 the United Mine Workers' Union of America was
formed. The organization is today the largest union in this country, if
not in the world. It is unquestionably the strongest _industrial_ union
in the world. Since 1905 the revolutionary industrial I. W. W.'s have
looked with admiration upon the structural form of the Mine Workers'
Union--and with impatient scorn upon their conservative tactics.
In England also there came at this time a high tide of sentiment for
the "new unionism."
The day has gone by for the efforts of isolated trades [wrote
H. M. Hyndman]. Nothing is to be gained for the workers as a
class without the complete organization of labourers of all
grades, skilled and unskilled.... We appeal ... to the skilled
artisans of all trades ... to make common cause with their
unskilled brethren and with us Social Democrats so that the
workers may themselves take hold of the means of production and
organize a coöperative commonwealth....[34]
What is even more significant in view of the present day I. W. W.
demand for industrial control is the fact that there was constantly
cropping up in the eighties the Owenite demand that the workers must
be allowed to "own their own factories and decide by vote who their
managers and foremen shall be."[35]
In 1888 came the famous Haymarket riots in Chicago. The effect of this
tragedy was unquestionably to give the labor and socialist movements a
serious setback.
The labor movement [says Robert Hunter] lay stunned after its brief
flirtation with anarchy. The union men drew away from the anarchist
agitators, and, taking their information from the capitalist press
only, concluded that socialism and anarchism were the same thing, and
would, if tolerated, lead the movement to ruin and disaster. Without a
doubt, the bomb in Chicago put back the labor movement for years.
It ... did more to induce the rank and file of trade unionists to
reject all association with revolutionary ideas than perhaps all other
things put together.[36]
Justus Ebert, who is now a member of the I. W. W., declares that
the Haymarket affair "involved the new Socialist Labor party in a
fierce discussion of the right course to pursue in the emancipation
of labor."[37] Robert Hunter thinks that these riots really gave the
French unionists the idea of the General Strike and thus helped to give
form, first, to modern French syndicalism, and second, both by relay
back to this side of the Atlantic and directly by its influence in this
country, to American syndicalism in the form of the Industrial Workers
of the World.[38]
Five years after Haymarket--in June, 1893--an industrial union of
railway employees was organized in Chicago by Eugene V. Debs. A year
later, at the time of the Pullman strike, it had a membership of
150,000. The failure of that strike, which by the way was an early
example of I. W. W. tactics, broke down the union, and it passed out of
existence in 1897.
The year 1893 also marks the beginning of the Western Federation of
Miners,[39] which may well be ranked as the chief predecessor of the
I. W. W. The coal miners had formed their national organization three
years earlier. Both the coal and metalliferous miners' unions were
built from the start upon the industrial type, that is, including in
their membership in both cases "all persons employed in and around
the mines." The Western Federation of Miners was organized in Butte,
Montana, in 1893, and almost immediately affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. It separated from the Federation, however, in 1897
and, after a period of independent existence broken by alliances with
the Western Labor Union in 1898 and with the I. W. W. in 1905, rejoined
the A. F. of L. in 1911.
During the twelve years of the Western Federation's existence before
the birth of the I. W. W., it figured in the most strenuous and
dramatic series of strike disturbances in the history of the American
labor movement. Swift on each others' heels came the terrors of Coeur
d'Alene in 1893, Cripple Creek in 1894, Leadville in 1896-7, Salt Lake
and the Coeur d'Alene again in 1899, Telluride in 1901, Idaho Springs
in 1903, and Cripple Creek again in 1903-4. The Federation was--in
its first decade particularly--as militantly radical as the coal
miners' union was conservative. The strikes in which it has engaged
have been usually marked by much disorder and violence.[40] During the
Idaho Springs strike in 1903 an indignation meeting of the citizens
was called for July 29th by the Citizens' Protective League--an
association of mine owners and business men. At this meeting one of
the local merchants said: "Moyer and Haywood are the arch anarchists
of this country, along with Herr Most. I see that Moyer is coming to
Idaho Springs tomorrow. I want to say that if the people allow him to
land his feet in Clear Creek County they are dirty arrant cowards."
Very shortly the meeting passed a resolution to deport the strikers,
adjourned to the jail, demanded the prisoners, ordered out 14 of the 23
there incarcerated and deported them.[41]
There is no doubt that the terrible strike troubles during the nineties
and the early years of this century had their effect in working union
men up to the radically pioneering pitch. These struggles were surely
the birth signs of the coming militant industrialism of the Industrial
Workers of the World. Wm. D. Haywood, now General Secretary-Treasurer
of the I. W. W., and Vincent St. John, for several years in the same
position, were both active and leading members of the W. F. M. during
its earlier years. The Federation was less scornful of politics than
the I. W. W. The Western Miners were forced by the obvious connivance
between the state and city governments and the mine operators, by the
use of the militia for the suppression of strikes and by the abuse of
the injunction, to consider the possibilities of political action along
socialistic lines. At their convention in 1902 they resolved "to adopt
the principle of socialism without equivocation."[42] This resolution
was reaffirmed in 1903 and 1904. "We recommend the Socialist party,"
reads their statement in 1904, "to the toiling masses of humanity as
the only source through which they can secure ... complete emancipation
from the present system of wage slavery...."[43] "Let all strike
industrially here and now, if necessary," runs another resolution
(signed, by the way, by William D. Haywood), "and then strike in unity
at the ballot-box for the true solution of the labor problem by putting
men of our class into public office...."[44]
The Federation was not actually content, however, with political
activity. It has been made quite evident that the economic weapon of
the strike was not neglected. In addition to this the fundamental and
at that time rarely discussed problem of employees' control in industry
was seriously discussed. At the tenth convention, Wm. D. Haywood
proposed that the Federation invest some of its money in mines, to be
operated by its members for the benefit of the unions.[45] At the
following meeting President Moyer proposed that the Federation secure
control of and operate mines and levy assessments for the purpose.[46]
The plan had to be given up at that time because the Federation just
then faced unusual difficulties because of the strike confronting it.
Nevertheless, this idea of industrial workers' control had its effect
in impressing the miners with the notion that in their union "they had
an agency that could carry on and control production for their own
benefit."
Some conception of the unusually radical temper of the Western
Federation may be had from the Preamble to its constitution. It
declares that
there is a class struggle in society and that this struggle
is caused by economic conditions; ... the producer ... is
exploited of the wealth which he produces, being allowed to
retain barely sufficient for his elementary necessities; ...
that the class struggle will continue until the producer is
recognized as the sole master of his product; ... that the
working class, and it alone, can and must achieve its own
emancipation; ... [and] finally, that an industrial union and
the concerted political action of all wage workers is the only
method of attaining this end.
For these reasons, the Preamble concludes, "the wage slaves employed in
and around the mines, mills and smelters have associated in the Western
Federation of Miners."[47]
The Western Federation of Miners was the effective agency in the
formation at Salt Lake City in 1898 of the Western Labor Union. It
was in this same year that the Social Democratic party (which became
the Socialist party three years later) was organized in Chicago.
The Western Labor Union in 1902 moved its headquarters from Butte,
Montana, to Chicago, and changed its name to the American Labor Union,
which in turn, and inclusive of the W. F. M., merged in 1905 with
certain other radical unions to form the Industrial Workers of the
World. The American Labor Union was in 1905 apparently on the verge
of disruption--practically dead.[48] The Federation of Miners was
always the Western (or American) Labor Union's largest and strongest
component. It repudiated the American Federation of Labor. The bulk
of its membership was unskilled labor and it soon had enrolled, in
addition to the mine laborers, large numbers of the cooks, waiters,
teamsters, and lumbermen of the western states. It was apparently the
first labor organization seriously to attempt the organization of the
lumber workers.[49] The Western Labor Union proposed to bring into
an industrial organization western wage-workers of all crafts and
no crafts; it aimed to include all kinds and degrees of labor, but
until 1901 its activities were mostly confined to the mining camps of
the West.[50] Indeed, Katz says that "the American Labor Union was
practically only another name for the Western Federation of Miners:
[being] called into existence to give the miners' union a national
character."[51]
The American Labor Union was very decidedly an industrial union--more,
however, by anticipation than realization.
It resembled our modern I. W. W. in some important particulars. "It
believes," says one of the members, "that all employees working for one
company, engaged in any one industry, should be managed through ...
one authoritative head; that all men employed by one employer, in any
one industry [should] be answerable to the employer through one and
the same organization...."[52] The approval of its general Executive
Board is required before any member local can call a strike.[53] An
interchangeable or universal transfer system is provided, as it was
later by the I. W. W.[54] The American Labor Union was an industrial
organization of more decided political character and sympathies than
is the I. W. W. It was, however, decidedly socialistic in its ultimate
aim. It seemed to mark the climax of development of industrial unionism
of that (political-socialist) type. It will be evident in the following
pages that in 1905 began a sharp swing under the I. W. W. banner
from socialist industrial unionism to anarcho-syndicalist industrial
unionism.
A good many of the leaders of the American Labor Union were members of
the Socialist party. "Believing that the time has come," runs the A.
L. U. _Preamble_, "for undivided, independent, working-class political
action, we hereby declare in favor of international Socialism and
adopt the platform of the Socialist Party of America as the political
platform and program of the American Labor Union."[55] Although it
endorsed socialism, the A. L. U., unlike the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance, admitted workingmen of any political views whatsoever, but
resembled the latter organization in its opposition to the American
Federation of Labor and its desire to build up a revolutionary labor
movement.
The economic organization of the proletariat [declares the
official organ of the A. L. U.] is the heart and soul of the
socialist movement, of which the political party is simply the
public expression at the ballot box. The purpose of industrial
unionism is to organize the working class in approximately
the same departments of production as those which will obtain
in the coöperative commonwealth, so that, if the workers
should lose their franchise, they would still possess an
economic organization intelligently trained to take over and
collectively administer the tools of industry and the sources
of wealth for themselves.[56]
The roots of I. W. W.-ism reached out most vigorously and numerously
in the western part of the United States, and the greater part of its
strength today is derived from its western membership. The way was
prepared for it most largely by western organizations--the Western
Federation of Miners being the forerunner _par excellence_ of modern I.
W. W.-ism. Two organizations in the East, that is, having their chief
strength in the East, played a highly important rôle during the decade
preceding the launching of the I. W. W. These organizations were the
Socialist Labor party and its trade-union "brain child," the Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance. Adequately to fill in this sketch of origins,
it is necessary to refer briefly to these two organizations, especially
to the S. T. & L. A., the Socialist Labor party's bright ideal of all
that a labor union ought to be.
The Socialist Labor party was organized in 1877. It was a merger
of the National Labor Union, the North American Federation of the
International Workingmen's Association and the Social Democratic
Workmen's Party. It was first known as the Workmen's Party of the
United States. The German socialist trade-union element predominated
in it.[57] The Socialist Labor party has always been emphatically
Marxian and its leaders have been so decidedly doctrinaire in their
interpretation of Marxian socialism and in their application of it to
the practical work of socialist campaigning and propaganda that they
have been not unjustly called impossibilists. Since the organization
of the Socialist party in 1901 these two political parties of the
socialist faith have been in open and bitter opposition to each other.
The Socialist party adopted an opportunist policy, endorsed and often
leagued itself with the conservative trade unions, refrained from any
attempt to form or coöperate in the formation of socialist unions,
and contented itself with the endeavor to make the existing unions
socialistic by converting their individual members to socialism--a
policy which came to be known as "boring from within." The Socialist
Labor party, on the other hand, embraced a doctrinaire "impossibilist"
policy, violently attacked the trade unions, made its slogan "no
compromise and no political trading," and insisted that new unions,
industrial in structure and socialist in purpose and principle should
be created in opposition to the craft unions, whose structure and
spirit it despaired of changing by "boring from within." The Socialist
party has waxed strong and powerful. Its rival has languished and is
today too small a group to be called a party.
The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was organized in 1895, the same
year which witnessed the birth of the organized syndicalist movement
in France in the form of the Confédération Générale du Travail. On
December 6th of that year a delegation from District Assembly 49
of the Knights of Labor met in conjunction with the Central Labor
Federation of New York City and launched the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance. The idea of this organization seems to have originated with
Daniel DeLeon, whom his enemies called "the Pope of the S. L. P." and
who was undoubtedly the leading student of Marxian socialism in this
country. He was convinced that, as one of his followers expressed
it, "without the organization of the workers into a class-conscious
revolutionary body on the industrial field, socialism would remain but
an aspiration."[58] "The S. T. & L. A." declares N. I. Stone, "was the
most unique example of a socialist trade-union, anti-pure-and-simple
organization in the annals of labor history...." "It came down upon
us," he said, "full fledged from top to bottom as the masterpiece of
our 'Master Workman' [DeLeon] and took us by surprise; but take it
did...."[59]
In 1896 at the first convention of the Socialist Labor party after
the organization of the S. T. & L. A. the party formally endorsed the
latter organization. Mr. Hugo Vogt addressed the convention in behalf
of the S. T. & L. A. "The whole of this labor movement," he said,
"must become saturated with socialism, _must be placed under socialist
control_, if we mean to bring together the whole working class into
that army of emancipation which we need to accomplish our purpose."[60]
He went on to explain that "in order to make it impossible for any
masked swindlers to obtain influence in the Alliance, and to swing it
back to the conservative side, we have provided that every officer ...
shall take a pledge that he will not be affiliated with any capitalist
party and will not support any political action except that of the
Socialist Labor party."[61]
The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was patterned very closely
after the Knights of Labor. Wm. E. Trautmann called it "a duodecimo
edition of the K. of L."[62] "It had the same district alliances with
the same intellectuals as leaders: the same local craft organizations
and the same mixed locals [as well as] the same centralized autocracy
at headquarters...." He concludes that "the most fatal weakness of all
was the political union of the S. T. & L. A. with the S. L. P."[63]
The Alliance was, after all, a revolutionary socialist trade union
rather than an industrial union. It differed from the American Labor
Union and other forerunners mentioned above in this lack of industrial
structure as well as in the emphasis it laid on the need of rallying to
the support of the Socialist Labor party, with which organization it
stood in the most intimate relations and to which most of its members
belonged. It was actually sceptical about the efficacy of purely
economic action. In common with I. W. W. later on, and in spite of
the fact that its own locals were virtually trade or craft locals, it
nourished an almost bitter hatred of the craft unions. "We simply have
to go at them," said one of its members, "and smash them from top to
bottom...."[64] Its animus was directed, however, at their conservatism
and not so much at their craft structure.
In its "Declaration of Principles" the Alliance asserted that
the methods and spirit of labor organization are absolutely
impotent to resist the aggressions of concentrated capital
...; that the economic power of the capitalist class ... rests
upon institutions, essentially political, which ... cannot be
radically changed ... except through the _direct action of the
working people themselves_, economically and politically united
as a class.
This Declaration concludes with the following statement of the chief
object of the Alliance:
The summary ending of that barbarous [class] struggle at
the earliest possible time by the abolition of classes, the
restoration of the land and of all the means of production,
transportation and distribution to the people as a collective
body, and the substitution of the coöperative commonwealth for
the present state of planless production, industrial war and
social disorder; a commonwealth in which every worker shall
have the free exercise and full benefit of his faculties,
multiplied by all the modern factors of civilization.[65]
In the body of its constitution the objects of the Alliance are set
forth more explicitly. They are declared to be to bring about the
adoption of its principles
by bodies of organized labor which are still governed ... by
the tenets or traditions of the "Old Unionism Pure and Simple";
to organize into local and district alliances all the wage
workers, skilled or unskilled; ... to further the political
movement of the working class and its development on the lines
of international socialism as represented on this continent by
the Socialist Labor party.[66]
The Socialist Labor party naturally greeted the Alliance with
enthusiasm. After officially endorsing the Alliance, the 1896
convention passed a resolution of welcome.
We hail with unqualified joy [it declared] the formation of
the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance as a great stride
toward throwing off the yoke of wage slavery.... We call upon
the socialists of the land to carry the revolutionary spirit
of the S. T. and L. A. into all the organizations of the
workers and thus consolidate ... the proletariat of America
in an irresistible class conscious army, equipped both with
the shield of the economic organization and the sword of the
Socialist Labor party ballot.[67]
During this S. T. and L. A. period Daniel DeLeon looked upon
revolutionary unionism as being necessarily pro-political rather than
pro-industrial and non-political. He then felt that the political
movement must dominate the unions as they are in Germany dominated by
the Social Democracy. He later became convinced that revolutionary
unionism must dominate the political movement, and that the
revolutionary union had a decisive mission in the Socialist movement.
The S. T. and L. A. [says Fraina] was largely a weapon to
fight conservative A. F. of L. politics. The friends of the
A. F. of L. roared in protest and ... split the Socialist
movement to save the A. F. of L.... DeLeon's revolutionary
unionism was largely a means to prevent the socialist political
movement [from] being controlled by the Aristocracy of Labor
and the Middle Class--two social groups which ... have
certain interests in common and against the revolutionary
proletariat.[68]
The composition and membership of the S. T. and L. A. in July, 1898,
were as follows:
German Waiters 260
Ale and Porter Union 200
United Engineers 60
Marquette Workers 70
Carl Sahm Club 80
Piano Makers 520
Bohemian Butchers 150
Bartenders 90
Furriers 250
Silver Workers 40
Empire City Lodge 35
New York Cooks 55
German Coppersmiths 80
Macaroni Workers 65
Progressive Cigarette Makers 970
Bohemian Typographia 32
Swedish Machinists 98
Progressive Typographia 15
Pressmen and Feeders 18
Independent Bakers No. 33 60
Independent Bakers No. 25 45
Liberty Waiters 65
-----
3,258[69]
Far from being superior to the old [craft] organization(s),
[says Stone] it is very much inferior.... With an insignificant
membership, without controlling as much as a large factory,
not to speak of a trade, at war not only with the bosses,
... but with every trade union which does not come under its
mighty wing--it was unable to undertake any step of importance,
in order to improve the condition of its members. The only
strike of significance which it had, that at Slatersville
[Rhode Island] was a failure after it had cost the Party about
$1,500....[70]
The Alliance was scarcely more than a phantom organization on the eve
of the launching of the I. W. W. in 1905. The same may be said of all
the western unions which in that year merged in the I. W. W., except
the Western Federation of Miners. The S. L. P. and the S. T. and L.
A. "talk of capturing the convention to be held on June 27 [the 1st
I. W. W. convention].... That convention should be not a revival, but
the funeral, of the S. T. and L. A."[71] This expressed fairly well
the attitude of the Socialist party men. "Born in hatred, suckled
in dissension," as one socialist writer sees it, "the sole partisan
trade union that ever arose to deny the principles and policies of
international socialism came to destruction by its own venom, not
however, until it had implanted the poison of its spirit into the
Industrial Workers of the World."[72]
The main ideas of I. W. W.-ism--certainly of the I. W. W.-ism of the
first few years after 1905--were of American origin, not French, as
is commonly supposed. These sentiments were brewing in France, it is
true, in the early nineties,[73] but they were brewing also in this
country and the American brew was essentially different from the
French. It was only after 1908 that the _syndicalisme révolutionnaire_
of France had any direct influence on the revolutionary industrial
unionist movement here. Even then it was largely a matter of borrowing
such phrases as _sabotage_, _la grève perlée_, _etc._ The tactics back
of the words _sabotage_ and "direct action" had been practiced by
American working men years before those words ever came into use among
our radical unionists. "The Western Labor Union," says Walling, "was
applying these principles in the Rocky Mountains, under the leadership
of Haywood and others, several years before the French Confederation
of Labor was formed...."[74] Some premonition of the power of a labor
union including all--or even a large proportion of--the unskilled was
given by the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor Union,
the American Railway Union, and other American organizations already
referred to.
During the first five years of this century the idea of militant
industrial unionism underwent rapid development. Unionists were coming
to have a much broader view of the social rôle of the labor union.
The actual trend of events opened the way for reorganization on new
lines. The organizations which were to make up the I. W. W. were almost
without exception in unprosperous straits, some of them being on the
verge of disruption. All of them were bitter in their opposition to
the American Federation of Labor--with which organization, indeed, few
of them were affiliated. The United Metal Workers had been affiliated
but withdrew in December, 1904. There was probably little left but a
remnant when they joined the I. W. W. the following year. The same is
true of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees. Even the American
Labor Union--except its "mining division," the W. F. M.--was skirting
the edge of dissolution.[75] The Socialist Labor party and its "puny
child," the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, were in a bad way.
Among the United Mine Workers there was dissension in many localities.
There was dissatisfaction with the leaders and especially with the
upshot of the strike settlement of 1902. Moreover, the miners as well
as the United Brewery Workmen were embittered by constant criticism of
their industrial form of organization. The latter were threatened with
the prospect of a revocation of their charter by the Federation. There
were thus a number of "national" organizations and many locals in other
bodies which were anxious to create some central labor organization to
strengthen the forces of industrial unionism. The Socialist Trade and
Labor Alliance, though on the decline, still included a considerable
body of workers who were impatient of the conservatism of the A. F. of
L. and desired somehow to build up a strong revolutionary (this meaning
for them a Marxian socialist) organization. The Western Federation of
Miners--stronger than all the others put together--was not excelled by
any of them in its revolutionary zeal. It had the power as well as the
enthusiasm. Moreover, it represented revolutionary industrial unionism
more completely than did the smaller unions in the West and the
Alliance in the East. The Alliance, in fact, was a revolutionary union
without the industrial character and without much real appreciation of
the meaning and importance of the idea of _industrial_ as opposed to
_craft_ organization. The miners, however, had a big, powerful union of
an emphatically industrial character and their experience had made them
very militant.[76]
Much of this hard experience consisted in a gradual process of
disillusionment about the virtue and goodness of the state so far as
its relations with labor were concerned. The long series of violent
and protracted strikes between the Western Federation and the mine
operators and the rôle played therein by the state government
convinced the miners that they would be more successful in gaining
their political ends if they had more economic power to back up their
requests. The miners were convinced, therefore, that the imperative
need of the hour was for the extension to other industries of their
type of industrial organization inspired by socialist aims. This would
make solidarity possible, not only between skilled and unskilled in the
metalliferous mines but also in all mines, all shops, all industries.
They felt that then indeed would an injury to one be the concern of
all.[77]
FOOTNOTES:
[3] _Cf._ Brooks, _American Syndicalism_ (New York, 1913), ch. vi and
Tridon, _The New Unionism_, 4th printing (New York, 1917), p. 67.
[4] _Cf._ C. Osborne Ward, _A history of the ancient working people,
from the earliest known period to the adoption of Christianity by
Constantine_ (_The Ancient Lowly_), Washington, D. C., Press of the
Craftsman, 1889, p. 140.
[5] "Stellen wir also vor allem fest, das die syndikalistische
Bewegung ... in ihren Tendenzen and ihrer Taktik als eine
Volksbewegung, eine Bewegung in den Arbeiterkreisen selbst, entstanden
ist, deren geschichtlichen Ursprung man ... bis in den Anfang der
neunziger Jahre, ja selbst in die Zeit der alten Internationale
zurück verlegen muss." (Ch. Cornélissen, "Ueber den internationalen
Syndikalismus"--_Archiv für Sozial Wissenschaft und Sozial-Politik_,
vol. xxx (1910), p. 151.)
[6] Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_ (London, 1902), new ed., pp.
144-5.
[7] _Ibid._, p. 404. In ch. iii, the Webbs give an interesting
description of this "revolutionary period" in English unionism.
[8] Commons (Ed.), _Documentary History of American Industrial Society_
(Cleveland, O., A. H. Clark Co., 1910-11), vol. vi, pp. 211-16.
Reprinted from The Man (New York), September 6, 1834.
[9] Ely, _Labor Movement in America_ (New York, 1890), p. 69. Tridon
(_The New Unionism_, p. 92), claims that by 1868 it had a membership
of 640,000. It was apparently represented at the Basle convention of
the International in 1869. _Cf._ also Hillquit, Morris, _History of
Socialism in the United States_ (5th ed., New York, 1910), p. 193.
[10] One of the Knights stated to the U. S. Industrial Commission
(_Report_, vol. vii [1900], p. 420), that in 1888 the Knights of Labor
had 1,200,000 members. In 1886 the organization contained nearly 9,000
local unions.
[11] Testimony before U. S. Industrial Commission, Washington, D. C.,
Dec. 15, 1898. _Report of the Industrial Commission_, vol. vii, p. 94.
[12] _Constitution, Knights of Labor_, pp. 3-6.
[13] T. V. Powderly, _Thirty Years of Labor_ (Columbus, O., 1889), p.
151.
[14] Vol. xix (1902), p. 798.
[15] New York _Sun_, March 29, 1886, p. 1, col. 5. (Interview.)
[16] J. G. Schonfarber, testimony before U. S. Industrial Commission,
Washington, D. C., Dec. 5, 1899. _Report_, vol. vii (1901), p. 423.
[17] Quoted by McNeill (Ed.), _The Labor Movement: The Problem of
To-day_ (New York, 1887), p. 410.
[18] Perlman, S., "Plan of an Investigation of the I. W. W." (MS.
report to U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations), p. 1.
[19] "Labor Knights Dispute," _The New York Times_, Jan. 12, 1902, p.
24. For an excellent short historical sketch of the Knights of Labor,
see _Report of the Industrial Commission_ (1901), vol. xvii, pp. 3-24.
[20] Commons, _Documentary History of American Industrial Society_,
vol. ix, p. 358.
[21] Tridon, _op. cit._, pp. 93-94.
[22] _Ibid._
[23] Cf. Ebert, Justus, _American Industrial Evolution_ (New York: New
York Labor News Co., 1907), p. 64.
[24] Tridon, _op. cit._, p. 93.
[25] _Cf. Compte-rendu officiel du sixième congrès générale de
l'association internationale des travailleurs_.... Geneva, 1873 (Locle,
1874).
[26] June 18, 1910, p. 2.
[27] _L'Internationale: documents et souvenirs 1864-78_ (Paris,
Cornély, 1905-10), vol. iv, p. vii.
[28] James Guillaume, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 132-133.
[29] _Loc. cit._, pp. 132-133.
[30] F. T. Carlton, "Ephemeral labor movements," _Popular Science
Monthly_, vol. lxxxv, p. 494 (November, 1914).
[31] _Vide_ reprint of its General Rules, published in 1874, Commons,
_Documentary History of American Industrial Society_, vol. ix, pp.
376-8.
[32] _Report of the Industrial Commission_, vol. xvii, p. 3, and
Powderly, T. V., _Thirty Years of Labor_ (Columbus, Ohio, 1889), p. 126.
[33] Now the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and
Soft Drink Workers of America.
[34] "The decay of trade unions," _Justice_, June, 1887, quoted by
Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, p. 396.
[35] Webb, _op. cit._, pp. 396-397.
[36] "The General Strike"; iii, In America and France, _Oakland_
(Calif.) _World_, Dec. 28, 1912.
[37] Justus Ebert, _American Industrial Evolution_, p. 63.
[38] _Op. cit._, Oakland _World_, Dec. 28, 1912.
[39] Now the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers.
[40] _Vide_, Federal Report on "Labor disturbances in Colorado:
1880-1904," (58th Cong., 3d Sess., no. 122, 1905), pp. 107, 149.
[41] _Ibid._, pp. 152-155.
[42] Federal Report on "Labor Disturbances in Colorado," p. 42.
[43] _Ibid._
[44] _Proceedings Tenth W. F. M. Convention_, Denver, 1902, p. 161.
[45] _Proceedings Tenth W. F. M. Convention_, pp. 163-165. Vincent St.
John was also interested as a proponent of this plan.
[46] _Proceedings Eleventh W. F. M. Convention_ (1903), pp. 33-34.
[47] Constitution and By-Laws of the Western Federation of Miners
(1910), p. 3.
[48] _Proceedings Sixteenth Convention W. F. M._, p. 17 (Report of
President C. H. Moyer).
[49] Cf. Haywood, "The timber worker and the timber wolves,"
_International Socialist Review_, vol. xiii, p. 110 (August, 1912).
[50] _Proceedings Sixteenth Convention W. F. M._, p. 17.
[51] Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, September
4, 1915, p. 4.
[52] "Industrial Union Epigrams," _Voice of Labor_, March, 1905.
[53] _Preamble, Constitution and Laws of the A. L. U._, p. 20.
[54] Ibid., art. ix, sec. 11 and sec. 12.
[55] _Preamble, Constitution and Laws_, pp. 4-5.
[56] _American Labor Union Journal_, Dec., 1904. Quoted by Ebert,
_American Industrial Evolution_, p. 82.
[57] Ebert, _American Industrial Evolution_, p. 61.
[58] Katz, "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, April 24, 1915, p.
3.
[59] Stone, N. I., _Attitude of the Socialists to the Trade Unions_
(pamphlet, New York, 1900, Volkszeitung Library, vol. ii, Apr., 1900),
p. 6.
[60] Quoted by Robt. Hunter, "The trade unions and the Socialist
Party," _Miners' Magazine_, March 7, 1912, p. 11.
[61] Hunter, _loc. cit._
[62] _Voice of Labor_, May, 1905.
[63] _Ibid._
[64] Delegate Hickey, _Proceedings Tenth S. L. P. Convention_, p. 220.
[65] Constitution of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance of the
United States and Canada (1902), pp. 3-4. (Italics mine.)
[66] _Ibid._, p. 5.
[67] _Proceedings, Ninth S. L. P. Convention_, 1896, p. 30.
[68] Louis Fraina, "DeLeon," _The New Review_, July, 1914, vol. ii. p.
393.
[69] Stone, _op. cit._, p. 13. "At the most liberal estimate, the total
strength of the Alliance did not exceed 15,000 at that time (1898)."
_Ibid._, p. 14.
[70] _Ibid._, p. 15.
[71] Letter of Wm. E. Trautmann, _Voice of Labor_, May, 1905.
[72] Robt. Hunter, "The Trade Unions and the Socialist party," _Miners'
Magazine_, March 7, 1912, p. 11.
[73] _Vide_, Cornélissen, "Ueber den internationalen Syndikalismus,"
_Archiv für Sozial Wissenschaft und Sozial-Politik_, xxx (1910), p.
150. _Cf._ also _Industrial Worker_, June 18, 1910, p. 2.
[74] "Industrialism or revolutionary unionism," _The New Review_, Jan.
11, 1913, vol. i, p. 47.
[75] _Proceedings, Sixteenth W. F. M. Convention_ (Report of President
Moyer), pp. 17-18.
[76] _Cf._ Louis Levine, "The Development of Syndicalism in America,"
_Political Science Quarterly_, vol. xxviii, pp. 460-462 (Sept., 1913).
_Cf._ also Selig Perlman, "From Socialism to Anarchism and Syndicalism"
(1876-1884), pp. 269-300 (vol. ii, chap. 6), in Commons and others,
_History of Labor in the United States_.
[77] There is an excellent description of the older industrial unions,
particularly the Western Federation of Miners and the United Brewery
Workmen, in William Kirk's monograph, _National Labor Federations in
the United States_, pt. iii, "Industrial Unions," pp. 117-150, _Johns
Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science_, ser.
xxiv, nos. 9 and 10.
CHAPTER II
THE BIRTH OF THE ORGANIZATION[78] (1905)
The Industrial Workers of the World, now more generally known as the
I. W. W.[79] was organized at an "Industrial Union Congress" held in
Chicago in June, 1905. This first or constitutional convention had
its inception in an informal conference held in that city, in the
fall of 1904, by six men of prominence in the socialist and labor
movement. These conferees were: William E. Trautmann, editor of the
_Brauer Zeitung_, official organ of the United Brewery Workmen; George
Estes, President of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees;
W. L. Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer of the United Brotherhood
of Railway Employees; Isaac Cowen, American representative of the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers of Great Britain; Clarence Smith,
General Secretary-Treasurer of the American Labor Union; and Thomas J.
Hagerty, editor of the _Voice of Labor_, official organ of the American
Labor Union.[80] Several others not present at this conference were at
that time actively interested in the matter and coöperated in carrying
out these prenatal plans. Two of them, Eugene V. Debs and Charles O.
Sherman, General Secretary of United Metal Workers International Union,
were destined to play important rôles in the organization.
These men were impelled by a common conviction that the labor unions
of America were becoming powerless to achieve real benefits for
working men and women. This feeling was confirmed and intensified by
many recent events in the trade-union movement. It was not the more
conservative, "aristocratic" unions alone which were found wanting.
Even those labor organizations of the industrial and radical type, such
as the American Labor Union, the Western Federation of Miners, and the
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, were believed to be, for one reason
or another, quite unprepared to negotiate--much less to fight--with
the ever more highly integrated organizations of employers. At the
constitutional convention in June, 1905, Clarence Smith of the American
Labor Union explained the reasons for initiating the movement.
This conviction of ineffectiveness in the face of opportunities
for effective work was strengthened [he said] at the general
convention of the International Union of United Brewery Workmen
last September. It seemed clear that a united, harmonious and
consistent request from all unions and organizations of the
American Labor Union, backed by an administration in whom the
rank and file of the brewery workers had confidence, would
have brought the Brewery Workmen into the American Labor Union
at that time. And what would have been true of the Brewery
Workmen would have been true also of other organizations of an
industrial character. It therefore seemed the first duty of
conscientious union men, regardless of affiliation, prejudice
or personal interest, to lay the foundation upon which all
the working people, many of whom are now organized, might
unite upon a common ground to build a labor organization that
would correspond to modern industrial conditions, and through
which they might finally secure complete emancipation from
wage-slavery for all wage-workers.[81]
In order to go over the matter and discuss plans more thoroughly, it
was decided to arrange for a larger meeting. On November 29 a letter
of invitation was sent to about thirty persons then prominent in the
radical labor and Socialist movements. This letter contained the
following significant paragraph:
Asserting our confidence in the ability of the working class,
if correctly organized on both political and industrial
lines, to take possession of and operate successfully ... the
industries of the country;
Believing that working-class political expression, through the
Socialist ballot, in order to be sound, must have its economic
counterpart in a labor organization builded as the structure of
socialist society, embracing within itself the working-class
in approximately the same groups and departments and
industries that the workers would assume in the working-class
administration of the Co-operative Commonwealth ...;
We invite you to meet us at Chicago, Monday, January 2, 1905,
in secret conference to discuss ways and means of uniting the
working people of America on correct revolutionary principles,
regardless of any general labor organization of past or
present, and only restricted by such basic principles as will
insure its integrity as a real protector of the interests of
the workers.[82]
It is noteworthy fact that, although the proposition was concurred
in and the invitation accepted with enthusiasm by the great majority
of those invited, agreement was not unanimous. There were two
dissenters--Victor Berger and Max Hayes. It is not recorded that Mr.
Berger even sent his "regrets," but Mr. Hayes explained his position at
length. In a letter to W. L. Hall, December 30, 1904, he said:
This sounds to me as though we were to have another Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance experiment again; that we, who are in
the trade-unions as at present constituted, are to cut loose
and flock by ourselves. If I am correct in my surmises it means
another running fight between Socialists on the one side and
all other partisans on the other.... If there is any fighting
to be done I intend ... to _agitate on the inside_ of the
organizations now in existence....[83]
The Western Federation of Miners did not lack enthusiasm for this
wider venture in industrial unionism. President Moyer's report to
the thirteenth convention, which met just one month before the
constitutional convention of June, 1905, contained the following:
The Twelfth Annual Convention instructed your Executive
Board to take such action as might be necessary in order
that the representatives of organized labor might be brought
together and plans outlined for the amalgamation of the entire
wage-working class into one general organization. Following
out these instructions at a meeting held in the month of
December it was decided to send a committee to meet with the
officers of the American Labor Union. This conference took
place January 4.... The result ... was the Manifesto....
The question for you to decide is not one of changing the
principles, policy or plan of your organization, but as to
whether or not the Western Federation of Miners shall become a
working part of such a movement as set forth in the Manifesto,
which shall consist of one great industrial union embracing all
industries.[84]
At about the same time J. M. O'Neill, the editor of the _Miners'
Magazine_, wrote William D. Haywood, the treasurer of the Federation,
that
if this convention goes on record giving its unanimous sanction
to the movement that is contemplated in Chicago, such action
will be heralded from the Atlantic to the Pacific, ... and
will create a sentiment that will keep on crystallizing until
capitalism will feel that it is threatened in the citadel of
its entrenched power.[85]
The secret conference--thereafter to be known as the January
Conference--was called to order in the city of Chicago on the second
of January by William E. Trautmann. There were twenty-three persons
present, representing nine different organizations; that is, of
course, exclusive of members of the Socialist and Socialist Labor
parties, who were not present formally as such. There were present
five officials of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees and one
member of the Brewery Workmen. Among those present were: Charles
H. Moyer, President, Western Federation of Miners; W. D. Haywood,
Secretary of the Western Federation of Miners; J. M. O'Neill, editor
of the _Miners' Magazine_; A. M. Simons, editor of _The International
Socialist Review_; Frank Bohn, organizer, Socialist Labor party and the
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance; T. J. Hagerty, editor of _The Voice
of Labor_; C. O. Sherman, of the United Metal Workers; and "Mother"
Mary Jones. During a three days' session plans for a proposed new labor
organization were seriously discussed and carefully worked out. The
report of their committee on methods and procedure was worked up by the
members of the conference into a "Manifesto"[86] which contained (1)
an indictment of "things as they are" in the trade-union world; (2)
leading propositions and tentative plans for a new departure in labor
organization; and (3) a call for a convention to organize this new
union.
The first part of this document is devoted to a discussion of certain
modern tendencies in the labor movement. Trade divisions among laborers
and competition among capitalists are both disappearing. The machine
process is more and more tending to minimize skill and swell the ranks
of the unskilled and unemployed. The incidence of the machine process
is fatal to labor groups divided according to the tool used. "These
divisions," in the words of the Manifesto, "far from representing
differences in skill or interests among the laborers, are imposed
by the employers that workers may be pitted against one another and
spurred to greater exertion in the shop, and that all resistance to
capitalist tyranny may be weakened by artificial distinctions." The
employees, however, are united on the industrial plan and reënforce
their consequent impregnable position by making use of the military
power and their affiliation with the National Civic Federation.
The craft form of organization is severely criticized. It makes
solidarity impossible, for it generates a system of organized scabbery,
where union men scab on each other. It results in trade monopolies,
prohibitive initiation fees and political ignorance. It dwarfs class
consciousness and tends to "foster the idea of harmony of interests
between employing exploiter and employed slave."
Passing on to the remedy proposed, the Manifesto declares that
a movement to fulfil these conditions must consist of one
great industrial union embracing all industries, providing for
craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally,
and working-class unity generally. It must be founded on the
class struggle ... and established as the economic organization
of the working class, without affiliation with any political
party.[87]
The phrase, "craft autonomy," is odd--for industrialists. A. M. Simons
gives an explanation. He says that any union entering the I. W. W.
"will retain trade autonomy in matters that concern each trade as
completely as at the present time, but when it enters the field of
other trades, instead of being met by trade competition ... will be met
by the coöperation of affiliated unions."[88] This phrase referring
to political parties was the germ of the ill-fated "political clause"
of the preamble, which formulated in an indefinite way the issue on
which three years later the organization split into two factions.[89]
Other clauses provide that (1) all power shall rest with the collective
membership; (2) all labels, cards, fees, _etc._, shall be uniform
throughout; (3) the general administration shall issue a publication at
regular intervals; and (4) that a central defense fund be established
and maintained. The document concluded with a call to all workers
who agreed with these principles to "meet in convention in Chicago,
the 27th day of June, 1905,--for the purpose of forming an economic
organization of the working class along the lines marked out in this
Manifesto."
The Manifesto was signed by all those present at the January conference
and sent broadcast to all unions throughout America and to the
industrial unions of Europe. At this January conference there was
dominant a very radical idea as to what a labor organization ought to
be. The conferees decided that such an organization should not only
provide a means of unifying all crafts and industries for the better
protection and advancement of the immediate interests of the working
class, but that it must also offer, and consciously push on towards, a
final solution of the labor problem, a solution very frankly assumed to
be a socialistic one.
To say that these conferees were, broadly speaking, socialists and that
they outlined a socialistic program of a certain sort does not mean, as
the daily press report insinuated, that the Socialist party was in any
way represented in the conference or that it was a political movement.
Max S. Hayes, anxious to disclaim on behalf of party Socialists any
responsibility for the new undertaking, explained that
As a matter of record and fairness it should be stated that,
first, not a single signer to the above call is officially
identified with the Socialist Party; secondly, that not one of
the signers has been seen or heard or known on the floor of
the American Federation of Labor conventions as an advocate of
socialism in recent years; and thirdly, it is doubtful whether
any American Federation of Labor delegate, with possibly an
exception or two, had the slightest knowledge that the Chicago
[January] conference was to be held.[90]
The American Federation of Labor, as the embodiment of the craft idea,
was the subject of bitter attack at this prenatal conference. The
general opinion seemed to be that the A. F. of L. had outlived its
usefulness, and that its extinction--but not necessarily the extinction
of its constituent local unions--was a consummation very much to be
desired.
The A. F. of L. very naturally resented its proposed annihilation.
The Socialists have called another convention to smash the
American trade-union movement [said President Gompers].
Scanning the list of twenty-six signers of this call, one
will look in vain to find the name of one man who has not for
years been engaged in the delectable work of trying to divert,
pervert, and disrupt the labor movement of the country....
We feel sure that the endorsement of the latest accession
to this new movement of Mr. Daniel Loeb, alias DeLeon, will
bring unction to the souls of these promoters of the latest
trade-union smashing scheme. So the trade-union smashers and
rammers from without and the "borers from within" are again
joining hands; a pleasant sight of the "pirates" and the
"kangaroos" hugging each other in glee over their prospective
prey.[91]
But the members of the January conference did not propose any wholesale
or indiscriminate "smashing from without." It is true they believed
the Federation, as a federation, to be harmful to the interests of
labor--and would have been nothing loath to "smash" it--but the
federated units they proposed to take over and unite in a very
different way.
Mr. A. M. Simons, who claims to have given the final draft to the
Manifesto, says that "the idea expressed at the conference was to
form a new central body, into which existing unions and unions to
be formed could be admitted, but not to form rival unions."[92]
Discussing the January conference in the _International Socialist
Review_,[93] Mr. Simons traces this idea back to two vital tendencies
of the day, _viz._, (1) the merging of trade lines in the class
struggle, and (2) the accelerated growth of class-consciousness on the
part of the capitalists. He concludes that "the only question about
the desirability of forming such an organization is the question of
timeliness."
The organized laborers were only a part of the concern of the
conference. Over ninety per cent of those gainfully occupied are
unorganized. It was, of course, realized that outside of all
unions stood the overwhelming majority of all workingmen, and, as
Daniel DeLeon put it, these men did not "propose to go into these
organizations run by the Organized Scabbery, because they had burned
their fingers thus enough. The organization of the future has to be
built of the men who are now unorganized--that is, the overwhelming
majority of the working men in the nation."[94]
Thus it was really hoped that much could and would be done by
workingmen in the existent unions, without breaking away from these
local unions. These latter must be pried away from the A. F. of L.,
but not themselves destroyed. By all means let us "bore from within"
as far as that can be done; also when we can bore no longer, let us
hammer from without and pound together new bodies from out the great
unorganized mass. This, in brief, was the position of most of the
industrialists. However, not all would yet go this far. Even among the
Socialist leaders a note of dissent was heard expressing the belief
that to "bore from within" was the only revolutionary method not
absolutely suicidal.[95] Just what fate awaited these January ideas was
to some extent revealed in the proceedings of the June convention.
The convention called in accordance with the Manifesto of the January
conference met two hundred strong in Chicago on Tuesday, June 27, 1905.
This gathering was first referred to as the "Industrial Congress" or
the "Industrial Union Convention," but since before adjournment it had
organized itself as the Industrial Workers of the World, it is referred
to as the First Annual Convention of the I. W. W. It was a gathering
remarkable and epoch-making in more ways than one, and therefore the
story of its activities is essential, not only to an understanding of
the subsequent career of the organization, but as a fundamental chapter
in the whole history of industrial unionism. The discussions and
resolutions of the assembly and the final type of organization which
grew out of them can be understood only in the light thrown on them
by a study of the composition of this revolutionary group of men. Its
occupational, structural, and doctrinal character should each be taken
into account.
Perhaps the most striking characteristic of this group of two hundred
radicals was the bewildering range of occupations represented. The
variety of different trades represented and the varying "quality"
levels exhibited in the organization here gathered to sink all
differences and become as one, were astonishingly great. The following
list of the different organizations represented at the convention
reveals at least forty distinct trades or occupations:
Bakers and Confectioners Union No. 48, Montreal.[A]
United Mine Workers No. 171.[A]
United Mine Workers, Pittsburg, Kans.[A]
Western Federation of Miners.
United Brotherhood of Railway Employees.
Journeymen Tailors Union of America No. 102, Pueblo.[A]
United Metal Workers International Union of America.
American Labor Union. (The A. L. U. included primarily
the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the International
Musical and Theatrical Union.)
Punch Press Operators Union No. 224, Schenectady.
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance.
Flat Janitors Local Union No. 102, Chicago.
Mill and Smeltermen's Union of the W. F. of M., Butte.
Paper Hangers and Decorators, Chicago.
Federal Union (A. L. U.) No. 252, Denver.
United Brewery Workers No. 9, Milwaukee.[A]
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
Metal Polishers and Buffers Union.
Journeymen Tailors Protective and Benevolent Union of San Francisco.
Journeymen Tailors of Montreal.
Wage Earners Union of Montreal.
International Musicians Union.
The Industrial Workers Club, Cincinnati.
The Industrial Workers Club, Chicago.
Workers Industrial and Educational Union, Pueblo.
The foreign organizations were each represented by at least one
delegate with full powers and instructions. The following named bodies
sent uninstructed delegates:
Metal Polishers, Buffers and Platers No. 6, Chicago.[A]
Carpenters and Joiners No. 181, Chicago.[96]
Scandinavian Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers, Chicago.
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers, No. 110, Chicago.
German Central Labor Union.
Switchmen's Union No. 29.[A]
Bohemian Musicians Union.
Hotel and Restaurant Workers.[A]
Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Employees, Division
No. 288, Chicago.[A]
Barbers Union No. 225, Sharon, Pa.[A]
United Labor League, Sharon, Pa.
Utah State Federation of Labor, Salt Lake City.
Cloak Makers and Tailors, Montreal.
American Flint Glass Workers Union, Toledo.
Commercial Men's Association, Court No. 1093, Milwaukee.
Street Laborers Union, Chicago.
Machinists, District Lodge No. 8.[A]
International Protective Laborers Union, Dayton, Ohio.
Typographical Union No. 49, Denver.[A]
Central Labor Union, North Adams, Mass.
International Longshoremen's Union No. 271, Hoboken, N. J.[97]
Iron and Brass Molders, Schenectady.
Aside from the occupations represented above, the following were each
represented by one or more individuals: machinists, tanners, electrical
workers, bookbinders, editors, teachers, authors, printers, and shoe
workers. An attorney-at-law from New York City presented himself at the
convention. The committee on credentials recommended that he be seated
as a fraternal delegate, on account of the mitigating circumstances
that he wrote for several newspapers and was a "friend and sympathizer"
of labor. After considerable debate the report of the committee was
adopted "with the exception of that portion which refers to the
attorney."[98]
This array of occupational or trade types was scarcely more extensive
than that of the structural types here grouped together. Of these
there were the following types. (1) the simple industrial union,
wherein all workers engaged, in whatsoever capacity, in any particular
industry are members of the same union. This type was represented by
the Western Federation of Miners[99]--really the strongest taproot of
the I. W. W. (2) The multi-industrial type, a federation of industrial
unions, such as the American Labor Union, which included railway
employees, engineers, and musicians. (3) The so-called "international"
union, rarely more than national in scope, and merely a national
association of local unions of a given trade. This type was represented
by the United Metal Workers International Union of America. (4)
The non-federative industrial union, like the United Mine Workers
of America with industrial rather than trade units, an industrial
organization which excludes federation with similar organizations in
other industries, or with employers. (5) The ordinary non-federative
trade unions, here seen in two types: (_a_) the trade amalgamation, a
federation of unions wherein the constituent bodies are so united as
to preserve their individuality, although trade autonomy is thereby
destroyed. This type is illustrated here by the Amalgamated Society of
Engineers; (_b_) national unions of any particular trade like the iron
molders, wherein the constituent unions are more subordinated to the
national body than in the amalgamation. (6) The state federation--as
typified by the Utah State Federation of Labor. And finally (7) the
rather unconventional type of "union," represented by the Industrial
Workers' clubs and the United Labor League.
It should be understood that but a small part of the "international"
or national bodies was represented as a whole. The greater number were
represented by one or two locals. A number of them were affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor at the time, but had become
dissatisfied with the policies of that body.[100] However, some of
the unions most prominent in the activities of the convention were
represented as central or national bodies with all their constituent
local unions. Such were the American Labor Union and the United Metal
Workers.
Those of the unions present which were affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, though forming a fairly large group numerically,
represented no material defection from the ranks of the Federation
and, generally speaking, played but a passive rôle in the work of
the convention. Of the forty-three organizations seated by the
credentials committee sixteen were affiliated with the Federation,
but at least eleven of these were represented by but one local
union. Of all these organizations which had merely local rather than
national representation, the United Mine Workers of America was most
widely represented, delegates from nine of its local unions being
present.[101] A little study of the list of the organizations seated
and the localities from which their delegates came, makes it quite
evident that on the whole the strong delegations from powerful local
bodies, located at strategic points, were those having no connection
with the American Federation of Labor, and, conversely, that the
fourteen American Federation of Labor unions just referred to were
represented as a rule by small and solitary locals of doubtful
strength.[102] The insignificant position of the American Federation
of Labor bodies in the convention will become still more manifest by
an inspection of the lists given above.[103] It will be seen that only
five of the sixteen local unions of the American Federation of Labor
which were present had empowered their delegates to install their
respective local unions in the new organization: two locals of the
United Mine Workers and one local each in the Bakers and Confectioners,
the Brewery Workers and the Journeymen Tailors unions. All the locals
of the United Metal Workers were so empowered. The American Federation
of Labor was represented in no direct way among the five great powers
of this industrialist convention.[104]
It was confidently expected by many members of the January conference
that there would be an immediate secession of a number of national
unions from the American Federation of Labor. But whatever may have
been the hopes of the originators of the movement, the constitutional
convention proved by its very make-up that this new insurgent labor
body could not, at the outset at least, build a new organization out of
disaffected parts of an old organization.
It has been seen that not all organizations were present on equal
footing. In the first place, no union could have any influence or any
active part in the proceedings of the convention unless it sent its
delegates with full power to install. The January conference had drawn
up certain rules governing representation in the forthcoming convention:
Representation in the convention shall be based upon the
number of workers whom the delegate represents. No delegate,
however, shall be given representation in the convention on the
numerical basis of an organization, unless he has credentials
... authorizing him to install his union as a working part of
the proposed economic organization in the industrial department
to which it logically belongs.... Lacking this authority, the
delegate shall represent himself as an individual.[105]
The delegates to the convention were in this way grouped into two
classes: representative delegates, with voting power proportional to
the number of members represented, and individual delegates with merely
their own vote, and in some cases not representing any union even as
uninstructed delegates. This separation of the two hundred and three
delegates, according to the character of their credentials, may be
shown as follows:
_Dele- _Organi- _Members_ _Voting_
gates_ zations_ _Repre- _strength_
_Repre- sented_
sented_
With power to install 70 23 51,430 51,430
Without power to install 72 20 91,500 72
Other "individual" delegates 61 -- 61 61
--- --- ------- ------
Total 203 43 142,991 51,563[106]
Including the industrial workers' clubs there were forty-three
organizations represented, of which number twenty-three were
represented by delegates having full power to install. The above
analysis shows that of the 142,991 members presumably represented,
nearly two-thirds sent delegates merely to take notes of the
proceedings and report back. About one-third, some 51,000, were then
prepared to cast their lot with the new undertaking. Also it appears
that about one-third of the delegates wielded practically the whole
voting power of the assembly.
Moreover, the balance of power within this empowered one-third was
most unevenly distributed. Of the 51,000 votes aggregated by those
organizations prepared to install, 48,000 votes were distributed among
five organizations (these being the only ones with a voting strength of
more than 1,000) as follows:
_No. of_
_Organization_ _Membership_ _Delegates_
Western Federation of Miners 27,000 5
American Labor Union 16,750 29
United Metal Workers 3,000 2
United Brotherhood of Railway Employees 2,087 19
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance 1,450 14
------ --
Total 50,287[107] 69
These were the organizations which were most prominent in the
activities of the convention. Among their delegates were a goodly
number of the most active promotors of the movement. From
them--especially from the Western Federation of Miners--finally came
the great bulk of the funds for establishing the new union. It is
evident that, numerically speaking, one single organization, the
Western Federation of Miners, held the balance of power, and of the
remaining votes, three-fourths were in the control of the American
Labor Union, these two bodies together outnumbering the others ten to
one. The sequel was to show that the numerically weaker organizations
exerted an influence quite out of proportion to their numbers, because
of the great influence exerted by some of their individual delegates.
Their representatives were radicals, representing more or less radical
unions.
It might seem that the rôle played in the convention by an organization
as comparatively weak in numbers as the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance could be accounted for, in some measure at least, by its
proportionately large delegation. A glance at the table given above
shows that the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance with a self-estimated
strength of 1450[108] had fourteen delegates, while the Western
Federation of Miners, 27,000 strong, had but five delegates. This was
true to but a limited extent, for in the first place the voting power
of each delegate was in direct proportion to the number of members he
represented. Thus Haywood and his colleagues of the Western Federation
of Miners had each 5400 votes, while DeLeon and each member of his
delegation had 103.6 votes. In the second place, it was a contest
of personalities. The fourteen Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance
delegates comprised Daniel DeLeon and thirteen others. This same
prominence of the individual was more or less evident among the other
delegations. Some further concentration of power is evidenced in
the fact that William D. Haywood and C. H. Moyer were both empowered
delegates from two organisations, since they represented the A. L. U.
as well as the W. F. M.
Indeed it is rather significant that several of the organizations which
finally merged into the Industrial Workers of the World had little
behind them but leaders. In some cases it appears that the membership
first credited was greatly exaggerated. Of the organizations installed
as a part of the new body, St. John reports that three "existed almost
wholly on paper."[109] Several of these labor bodies were really more
shadow that substance. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the
United Metal Workers, and the American Labor Union, St. John's three
"paper" unions, had come upon evil days and were in an advanced stage
of disintegration. Hence perhaps their presence here. They did not want
to expire. They preferred to be transformed into something yet more
militant.
The most significant and interesting phase of this unique body of
industrialists was its many-sided intellectual character. Some of the
high lights of divergent doctrine preached and defended here show more
clearly than anything else how stupendous the undertaking was. Perhaps
the least indefinite term which would give them all standing-room would
be "revolutionary socialism," though many delegates repudiated the
name socialist as being synonymous with reactionist and conservative.
If socialists at all, they were socialists with a radical adjective.
In reference to some the word "anarchistic" should be substituted for
"revolutionary." They all believed in the "irrepressible conflict"
between capital and labor. They were a unit in wishing for and aiming
at the overthrow of the wages system--the downfall of capitalism.
There was no place here for the "Gomperite" and his program of mutual
interests of employer and employee; but the absence from the scene of
the "identity of interest" and "coffin society" man did not guarantee
harmony.[110]
As usual there was disagreement as to the methods to be used to reach
the common end desired. Hence certain divergent types of doctrine were
expounded and certain warring factions resulted therefrom. St. John
enumerates four main varieties as being predominant: (1) Parliamentary
Socialists--two types, impossibilist (Marxian) and opportunist
(reformist); (2) Anarchists; (3) Industrial Unionists; and (4) the
"labor union fakir."[111] This classification is ambiguous. No doubt
the "labor union fakir," who gets into any new move of this sort for
what he can get out of it, has no real economic creed except that of
the profiteer, but he enters a movement of this kind as an exponent of
a certain legitimate doctrine and is at least presumed to belong to
that doctrinal faction. It has been seen that during the proceedings
of the convention it developed that there were delegates present who
were not sincere in their attitude. It is a fact, as St. John points
out, "that many of those who were present as delegates on the floor of
the first convention and the organizations that they represented have
bitterly fought the I. W. W. from the close of the first convention
up to the present day."[112] By no means all of these are necessarily
fakirs, since the outcome of the deliberations of the first convention
was somewhat different from that anticipated even by the signers of the
manifesto.
There was present a very definite group of anarchists which, though in
a rather small minority, was a constituent element in the doctrinal
types represented. The term "industrial unionist" was one which
really included practically all the participants. The industrial
unionist may certainly be a socialist, and even of more than one
variety; and it is also conceivable that the industrial unionist may
be an anarchist. Consequently the term can hardly be used to mark
off any particular faction in a convention of industrial unionists.
The parliamentary socialists constituted one of the most powerful
elements at the convention. In fact, the two main hostile groups
were the impossibilists and the opportunists, the first group
comprising parliamentary socialists of the Socialist Labor party
and anti-parliamentary socialists, naturally having no political
affiliations; and the latter comprising members of the Socialist party.
The line of cleavage then was between the Socialist party and
the Socialist Labor party, that is, between reformist and
doctrinaire elements, both parliamentary and both leaning toward
industrial unionism. In a less prominent position at first was the
direct-actionist group, anti-political and anarchistic. This antagonism
of ideas was of course the root cause of the defection of the Socialist
Labor party and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance elements three
years later, and was responsible for the existence between 1908 and
1916 of two national organizations called the I. W. W. The Socialist
party, or doctrinaire wing, is very logically the descendant of the
doctrinaire wing at the first convention, but the direct-actionist or
anti-political wing has, strange to say, grown out of and drawn its
leaders from the reformist Socialist party.
These divergent creeds were given color and life by a few men who
really dominated the convention. There is no organization in existence
having less room for hero-worship than the Industrial Workers of the
World. The manifesto provided that all "powers should rest in the
collective membership." Its members seemed firmly convinced that all
labor leaders (except I. W. W. organizers!) are really "misleaders" of
labor, and throughout their propaganda literature there is evident this
repudiation of leaders and apotheosis of the "collective membership."
Nevertheless the I. W. W. has been led and misled by leaders ever since
its inception. The first convention rang with the dominant notes of
a handful of men: Daniel DeLeon, William D. Haywood, "Father" T. J.
Hagerty, Eugene V. Debs, William E. Trautmann, A. M. Simons, Clarence
Smith, D. C. Coates, and C. O. Sherman. Debs, Haywood and Simons were
then, and are today, members of the Socialist party. Simons and DeLeon
were leaders in the two opposing Socialist political parties, Simons
in the Socialist party and editor of the _Coming Nation_, and DeLeon,
editor of the _Daily People_ and the one dominant and national figure
in the Socialist Labor party. T. J. Hagerty was a Catholic priest. With
the coöperation of James P. Thompson, and others probably, he framed
the original I. W. W. Preamble. He was the designer of the chart which
Samuel Gompers referred to as "Father Hagerty's Wheel of Fortune,"[113]
and the author of a pamphlet entitled _Economic Discontent_.
Eugene V. Debs, the best known to them all, came into the movement with
all his contagious enthusiasm and eloquence, full of optimism for the
future of this new organization.
I believe it is possible [he said] for such an organization as
the Western Federation of Miners to be brought into harmonious
relation with the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance ... and
I believe it is possible for these elements ... to combine
here ... and begin the work of forming a great economic or
revolutionary organization of the working class so sorely
needed in the struggle for their emancipation.[114]
From the West came William D. Haywood with many years' experience with
the Western Federation of Miners in Colorado. He was an experienced
organizer and was full of the militant spirit of the Western Federation
of Miners. He scorned agreements and contracts. Speaking of the Western
Federation of Miners at the first convention he said: "We have not
got an agreement existing with any mine manager, superintendent, or
operator at the present time. We have got a minimum scale of wages" and
"... the eight-hour day, and we did not have a legislative lobby to
accomplish it."[115] And now he came to Chicago to help build up the
same sort of an organization for not alone the mining industry but for
all industries.
Probably the most striking figure of all was Daniel DeLeon, editor
of the _Daily People_, a man with a university education, and a
graduate of the Columbia University Law School. He was active in the
organization of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance in 1895 and was
an officer in the Alliance until it was merged in the I. W. W. He came
to the first convention as a delegate from the Socialist Trade and
Labor Alliance. He, too, believed that harmony was possible.
During this process of pounding one another we have both
learned [he said], both sides have learned, and I hope and
believe that this convention will bring together those who will
plant themselves squarely upon the class struggle and will
recognize the fact that the political expression of labor is
but the shadow of the economic organization.[116]
He had been instrumental in creating the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance, of which the Socialist Labor party was thenceforward to be
the shadow. It transpired, however, that the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance actually became the "shadow" or understudy of the Socialist
Labor party, and this fact was looked upon by A. M. Simons and others
of the Socialist Labor party as having an ominous significance for any
new organization to which DeLeon might wish to hitch the Socialist
Labor party as a "shadow." There seemed, in short, to be some suspicion
afloat at the first convention that the Socialist Labor party proposed,
through DeLeon, to tuck the I. W. W. under its wing. Hillquit asserts
that "the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance had a record of having
caused more disputes and schisms within the Socialist labor movement
in America in recent years than any other factor, and its affiliation
with the new movement was fateful for the latter."[117] And Simons
declared that if DeLeon "could in some way hitch himself on to this new
organization, he would be able to infuse the semblance of life into
the political and economic corpses of the S. L. P. and the S. T. & L.
A."[118]
DeLeon emphatically opposed the policy of "boring from within"
advocated by the Socialist party opportunists. He believed it had been
tried as a constructive policy and found wanting. So he proposed to
build up on the outside the necessary economic organization, which
finally should move "under the protecting guns of a labor political
party."[119]
On the other hand, the Socialist party men believed in making use of
the "boring from within" policy among the local unions, and considered
it quite unnecessary for the economic organization to have any
political connections whatsoever. They considered the political unity
of the workers less vitally important than did the DeLeon group of
doctrinaires.
These, then, were the elements of the heterogeneous labor mass, which
were to be worked up together into "One Big Union." The thing that
made union possible in any degree was the binding influence of common
antipathies. It has been suggested that all were at one in being
opposed to a capitalistic society. They had no difficulty in making
common cause of their mutual hatred of the capitalistic scheme of
things. They were perhaps even more able to unite because of common
opposition to certain things which they believed were helping to
perpetuate the capitalist system. Most prominent and powerful of these
was the craft form of labor-union organization.
FOOTNOTES:
[78] The substance of chs. ii and iii was originally published in the
form of a monograph: _The Launching of the Industrial Workers of the
World_ (University of California Publications in Economics, vol. iv,
no. 1, Berkeley, 1913).
[79] The three letters, I. W. W., have lent themselves to various
picturesque and derisive translations: "I Won't Work," "I Want
Whiskey," "International Wonder Workers," "Irresponsible Wholesale
Wreckers," _etc._ "The Wobblies" is a nickname by which they are quite
commonly known, especially in the West. It is said that the I. W.
W.'s were so christened by Harrison Grey Otis, the editor of the _Los
Angeles Times_. And now, in 1917, Senator H. F. Ashurst, of Arizona,
declares that "I. W. W. means simply, solely and only, Imperial
Wilhelm's Warriors." (_Congr. Record_, Aug. 17, 1917, vol. lv, p. 6104).
[80] St. John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_ (revised
edition, 1917), p. 2. Ernest Untermann, a writer prominently identified
with the Socialist party, was also present at this conference, although
he is not mentioned by St. John.
[81] "The Origin of the Manifesto," _Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_, p. 82.
[82] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 82-3. The letter was
signed by W. E. Trautmann, George Estes, W. L. Hall, Eugene V. Debs,
Clarence Smith and Charles O. Sherman. A list of those invited is given
in the _Proceedings_, p. 89. "Mother" Mary Jones seems to have been the
only woman invited to the conference.
[83] _Ibid._, pp. 99-100.
[84] _Proceedings, Thirteenth W. F. M. Convention_, p. 21. At the same
time and place it was definitely recommended that the Federation take
part in the convention.
[85] Letter dated May 26, 1905, published in _Proceedings, Thirteenth
W. F. M. Convention_, pp. 230-1.
[86] The Manifesto is reproduced in the writer's _Launching of the
Industrial Workers of the World_, pp. 46-49. The committee's report is
given in the _Proceedings_, p. 88.
[87] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 5-6.
[88] _International Socialist Review_, February, 1905, vol. v, p. 499.
(Editorial.)
[89] _Vide infra_, ch. ix.
[90] _International Socialist Review_, vol. v, p. 501 (March, 1905).
For typical press reports of the conference _vide infra_, p. 107.
[91] Editorial, "The Trade Unions to be Smashed Again," _American
Federationist_, March, 1905.
[92] _Private Correspondence_, March 26, 1912.
[93] Feb., 1905, article entitled, "The Chicago Conference for
Industrial Unionism." For a different interpretation of the Manifesto,
_vide_ Frank Bohn's article in the same journal for April, 1905.
[94] DeLeon-Harriman Debate. _The S. T. & L. A. vs. The Pure and Simple
Trade Union_, p. 43.
[95] Among these dissenters were Max Hayes, Victor Berger and A.
M. Simons. _Cf._ letter written by Mr. Hayes to W. L. Hall in
_Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 99-100.
[96] Affiliated with American Federation of Labor at the time.
[97] Affiliated with American Federation of Labor at the time.
[98] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 70.
[99] Now called The International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers.
[100] Among these were the Bakers and Confectioners, and the Carpenters
and Joiners.
[101] The Journeymen Tailors and the Switchmen each had delegates from
two locals.
[102] The United Metal Workers International Union was at least
nominally affiliated with the A. F. of L. at the time of the January
conference, but Secretary St. John writes "that the United Metal
Workers ... as a matter of fact was out of existence before the I. W.
W. convention, but existed on paper for the purpose of giving its old
officials a standing in the new organization."
[103] _Supra_, pp. 68-69. _Cf._ also _Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_, p. 80.
[104] _Vide infra_, p. 74.
[105] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 6. According to St.
John this provision was drawn up on account of the fact that "all who
were present as delegates were not there in good faith. Knowledge of
this fact caused the signers of the Manifesto to constitute themselves
a temporary committee on credentials."--_I. W. W., History, Structure
and Methods_, revised 1917 edition, p. 3.
[106] The figures here given are those cited by William D. Haywood
(_Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 204), but _cf._ St. John
(_The I. W. W., History, etc._, pp. 3, 4), whose figures are somewhat
lower. Among the "individual" delegates were "Mother" Mary Jones, A.
M. Simons, Eugene V. Debs, and Robert Rives LaMonte. It was assumed
that individual delegates were in duty bound to become a part of the
revolutionary organization. (_Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_,
p. 54.)
[107] The United Brotherhood of Railway Employees was at that time an
integral part of the A. L. U., so that its membership must be deducted
from the total. This represents nominal membership only. Hillquit
(_History of Socialism in the United States_, rev. ed., p. 336),
reports the A. L. U. as having only seven delegates, whereas there were
ten besides the nineteen of the U. B. R. E., which are of course not
included in his estimate. _Cf. Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_,
pp. 610-611.
[108] According to its opponents, 600. _Cf._ Hillquit, _History of
Socialism in the United States_, rev. ed., p. 337.
[109] _Cf. supra_, p. 71, note 3. The installment vote at the
first convention records twelve organizations as voting in the
affirmative (for list see _Proceedings, First Convention_, p. 614,
and Brissenden, _Launching of the I. W. W._, p. 43). St. John (_I.
W. W. History, etc._, p. 4) mentions but seven. H. Richter says that
eleven organizations were installed by their delegates: "The I. W. W.:
Retrospect and Prospects," _Industrial Union News_, January, 1912. p.
1, col. 3.
[110] "Coffin society," a term used in derision of a common tendency of
trade-unions to place the emphasis on sick and death benefits, _etc._
[111] _I. W. W. History, etc._, p. 5. St. John says (letter of January
5, 1914) that "there were so few anarchists in the first convention
that there was very little need to classify them."
[112] _I. W. W., History, etc._, p. 3.
[113] Reproduced in Appendix i. It also appears in _The Miners
Magazine_, vol. vi, p. 15 (Apr. 20, 1905), and in Carl Legien,
_Aus Amerikas Arbieterbewegung_ (Berlin, 1914), p. 176. A less
unsophisticated draft by Wm. E. Trautmann is published in his pamphlet,
_One Big Union_ (I. W. W. Publishing Bureau).
[114] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 144.
[115] _Ibid._, p. 154.
[116] Speech before the first convention. _Proceedings_, p. 148.
[117] _History of Socialism in the United States_ (rev. ed.), p. 337.
[118] Editorial, _International Socialist Review_, April, 1905 (vol. v,
p. 626).
[119] DeLeon-Harriman Debate. _S. T. & L. A. vs. The "Pure and Simple"
Trade Union_, p. 7.
CHAPTER III
THE I. W. W. VERSUS THE A. F. OF L.
The American Federation of Labor, as the alleged embodiment of
everything "crafty," has always been the arch-enemy of the I. W. W. The
convention opened with this thought to the fore, and throughout the
eleven days of its session it was referred to again and again. William
D. Haywood's speech calling the convention to order begins with this
paragraph:
This is the Continental Congress of the working class.... There
is no organization ... that has for its purpose the same object
as that for which ... you are called together today.... The
American Federation of Labor, which presumes to be the labor
movement of this country, is not a working-class movement....
You are going to be confronted with the so-called labor
leader--the man who will tell you ... that the interests of the
capitalist and the workingman are identical.... There is no
man who has an ounce of honesty in his make-up but recognizes
the fact that there is a continuous struggle between the two
classes, and this organization will be formed, based and
founded on the class struggle, having in view no compromise and
no surrender....[120]
"It has been said," remarked Haywood, "that this convention was to
form an organization rival to the A. F. of L. This is a mistake. We
are here for the purpose of forming a _labor organization_."[121] This
common opposition to what they called the "American _Separation_ of
Labor" proved to be a fairly adequate "harmony plank" in the platform
of these disaffected workingmen. The stress of opposition to the
Federation was, of course, directed chiefly to its craft formation, but
it also featured prominently the reaction against (1) its assumption
of identity of interest between employer and employee, and (2) its
absolute denial of the necessity of united political action on the part
of the working class.
To these industrialists the American Federation of Labor was simply
the symbol of the craft type of trade union. It was made the object
of the most merciless criticism throughout the convention. One of
its committees drew up a comprehensive indictment of "old line
trade-unionism." "The A. F. of L., which is the fine consummate
flower of craft unionism," it declares, "is neither American, nor
a federation, nor of labor." This, they contend, because (1) it is
adapted only to such conditions as existed in England sixty years ago;
(2) it is divided into 116 warring factions; (3) it discriminates
against workingmen because of their race and poverty; (4) its members
are allowed to join the militia and shoot down other union men in time
of strike; and (5) it inevitably creates a certain aloofness among the
skilled workmen--the "aristocrats of labor"--toward those not skilled.
"There are organizations which are affiliated," Haywood asserts, "with
the A. F. of L. which ... prohibit the initiation of, or conferring
the obligation on, a colored man; that prohibit the conferring of the
obligation on foreigners."[122]
From the opening of the convention it was quite evident that an ideal
labor union was conceived to be something more than an institution
for improving the immediate condition of labor. Through it immediate
interests must be advanced, of course, but its primary object must
be to make an end of labor as a slave function and to establish in
place of the wage or capitalist system an industrial commonwealth of
co-operators. The convention was convinced that the craft union was
not only comparatively helpless in the matter of advancing immediate
interests, but was absolutely useless as a fulcrum for removing the
capitalist system. "The battles of the past," declared the manifesto,
"emphasize this lesson. The textile workers of Lowell, Philadelphia,
and Fall River; the butchers of Chicago; ... the long-struggling
miners of Colorado, hampered by lack of unity and solidarity upon
the industrial battlefield, all bear witness to the helplessness and
impotency of labor as at present organized."[123]
The craft form or organization creates three types very obnoxious
to the industrial unionist, _viz._, the "aristocrat" of labor, the
"union" scab, and the "labor lieutenant." The "union" scab--the man who
continues at work at his particular trade when the men of an allied
trade in the same industry are on strike--is a scab in the sense that
he is often--through this indirect scabbing--a fatal, perhaps the only
obstacle, to the success of the strike. Haywood gave an illustration of
this in the butchers' strike in Chicago:
For instance, [he said] in the packing plants, the butchers'
organization was one of the best in the country, reputed to
be 50,000 strong. They were well disciplined, which is shown
from the fact that when they were called on strike they quit
to a man. That is, the butchers quit; but did the engineers
quit, did the firemen quit, did the men who were running the
ice-plants quit? They were not in the union, not in that
particular union. They had agreements with their employers
which forbade them quitting. The result was that the Butchers'
Union was practically totally disrupted, entirely wiped
out.[124]
It was quite evident that these men who laid so much at the door of
the "union" scab, realized that the latter did not scab on his fellow
union-men because he enjoyed it. He was forced to be a union scab
because his craft had a contract--an agreement with the employer.
Craftism is what it is, because it involves a separate binding
agreement for each trade. These, being contracted independently by
each craft, naturally expired at different dates, so that the several
crafts in any given industry can never be free to act in unison. Little
reverence for these agreements was shown in the convention.
It is a fact [said DeLeon] ... that it is not the unorganized
scab who breaks the strikes, but the organized craft that
really does the dirty work; and thus they, each of whom,
when itself (_sic_) involved in a strike, fights like a
hero, when not themselves involved, demean themselves like
arrant scabs; betray their class--all in fatuous reverence to
"contracts."[125]
Debs pointed to these same contracts as the cause of defeat. He cited
the strike on the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad in 1888:
Some 2,000 engineers and firemen [he said] went out on one of
the most bitterly contested railroad strikes in the history of
the country. When they were out, the rest of the employees,
especially the conductors, who were organized in craft unions
of their own, remained at their posts, and the union conductors
piloted the scab engineers over the line.[126]
"Union scabbery" helped to create a kind of "union snobbery." The
craft idea tended to develop the idea of caste among workingmen, and
the skilled were set off from the unskilled as the "aristocracy of
labor." The industrial unionists emphatically declared that a true
labor union must include all workers, the unskilled and migratory as
well as the "aristocrats."
We are going down in the gutter [said Haywood] to get at the
mass of the workers and bring them up to a decent plane of
living. I do not care a snap of my finger whether or not the
skilled workers join this industrial movement at the present
time. When we get the unorganized and the unskilled laborer
into this organization the skilled worker will of necessity
come here for his own protection. As strange as it may seem to
you, the skilled worker today is exploiting the laborer beneath
him, the unskilled man, just as much as the capitalist is.[127]
But ultimately, according to Sherman, all workers--not merely the
groups connoted by the term "working-class"--must be grouped in the
proposed organization.
We don't propose [he said] to organize only the common man with
the callous hands, but we want the clerical force; we want the
soft hands that only get $40 a month--those fellows with No. 10
cuffs and collars. We want them all, so that when a strike is
called we can strike the whole business at once.[128]
A third type condemned by revolutionary unionists was the so-called
"labor lieutenant." This latter "mis-leader" of labor was the symbol of
another objectionable feature of the A. F. of L., _viz._, the identity
of interests assumption. Naturally the idea that the interests of
employer and employee are identical, is the only consistent one for an
organization based on the craft idea. It is said that Mark Hanna once
referred to the organizers and officials of the trade unions as the
"labor lieutenants of the captains of industry."
The revolutionary (industrial) unionists believed that collusion
existed between the tool-owners and the labor leaders of the country.
It was declared on the floor of the convention that "the trade-union
movement has become an auxiliary to the capitalist class in order
to hold down the toilers of the land."[129] The delegates from
the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance (members of the Socialist
Labor party, though not formally present as such) were especially
uncompromising on this point. At the 1900 convention of the Socialist
Labor party the following amendment to its constitution was adopted:
If any member of the Socialist Labor party accepts office in
a pure and simple trade or labor organization, he shall be
considered antagonistically inclined towards the Socialist
Labor party and shall be expelled. If any officer of a pure and
simple trade or labor organization applies for membership in
the Socialist Labor party, he shall be rejected.[130]
Daniel DeLeon and the other Socialist Labor party men at the convention
had absolutely no hope for the "pure and simple" union. DeLeon believed
"that the pure and simple leaders give jobs to Socialists for the
purpose of corrupting them, on the principle that the capitalist
politicians give jobs to workingmen for the purpose of corrupting the
working class...." "The labor movement," he said "has been prostituted
in this country by the jobs ... that the capitalist politicians give to
some individual workingmen...."[131]
The DeLeon faction was by no means alone in this attitude. The
majority felt that the American Federation of Labor was hopelessly
entangled in capitalist politics and irrevocably tied up to the
captains of industry through its labor lieutenants. On the whole,
the industrialists had no hope that the American Federation of Labor
could ever become an industrial organization. Some of them, like A.
M. Simons, believed it possible to further their industrial aim by
"boring from within" certain of the constituent unions in the American
Federation of Labor. Others differed--notably the DeLeonites. Their
leader said that the theory of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance
was,
That boring from within, with the labor fakir in possession,
is a waste of time, and that the only way to do is to stand by
the workingmen always; to organize them, to enlighten them,
and whenever a conflict breaks out in which their brothers are
being fooled and used as food for cannon, to have the Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance throw itself in the midst of the fray,
and sound the note of sense.[132]
"We call upon the socialists of the United States," said another member
of the S. T. & L. A., "to get out of the pure and simple organizations
and smash them to pieces."[133]
Eugene Debs, too, was convinced of the futility of boring from within.
"There is but one way," he said, "to effect this great change, and
that is for the workingman to sever his relations with the American
Federation and join the union that proposes on the economic field to
represent his class."[134]
The industrialists were most at variance on the question of the
proper political attitude of labor organizations; consequently,
they were not unanimous in their condemnation of the Federation's
political polity--or want of it. Moreover, as became evident during
the hot debate over the political clause, even those who condemned
the Federation's attitude on politics were quite at outs about
the political position which should be taken on behalf of the new
organization.[135]
President Gompers took up the cudgels for the American Federation of
Labor. The new movement was inaugurated, he said, "under the pretext
that the American Federation of Labor refuses to recognize the changes
which are constantly taking place in industry. That it is a pretext
inexcusably ignorant and maliciously false any observer must know."
He goes on to say that "the permanency of the trade-union movement
depends upon the recognition ... of the principle of [craft] autonomy
consistent with the varying phase and transitions in industry."[136]
Mr. Gompers cited, among others, the case of the Boot and Shoe Workers'
International Union. The workers in Lynn, Massachusetts, in a branch of
the shoe trade--they were makers of "counters"--applied for a charter
in the American Federation of Labor. The Federation authorities advised
them first to join the industrial union of their trade, _viz._, the
Boot and Shoe Workers' International Union. This they declined to do,
and being refused by the American Federation of Labor, joined the
American Labor Union.
The first five days of the convention were taken up with the adjustment
of credentials, the explanation of the manifesto, and the indictment
of the American Federation of Labor--"the consummate flower of craft
unionism." On the sixth day the principal piece of constructive
work confronting the convention--the shaping-up of some sort of a
workable constitution--was taken out of the hands of the committee
and made the order of the day. Though Simons intimates[137] that the
first days of the convention were too much given over to the reign
of the "jaw-smith," yet mixed with all the chaff--unquestionably in
evidence--was much intellectual grain. The ideas and suggestions
brought out in all these discussions, the resolutions proposed, all
these, after a crude but critical sifting at the hands of the committee
and the speakers on the floor of the convention, became crystallized in
the preamble and constitution. The following resolutions, selected and
condensed from the report of the committee on resolutions, are fairly
typical:[138]
1. To provide for the establishment and maintenance of an
Educational Bureau comprising a Literature Bureau and a Lecture
Bureau.
3. Resolved, that it be the sense of this convention that
the labor of each individual unit of society is necessary to
the welfare of society, and that all are entitled to equal
compensation.
4. Resolved, that the first day of May of each year ... be
designated as the Labor Day of this organization.
6. Resolved, that the seceding workers and seceding
organizations in the A. F. of L. be required to make a public
statement of the reason for their secession....
8. Resolved, that we recommend as a final solution of the class
struggle the Social General Strike....
9. Resolved, that it is the sense of this convention to endorse
and provide a perfect system of commercial coöperation.
13. Resolved, that it be the sense of this convention that only
those who are wage-workers be eligible to membership in this
organization.
16. Whereas, there is already established an International
Bureau of those industrial unions which are based upon the
class struggle, with headquarters at Berlin, therefore be it
Resolved, that this new organization enter into immediate
relations therewith.
20. Resolved, that we condemn militarism in all its forms and
functions, which are jeopardizing our constitutional rights and
privileges in the struggle between capital and labor. Be it
further
Resolved, that any members accepting salaried positions to
defend capitalism, directly or indirectly, should be denied the
privilege of membership in this organization.
To the discussion and emendation of the preamble and constitution
was devoted the bulk of the time during the last five days of the
convention.[139] The preamble drawn up by the committee on constitution
was accepted by the convention practically in the form presented by
that committee, and without dissent except for the second clause. The
first two clauses read as follows:
The working class and the employing class have nothing in
common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are
found among the millions of working people, and the few, who
make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the
toilers come together on the political, as well as on the
industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by
their labor, through an economic organization of the working
class, without affiliation with any political party.
The reference to the "political field" in the second clause brought
forth immediate challenge and the whole clause was the subject of
exhaustive debate. Delegate Gilbert, who favored the clause, very
concisely explained its significance.
We are here [he said] to effect an economic organization. There
are two elements in this convention. One element proposes to
do away with political action entirely. Another element is
inclined toward political action. All that this paragraph is
in essence is this: It first of all states very clearly and
plainly that this is primarily an economic organization based
upon the conflict of classes. Secondly, it says in essence
this: That as individuals you are perfectly free to take such
political action as you see fit. As an organization, you
cannot.... Thirdly, it says this: You shall not as an economic
organization stand committed to any political party at present
in existence.[140]
Delegate Simons opposed it, declaring that, "as it stands it says that
we are in favor of political action without any political party."[141]
Delegate Richter also opposed it on the ground that the struggle
has really only begun when the workers are brought together on the
political and industrial fields,--whereas the preamble implied that at
that stage the struggle ceases.[142]
Delegate DeLeon argued at length in support of the clause. To him this
"political clause," as it has since been called, was quite essential to
keep the proposed organization "in line and in step with civilization."
"The barbarian," he said, "begins with physical force; the civilized
man ends with that when force is necessary."[143] He believed it to
be absolutely impossible to "take and hold" as the preamble puts it,
without the protection--or at any rate the harmony--secured through
political unity. Of course, the basis of this political unity was
to have no organic connection--not the remotest--with the economic
organization. The clause under discussion recognized the two truths
"that political action and the means of civilization must be given
an opportunity--and that in this country, for one, it is out of the
question to imagine that a political party can 'take and hold.'"[144]
This was the Socialist Labor party position. It had been foreshadowed
in its 1900 convention when it endorsed the following resolution:
Genuine trade-unionism not only must fight in the shop ... but
must especially, uncompromisingly, at all costs and hazards
fight the political parties of capitalism on election day. Its
chief motto must be--"No union card will justify the political
scab. Here is a traitor to his class."... We recognize in
the S. T. & L. A. the economic arm of the S. L. P. and its
indispensable adjunct in its conflict between the working class
and the capitalist class.[145]
The discussion brought out every shade of opinion on the ballot.
These men were acutely aware of the fact that business is to a great
extent the creator and controller of politics. As one delegate put
it, "dropping pieces of paper into a hole in a box never did achieve
emancipation for the working class and ... it never will...."[146] Even
Daniel DeLeon had nothing but contempt for
the visionary politician, the man who imagines that by going
to the ballot box and taking a piece of paper--and throwing it
in and then rubbing his hands and jollying himself with the
expectation that through that process, through some mystic
alchemy, the ballot will terminate capitalism and the socialist
commonwealth will rise like a fairy out of the ballot-box.[147]
The manifesto was very specific in proposing a purely economic
organization. That the issue would be a political organization was the
prophecy of Frank Bohn, an official of the Socialist Trade and Labor
Alliance.
Every industrial unionist [he declared] who thoroughly
understands the deeper mission of his organization will reach
class-conscious political action. An industrial union cannot
increase the average wage. In some cases it may be less likely
than the craft unions to prevent the decrease in wages....
Socialist to the core must the new economic organization
be--and when the June convention has painted the skull and
cross-bones on the door of "pure and simpledom," that last
working-class compromise with capitalism, there will probably
issue a political organization strong in numbers, but stronger
in principle, because raised by the revolutionary spirit high
above "mere vote-getting subterfuge."[148]
In reply to this, A. M. Simons, the editor, declares that,
if it is true that the new union is to be less powerful on the
economic field than the pure and simple unions, and is simply
to constitute a new political party jabbering a lot of jargon
about general strikes and installing its officers as rulers of
the coöperative commonwealth, then it is doomed to a short and
sickening life.[149]
A very reasonable interpretation of this political clause is that the
working class must be united politically, but not necessarily that that
union is, or is in, or has any connection with, the I. W. W. However,
the sequel showed that it was fatal to the unity of the organization.
Three years later it proved to be the rock on which the movement split,
bringing about the bifurcated organization we know at the present
time; with a direct-actionist wing, non-political, and with a new and
expurgated edition of the preamble, and a DeLeonite or doctrinaire
wing, pro-political--another Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance--with
the same old preamble and the same old political clause.[150]
The constitution provided a highly centralized scheme of administration
involving a mixed hierarchy of power. The general organization was
divided into thirteen international industrial divisions (later called
"departments"). Each of these departmental divisions was supposed
to comprise an allied group of industries, grouped together for
administrative purposes. In the original report of the constitution
committee the industrial or occupational "sphere of influence" of each
division was specified in detail. The world's industries were divided
into thirteen administrative groups. The report provided that the
organization should be composed of thirteen international industrial
unions, designated as follows:
Division 1 shall be composed of all persons working in the
following industries: Clerks, salesmen, tobacco, packing
houses, flour mills, sugar refineries, dairies, bakeries, and
kindred industries.
Division 2: Brewery, wine and distillery workers.
Division 3: Floriculture, stock and general farming.
Division 4: Mining, milling, smelting and refining coal, ores,
metals, salt and iron.
Division 5: Steam railway, electric railway, marine, shipping,
and teaming.
Division 6: All building employees.
Division 7: All textile industrial employees.
Division 8: All leather industrial employees.
Division 9: All wood-working employees excepting those engaged
in building departments.
Division 10: All metal industrial employees.
Division 11: All glass and pottery employees.
Division 12: All paper mills, chemical, rubber, broom, brush
and jewelry industries.
Division 13: Parks, highways, municipal, postal service,
telegraph, telephone, schools and educational institutions,
amusements, sanitary, printing, hotel, restaurant and laundry
employees.[151]
This section provoked instant debate. In fact, two days and a
half--about half the time given to the whole constitution--were given
over to the discussion of this clause.[152] Many delegates considered
that such a specific division was not only a practical impossibility,
on account of the very definite limits to the jurisdiction of most
industries, but was a very inconsistent step for an industrial
organization to take, since in their opinion it was nothing more or
less than a recreation of craft lines.[153] There was considerable
feeling in evidence that this clause did not satisfy the provision
of the manifesto for "craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy
internationally, and working-class unity generally." Flaws and
inconsistencies without end could, of course, be found in such a
categorical division, and they were pointed out by critical delegates
with much gusto. The main idea in this attempt at departmental
demarcation of industries was that a centralized administration was
imperative. Most of the delegates agreed to this. They believed that
even the industry, although the unit or cell of the new structure,
should not be the dominant basis of the administration. That must be
departmental.
Any of these industries [said Delegate Goodwin] are subsidiary
and supporting the whole organization.... The tendency of
capitalist development is concentration. We are going from
industrial production to departmental production. It won't
be many years ... till we have departmental production. The
tendency in development in the early stages of capital is to
go into industries, and the later tendency is to divide into
departments, and these departments are international....[154]
As finally amended, the clause omitted any specific category of
departments and industries and simply provided for thirteen departments
with appropriate subdivisions. It read as follows:
Art. I., Sec. 2.--And shall be composed of thirteen
international industrial divisions subdivided into industrial
unions of closely related industries in the appropriate
organizations for representation in the departmental
administration. The subdivisions, international and national
industrial unions, shall have complete industrial autonomy
in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General
Executive Board shall have power to control these industrial
unions in matters concerning the interests of the general
welfare.[155]
The list of specifically divided industries was later replaced in
the constitution, but in a very much improved form. Wm. E. Trautmann
has worked this up even further, and in 1911 published a still more
improved outline in which the number of departments is reduced to
six.[156]
The constitutional convention also made provision for other and
subordinate bodies, _i. e._, industrial councils, which might be
formed. These were to comprise seven or more local unions in two or
more industries and the local industrial union. These local unions
were the smallest units of organization then provided for, except that
when isolated individuals applied for membership in a locality where no
local union existed, such persons were admitted into the organization
as "individual" members directly attached to the general organization.
The same principle applied throughout. In case, then, there were
not a sufficient number[157] of locals in any one industry to form
an industrial department, the local was directly responsible to the
general organization. Then, as now, the great majority of local unions
were chartered directly by the general organization. At the close
of the first convention the Western Federation of Miners became the
"Mining Department" of the I. W. W.; the Metal Workers became the
"Metal Department"; and the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees,
the "Transportation Department." All local unions are industrial in
character, _i. e._, each one makes the shop its unit and comprises all
the crafts engaged in and around the shop. The mucker in the mine must
belong to the same union as the man who runs the drill. The idea is to
get into the same union all those workers who are coöperating for the
production of a given class of products.
The officers provided for were: a General President, a General
Secretary-Treasurer, and a General Executive Board composed of these
two officers and the Presidents of the International Industrial
Division.[158] The constitutional committee recommended
that this convention elect a provisional Board of seven to
conduct affairs of this organization until the next national
convention. The said provisional Board shall consist of the
National President, National Secretary-Treasurer and five other
members, two of these five to be elected at large, one to be
elected from the W. F. of M., one from the United Metal Workers
and one from the U. B. of R. E.... The provisional Board shall
also have the duty of a committee on style to revise the
constitution and submit a draft to the next convention.[159]
In accordance with this recommendation, the Provisional Board was
elected as follows: C. O. Sherman, Metal Workers, General President;
William E. Trautmann, Industrial Workers Club, of Cincinnati, General
Secretary-Treasurer; John Riordan, American Labor Union, member at
large; F. W. Cronin, American Labor Union, member at large; Frank
McCabe, United Brotherhood of Railway Employees; Charles Kirkpatrick,
Metal Workers, and C. H. Moyer, Western Federation of Miners. The
General Executive Board was given great power. In its hands was
placed the entire responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of
the organization between conventions. This board was given full power
to issue charters to all subordinate bodies--industrial departments,
industrial councils, and local unions; to supervise the work of general
administration and audit the books of the general office; to levy
special assessments when any of the subordinate bodies are engaged in
strike and the condition of their local treasuries makes it necessary;
to supervise and control the publication of the official organ and to
elect its editor.
Specially worthy of note were the powers given the General Executive
Board in regard to strikes and agreements. The clauses referring to
these two points are here given:
In case the members of a subordinate organization of the
Industrial Workers of the World are involved in strike,
regularly ordered by the organization, or General Executive
Board, or involved in a lockout, if in the opinion of the
President and General Executive Board it becomes necessary to
call out any other union or unions, or organization, they shall
have full power to do so.
Any agreement entered into between the members of any local
union or organization, and their employers, as a final
settlement of any difficulty or trouble between them, shall
not be considered valid or binding until the same shall have
the approval of the General Executive Board of the Industrial
Workers of the World.[160]
The President, of course, had more extended authority than the
other members of the Board, and was given entire supervision of the
organization throughout its jurisdiction; but his official acts and
decisions, as well as those of the General Executive Board, were at
all times subject to appeal to the general convention, the decisions
of which body, in turn, might be put to the final test of ratification
by a referendum to the general membership. Thus the rank and file were
supposed to be the final arbiters. Throughout the hierarchy "home rule"
was to be accorded in all matters of strictly local concern, such as
details of administration, by-laws, _etc._, but matters connected with
the general welfare were made subjects of industrial rather than craft
autonomy. Revenues were derived from charter fees, initiation fees and
dues, all of which were made very low. A fixed proportion of all such
revenues was to be paid into a central defense fund.
It is quite apparent that matters which were of purely internal concern
were much more narrowly interpreted than in the orthodox union.
Most things affecting one craft are frankly declared to effect all
crafts--even all industries--and only a few matters like by-laws and
other routine affairs were considered to be of merely local concern.
The constitution was built up around the socialistic motto, "An injury
to one is the concern of all." The document was merely provisional,
and in a crude way served as an initial guide for drawing up a more
comprehensive and permanent constitution later on.
That the constitution was at least acceptable to most of the delegates
was evidenced by the fact that it was adopted by a six to one
vote,[161] and more definitely proven on roll-call for installation
of organizations under the new constitution. Besides the five leading
organizations--the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor
Union, United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, United Metal Workers,
and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, six local unions and
thirty-nine individuals (representing no organization) unanimously
voted for installation.[162] Having elected its officers and chosen
Chicago as its headquarters, the Convention adjourned, _sine die_, July
8, 1905.
Delegate Kiehn (representing the Longshoremen of Hoboken, N. J.),
among others, refused to install his union. He explained his vote,
stating that in his opinion the constitution was "not according to the
spirit of the manifesto." He believed that dividing the industrial
activities of society into thirteen divisions meant the creation--not
the destruction--of craft lines, and also that "it [the constitution]
gives the President or the Executive Board of this organization czarish
powers that are not given to the executive officers of any pure and
simple organization in this country."[163]
Unquestionably the outcome of the convention was very different from
what those most interested had anticipated. In its final form, the
preamble and constitution were not exactly shaped to the provisions
of the January manifesto--at any rate they did not seem to satisfy
the authors of the latter document. This is partly to be explained
by the significant fact that Daniel DeLeon was not present at the
January conference, although the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance
and the Socialist Labor party were represented by one of their
organizers--Frank Bohn. We have seen that the fear of Socialist
Labor party domination or Socialist Labor party wire-pulling and the
fear of the influence of DeLeon were one and the same. A. M. Simons
declared several months before the Convention that "nothing could more
thoroughly damn the work of the conference which meets in Chicago next
June than the prevalence of the idea that it was an attempt to revive
the S. T. & L. A...."[164] These fears were to a certain limited extent
realized. The same writer says that "At the first conference [the June
convention] Daniel DeLeon with a crowd of followers obtained such power
in the organization as to destroy its original point of view. Later
he was thrown out, or resigned, or threw the others out [according to
who is telling the story]."[165] In precisely what way the original
point of view was destroyed is not easily determined. Even Simons
admitted that "the only line of cleavage between bodies representing
any strength was over the method of organization." And "even here," he
believed that "the difficulty was much less fundamental than the heat
of the debate would indicate."[166]
Beyond any doubt the influence of the Socialist Labor party (through
the delegates of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance), DeLeonism, as
it was called, was wider than this statement would indicate. A "paper"
organization, outnumbered by all of the organizations in what we have
called the "Big Five," it unquestionably was influential to a degree
quite out of proportion to its numbers, and in that way, at least, it
dominated the convention. The political clause, which later proved such
a rock of dissension and which was not passed in the first convention
without considerable opposition, was one mark left in the constitution
by DeLeonism. The virtual overthrowing of the "boring-from-within"
policy was another mark left _out_ of the constitution by DeLeonism.
Both of these departures were of great importance but not the most
vital by any means.
The primary importance of the Western Federation of Miners in these
beginnings cannot be too much emphasized. In a quite real sense the I.
W. W. was born out of the Western Federation. It was from this militant
miners union that most of the financial bone and sinew came for setting
in motion the machinery of the new union. The Federation constituted
probably one-third of the membership of the organization which had in
its mining department (while it did have it!) by all odds the most
vigorously militant of all American unions. The Federation's bitter
fights with the mine operators, especially in Colorado, Montana, and
Idaho, prepared the ground and spread the sentiment for the extension
of revolutionary industrialism beyond the relatively narrow limits of
the metalliferous mining industry. It was not a coincidence that the I.
W. W. sprang into being so hard on the heels of the strike terrors of
Telluride and Cripple Creek. A delegate at the second (1906) convention
declared that the Butte Miners Union was the father of the I. W. W.[167]
Despite the fact that the I. W. W. did continue to exist, and,
periodically, to thrive after the Western Federation broke away, it is
safe to say that had it not been for the Federation, with its practical
strength and the stimulating example of its history, there would
have been no I. W. W. It was Western-Federationism quite as much as
DeLeonism that moulded the I. W. W. at its inception.
It certainly is not quite true that the first convention was "captured"
by the DeLeon element, as so many insinuate. DeLeon was elected to no
office and neither of the General Executive Board members elected at
large were members of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. Debs
insists that "DeLeon did not 'capture' the organization and Debs is
not 'disgusted' with it."[168] The dominance of DeLeonism was, then,
a supremacy of ideas. These ideas may have been "insane delusions"
and finally disastrous to the harmony of the movement; but they were
presumably defended by their chief sponsor and his followers, in firm
conviction that they were essential to the growth of the movement.
DeLeon said on the floor of the convention, "When I came to Chicago to
this convention, I came absolutely without any private ax to grind or
any private grudge to gratify. In fact ... I have had but one foe ...
and that foe is the capitalist class."[169]
Hermann Richter, now general secretary of the Socialist Labor party
wing of the I. W. W., writes in a recent number of their official
organ: "During the proceedings of the [first] convention it became
apparent that not all delegates understood, or were in free accord with
the spirit and intent of the organization."[170] This was very natural
considering the composition of the gathering. The sequel proved that
this was the least of the troubles in embryo at that first convention.
All this friction and internal discord was naturally made to loom
large in the editorials of the _American Federationist_; Gompers, in
fact, squinted hard enough at the Chicago conference to see absolutely
nothing in it. The August (1905) number contained the following, under
the caption "Those 'World Redeemers' at Chicago":
After an effort of more than six months ... the distribution
of tons upon tons of circulars and "literature" throughout
America and every other country throughout the globe ... what
was the result? The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse,
and a very silly little mouse at that.... And out of this
material [the S. T. and L. A. and the A. L. U.] they proclaim
themselves the "Industrial Workers of the World." Their nerve
is so colossal that it is positively ludicrous. Of course the
two and a half million ... workmen in the trade-union movement
are entirely oblivious that they are included.... The wheel
of fortune, otherwise known as ex-Father Hagerty's chart, was
adopted as a "plan" of organization. This plan is so unique
and so fantastic that we accord it space in our columns and
thus give it historic importance.... [And finally he prophesies
that] as time goes on the active participants in the labor
movement of the future, students, thinkers, historians, will
record the Chicago meeting as the most vapid and ridiculous in
the annals of those who presume to speak in the name of labor,
and the participants in the gathering as the most stupendous
impossibles the world has yet seen.[171]
But in spite of dissension on the inside and bitter abuse and
misrepresentation on the outside, the industrialists were, on the
whole, very optimistic about the prospects of the new-born I. W. W. and
held high hopes for its future. In spite of the emphatic declaration
of the manifesto that the I. W. W. "should be established as the
economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with
any political party," the newspapers and even the labor press persisted
in representing the movement as a political one. Thus the Milwaukee
_Journal_ said:
The Socialists are still earnestly advocating the formation of
a new national organization in the hope of downing the American
Federation of Labor, as the Federation is opposed to making the
labor union a political organization.[172]
The _Advance Advocate_, a labor organ, had this to say:
And now a new industrial union is to be launched in Chicago. It
is going to revolutionize the whole labor movement according to
the manifesto of its promoters. It is going into politics. We
predict that it will fail.[173]
The Iowa State Federation of Labor issued the following statement:
A few disgruntled office-seekers and would-be politicians
have seen fit to criticize the present methods of our trade
organizations, and these same people have issued a call for a
convention to be held in the city of Chicago, June 27, 1905, to
form an organization, ... the avowed purpose of which is the
complete annihilation of the present trade-union movement by
political methods.[174]
The expectation that there would be a general secession from the
American Federation of Labor to the new organization was not realized
and there was practically no American Federation of Labor material in
the new body. In numbers it seemed, in view of later shrinkage, to be
at high tide. The reports of the convention estimated the membership
at 60,000, and A. M. Simons estimated that at the very least the
organization would in six months have 100,000 members.[175] The twelve
organizations finally installed represented a membership of 49,010.
This excluded the thirty-nine "individual" members. In regard to this
Vincent St. John writes: "I know that the Annual Convention reports
claim 60,000 members, but the books of the organization did not justify
any such claim, and in fact the average paid-up membership, without the
W. F. of M. (27,000), for the first year of the organization was 14,000
in round numbers."[176]
The I. W. W. was organized, as the constitution expressed it, to
"subserve the immediate interests of the working class and effect their
final emancipation." The attempt to realize this "final emancipation"
was the thing which marked off the I. W. W. from the typical craft
union. This latter body is _craft_ conscious; the I. W. W. is _class_
conscious. The structural and organic form it assumed at the first
convention made for the stupefaction of craft consciousness and the
stimulation of class consciousness. The idea of the class conflict
was really the bottom notion or "first cause" of the I. W. W. The
industrial union type was adopted because it would make it possible to
wage this class war under more favorable conditions.
It is true the Socialist and Socialist Labor parties are working for
the ultimate freedom of the working class, but the (Chicago) I. W. W.
considers their method--political action--a snare and a delusion, and
(here both the Detroit and Chicago factions came together) absolutely
impotent when used alone. It is rather significant that every member
of the provisional board elected at the convention was a member of the
Socialist party. But they emphatically declared that the Socialist
party was not to be involved in any way; and it never did become
involved except as an enemy. On the other hand, the Socialist Labor
party did, through the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, indirectly
affect the work of the first convention.
The anarchist element was weak in 1905, and the anarchistic leanings
now so prominent in the direct-actionist wing of the organization
were then quite overshadowed by the socialistic and industrial
phases of the movement. Carlton says that "the Industrial Workers
may be compared with the Knights of Labor shorn of their idealism
and saturated with class-conscious Socialism";[177] and he might
have added, with their decentralized administrative system replaced
by a very strongly centralized one--this constituting a fundamental
distinction between the I. W. W. and the _Confédération Générale du
Travail_, a decentralized organization. Nor should the Industrial
Workers of the World be quite shorn of idealism. That must surely be
idealistic which is "saturated with class-conscious socialism." This
was amply demonstrated at the constitutional convention. Their idealism
was given more of a pragmatic character by the persistent tendency to
place socialism on an industrial rather than a political basis. The
immediate struggle must take place primarily in the shop--at the point
of production--only secondarily at the polls.
"By organizing industrially," claims the Industrial Worker, "we are
forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the
old."[178] And here he evidences an idea of the future state of society
and the method of its realization, rather new even to the socialist,
and somewhat akin to that of the anarchists. The First Convention
surely laid its plans, crude as they were, with an eye to the future.
The scope of organization implied that the proletariat of the future
would include more, by far, than the unskilled; that all those
gainfully employed in whatever kind or grade of work would some day
become proletarians, in spirit at least, and get together in this "one
big union."
The first constitution, crude and provisional as it was, made room for
all the world's workers and so at the beginning is a vast and nearly
empty structure, with groups of the lower grades of workers in some of
the basic industries in their proper places in the scheme, but with
all the rest a hollow shell. Whether this empty structure will ever
be "filled up" is a question which time will decide. George Speed,
formerly a member of the General Executive Board (direct-actionist
wing), has characterized this convention as the "greatest
conglomeration of freaks that ever met in convention." This may have
been true, for freak ideas often did bob up in the convention and some
of them got fixed in the constitution, but at heart this was a vital
move, impelled by high and serious motives.[179]
FOOTNOTES:
[120] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 1-2.
[121] _Ibid._, p. 153.
[122] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 1.
[123] Report of Committee on Press and Literature, _Proceedings, First
I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 4-5.
[124] Speech at the ratification meeting, _Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_, p. 577.
[125] Speech at Minneapolis, July 10, 1905, on "The Preamble of the
Industrial Workers of the World." Published in pamphlet form under this
title by N. Y. Labor News Co., 1905, pp. 26-27.
[126] Address on "Revolutionary Unionism," Chicago, Nov., 1905.
(Published in pamphlet form under this title by C. H. Kerr Company.
Chicago.)
[127] Speech at ratification meeting, _Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_, pp. 575-576.
[128] _Ibid._, p. 586. The idea of the general strike was not at all
prominent at this convention, but was expressed in one resolution.
_Infra_, p. 91.
[129] Trautmann on the reasons for the manifesto, _Proceedings, First
I. W. W. Convention_, p. 118.
[130] _Proceedings, Tenth Annual Convention S. L. P._, p. 211.
[131] _Ibid._, p. 211.
[132] _DeLeon-Harriman Debate_ (New York: N. Y. Labor News Co., 1900),
p. 14.
[133] Delegate Dalton, _Tenth Annual Convention Proceedings, Socialist
Labor Party_, p. 217.
[134] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 143.
[135] _Cf. infra_, ch. ix.
[136] _American Federationist_, vol. xii, p. 214 (April, 1905).
[137] _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, p. 75, Aug., 1905.
[138] For full text of the report _vide Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_, pp. 180, _et seq._, 193, and 213 _et seq._
[139] For the preamble _vide_ Appendix ii. For the constitution as
originally presented by the committee and discussions of the same,
_vide Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 295-512. The amended
but unrevised constitution, as adopted at this constituent meeting, is
reprinted in condensed form in the author's _Launching of the I. W.
W._, pp. 49-53.
[140] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 231-232.
[141] _Ibid._, p. 224.
[142] _Ibid._, p. 225.
[143] _Ibid._, p. 227.
[144] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 231.
[145] _Proceedings, Tenth Annual Convention S. L. P._, pp. 198-199.
[146] "Father" Hagerty, _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p.
152.
[147] _Ibid._, p. 228.
[148] "Concerning the Chicago Manifesto," _International Socialist
Review_, vol. v, pp. 588-9, April, 1905.
[149] _Ibid._, p. 591, April, 1905.
[150] In 1915 the DeLeonite wing changed its name to "The Workers
International Industrial Union." _Vide infra_, p. 253.
[151] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 299-300. This
classification was amended and re-arranged at the Second Convention.
_Proceedings_, p. 207.
[152] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 300, _et seq._
[153] This objection was, in part, the cause of the refusal of the
delegate of the Longshoremen's Union to install his local. _Cf. infra_,
p. 102.
[154] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 427.
[155] _Ibid._, p. 496.
[156] _Vide I. W. W. Constitution_, 1911, art. i, sec. 4, and
Trautmann, _One Great Union_, Detroit, I. W. W. Literary Bureau, n. d.
(Chart insert).
[157] Art. vii, sec. 4, Constitution (1905), "So soon as there are ten
locals with not less than 3,000 members in one industry, the General
Executive Board shall immediately proceed to call a convention of that
industry and proceed to organize it as an international industrial
division of the Industrial Workers of the World."
[158] The office of general president was abolished at the second
convention. _Vide infra_, p. 143.
[159] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 504.
[160] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 455.
[161] 42,719 to 6,998. _Proceedings, First I. W. W Convention_, pp.
609-614.
[162] The six locals were the United Mine Workers local union of
Pittsburg, Kans. (A. F. of L.); Punch Press Operators of Schenectady,
N. Y.; Journeymen Tailors Benevolent and Protective Union of San
Francisco (A. F. of L.); Industrial Workers Club of Chicago; Industrial
Workers Club of Cincinnati; Workers Industrial and Educational Union of
Pueblo, Colo. (_Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 614). For
detailed vote on installation, vide Brissenden, _Launching of the I. W.
W._, p. 43.
[163] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 527.
[164] _International Socialist Review_, vol. v, p. 563 (March, 1905).
[165] _Private Correspondence_, March, 1912.
[166] _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, p. 66 (Aug., 1905).
[167] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 447.
[168] "The Industrial Convention," _International Socialist Review_,
vol. vi, p. 86.
[169] _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 147.
[170] "The I. W. W., Retrospects and Prospects," _Industrial Union
News_, vol. i, no. 1 (Jan., 1912).
[171] _American Federationist_, vol. xii, pp. 514-516.
[172] Quoted in _Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention_, p. 252.
[173] _Ibid._
[174] _Ibid._
[175] _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, p. 66 (Aug., 1905).
[176] _Private Correspondence_, October 5, 1911.
[177] F. T. Carlton, _History and Problems of Organized Labor_ (New
York, 1911), p. 82.
[178] This clause was inserted in the preamble at the 1906 convention.
_Cf. Constitution I. W. W._ as amended to 1908.
[179] "C'était la première préparation pratique en Amérique à la
révolution qui doit conduire la société de la tempête économique au
port de la république coopérative." _L'Internationale ouvrière et
socialiste_ (_ed. française_), vol. i, p. 63, Stuttgart, 1907 (Report
of the Socialist Labor Party of America to the Congress).
PART II
THE "ORIGINAL" I. W. W.
CHAPTER IV
MAIDEN EFFORTS ON THE ECONOMIC FIELD
The adjournment of the organizing convention in July, 1905, left the
body it had created in a very chaotic condition. The time and attention
of the delegates was so exclusively taken up with the problem of
building up "one big union" out of many little unions and the task of
working out a harmony platform of law and policy on which all could
come together, that the matter of business management was almost
entirely neglected. Indeed some of the circumstances surrounding
the I. W. W. at its inception quite precluded the ordered and
efficient procedure possible to a well manned and adequately financed
organization. The I. W. W. was not well manned and was practically
destitute of financial resources. The dearth of ability and especially
the want of honesty in its managing personnel were to become all too
evident long before the second convention had come to a close, as was
also its practically bankrupt financial status. Although there were
three rather formidable-looking departments nominally organized as
such--_viz._: mining, metal and machinery, and transportation--none
of these except the mining department represented material accessions
either numerically or financially, and the early defection of the
Western Federation of Miners quite broke down this one and, what was
even more important, cut off from the Industrial Workers of the World
the great bulk of its financial resources.
The industrial-union idea made marked headway among the trade unions
of the United States during the first year of the existence of the I.
W. W., and this was very largely due to the influence and example of
that organization. Organizers were sent to those places where serious
friction existed between trade-unionists and employers, or between
trade-unionists and the American Federation of Labor. The I. W. W.
devoted very little attention at that time to the unorganized; its
energy was chiefly centered on the reformation of the craft unions--a
policy of dual unionism. The Federation lost rather heavily in some
quarters to the I. W. W., the disaffection proving most marked among
the brewers and machinists. Max S. Hayes, in reviewing the situation at
the end of the year 1905, wrote as follows:
The elements that are dissatisfied with the A. F. of L. are
naturally looking askance at the I. W. W., which body appears
to be gaining strength in New York, Chicago, and smaller
places, especially in the West. A national officer of the
brewers told me a few week ago that the rank and file in
many parts of the country are clamoring to cut loose from
the Federation and join the Industrialists.... Still another
national officer, a Socialist, by the way, said he had visited
the little city of Schenectady, N. Y., recently and found the
machinists, metal polishers and several other trades unions in
open revolt against their national organization and going into
the camp of the Industrial Workers. Some of the garment working
crafts and textile workers are also affected. It begins to look
as though we are to have another war similar to the struggle
between the old Knights of Labor and the American Federation of
Labor.[180]
This same unrest and dissatisfaction with the condition of trade-union
organization was evident among many local unions of the United
Mine Workers of America. Only two local unions of the Mine Workers
had finally joined the Industrial Workers of the World at the first
convention,[181] but before the end of the year there were several
others desiring admission. In many cases, however, they were unable to
go into the I. W. W. because they had contracts signed up with the mine
operators, and must perforce await their expiration before any action
could be taken. The Mine Workers' locals at Barrow, Muddy Valley,
and Elkville (Ill.) were in precisely this situation. They reported
themselves at the second convention as desirous of admission, but
that immediate transfer of allegiance was impossible because they had
two-year contracts with the operators which did not expire until April,
1908.[182] Although in these instances the contracts were respected and
the locals did not join the I. W. W., that result was not due to any
moral influence emanating from the Industrial Workers of the World,
who, of course, repudiated the validity of contracts with employers.
They believed that, as Haywood expressed it, "as all is fair in love
and war, industrial unionists should abrogate all agreements which
would compel them to violate the principles of unionism."[183]
Friction between the Industrial Workers of the World and the American
Federation of Labor continued, of course, to be in evidence. The
nominal possession of a defense fund by the I. W. W., and the want of
such a feature in the Federation, doubtless appealed to craft unions in
time of need. For that reason, if for no other, many craft unionists
have felt that Haywood had some reason for saying that "the only
function which the American Federation of Labor can assume is to act as
an advisory board of the trade-union movement," and that "the ideas
of Mr. Gompers are hoary, aged, moss-covered relics of the days of the
ox-team and the pony express, when the craftsmen owned or controlled
the tools of production."[184]
There were a few trade unions which joined the Industrial Workers
of the World as a last resort or merely to spite the American
Federation. Such was the case with the Stogie Makers, who constituted
an independent organization in January, 1906, and who, having been
for some reason denied a charter in the American Federation of
Labor, finally, and with noisy repudiation of the principles of the
Federation, joined the I. W. W.[185]
Trouble most commonly arose between the Industrial Workers and the
Federation in time of strike. The Industrial Workers objected to what
they called the "unfair interference of the A. F. of L. in I. W. W.
strikes." Numerous protests against this alleged meddlesomeness of
the Federation were made on the floor of the second convention. The
following excerpt from the report of General-Secretary Trautmann to the
convention will serve for illustration:
... strike-breakers were engaged by the American Federation of
Labor officers to take the places of members of the I. W. W.
In Youngstown, Ohio, in San Pedro [Cal.], in Yonkers and in
many other places committees were sent to employers demanding
the discharge of I. W. W. supporters; special boycotts have
been declared against the goods made in factories where
members of the Industrial Workers of the World are employed,
as, for instance, in St. Louis, Mo., and Butte, Mont.... In
Schenectady, where the I. W. W. efforts gained advantages for
others, too; in Cleveland, Ohio, where the I. W. W. bricklayers
walked out on strike in sympathy with striking hod-carriers,
members of the A. F. of L., and refused an offer of ten per
cent increase in wages and a closed shop contract, if they
would desert the building laborers, which they refused to do;
in Newark, N. J., where the I. W. W. shoemakers refused to work
with the strike-breakers engaged to defeat strikers of another
organization not in the I. W. W., and similar cases can be
recorded to show that the I. W. W. members are not organized
for the purpose of retaliation against members of their
class....[186]
The American Federation of Labor was undoubtedly often guilty of
attempts of the kind just mentioned--activities which were looked upon
by the "Wobblies" as crafty methods of undermining and antagonizing
the work of their organization. It happened more than once during
that first year of the younger organization's existence, and has
happened on the occasion of many an industrial conflict since that
time. However, the blame lies not entirely at the door of the
Federation, nor has it alone been guilty of such practices. It is, in
fact, quite likely that the first provocation to interference arose
from the persistence of the I. W. W. in the policy of organizing--or
rather of annexing to itself--unions already organized, and usually
so organized in the American Federation of Labor itself. This policy
of double affiliation was warmly discussed at the first convention,
but no definite official decision of the convention appears in the
stenographic report of proceedings. The I. W. W. has been accused of
deliberately agitating among unions already organized, and that in the
face of open declarations that the I. W. W. does not believe in dual
organization. It is true that such declarations of policy may have been
made by I. W. W. speakers, but it has not been _officially_ declared
to be the policy of the organization. A sharp distinction should be
drawn here between reorganizing, or attempting to reorganize, already
organized bodies--dual organizing activities--which are not expressly
approved or condemned, and the condition of dual organism--or dual
membership--which last is expressly forbidden. No local union of the I.
W. W. may belong to the American Federation of Labor or to any other
national organization.[187]
The I. W. W. has constantly been guilty of agitating in and building
from the old craft unions, and in the earlier days of its history most
of its work consisted in thus "boring from within" the established
unions. It is only in later years that it has even approximately
lived up to its avowed policy of organizing the unorganized--the
unskilled--the floating laborer. Consequently the provocation of the
American Federation of Labor, and craft unions generally, to retaliate
for the alleged meddlesomeness of the I. W. W. was even greater then
than it is now.
The vigor of this retaliation on the part of the craft unions
was evidenced by the action taken by such organizations as the
International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners, the United Cloth Cap and Hat Makers, the United
Brotherhood of Leather Workers, and others, which "decreed that the
mere joining of the Industrial Workers of the World would deprive any
man or woman of the right to work in industries controlled by these
combinations."[188]
This strenuous opposition was largely the cause of more or less
compromising on the part of the Industrial Workers of the World
with the craft-union idea, though, of course, the very weakness
of the new movement and the hard-fixed habit of years of life and
work under the old craft form was a potent factor here. This much
is plain from the record of those early days of I. W. W. history.
Many of its constituent unions retained to a considerable degree the
characteristics of craft unions, and more than that--some of the I. W.
W. locals (boasted types and rallying centers for industrial unionism)
were nothing more or less than craft locals. Even this extremity was
no doubt forced upon many locals on account of the lack of knowledge
of industrial unionism among workingmen, and this made necessary that
rather ambiguous phenomenon of a revolutionary industrial union largely
composed of craft or pseudo-craft units. The delegates to the second
convention had to face this very impossible situation. A typical one
was that of the Bartenders and Waiters Local Union No. 83 of Chicago,
concerning which Delegate Shenkan of San Francisco said:
[This] local is a craft organization whose members do not
even follow the vocation their charter would designate. Most
of their members work in other lines of industry, such as
cigar-making, shoemaking, painting, and quite a number of
diversified kinds of work during week days, while on Sundays
they work as bartenders and waiters at picnics, balls, _etc._
...[189]
The convention was very desirous that this condition be remedied as
soon as possible, and a resolution was finally passed stipulating that
the General Executive Board must always organize so far as possible
on industrial lines: "The incoming General Executive Board is hereby
directed to organize the new recruits in and by industries, and to
promote the education in industrialism among those men to whom charters
may have been issued upon a craft system before they could be enrolled
in the I. W. W."[190] In his report to the convention General Secretary
Trautmann recommended that
as a safeguard against the possible drifting of such [craft]
unions into permanent craft organizations, it should be
understood and made mandatory that as soon as a union of
employees in any given industry is formed, all those in such
craft unions must transfer to the respective industrial
body.... But all recruiting craft unions should be chartered
directly from the general administration, so that constant
control can be kept over the affairs of such organizations,
and the proper alignment be directed as soon as such [action]
appears to be opportune and necessary.[191]
However, this antagonism from outside craft unions, and these
involuntary internal compromises with the craft-union idea were not the
most serious difficulties which now beset the Industrial Workers of the
World. The organization was threatened with wholesale defection and
very soon actually suffered it in some quarters. During the spring of
1906 it became evident that a movement was afoot in the lumber camps of
the northwest to organize the lumber workers in a general union outside
of the I. W. W. Moreover, it appeared that the moving spirit in the
agitation was one Daniel MacDonald--charter member of the Industrial
Workers of the World from the old American Labor Union--a man who had
not long since been an organizer for the I. W. W., and who must at the
time have been a member of that organization, since he was sent as a
delegate to the second convention. Mr. MacDonald explained the nature
of the proposed organization in a letter to Mr. James Brookfield of
Crescent City, California, dated at Butte, Montana, March 27, 1906. He
does not mention the I. W. W. He writes that
there is a movement on foot now in this state [Montana] and
throughout the western country to organize a United Lumber
Workers' general organization, to be composed of all men
engaged in the lumber industry.... This organization is to be
constructed on lines broad enough and having sufficient scope
to meet every essential requirement of the men engaged in the
lumber industry, and to give them general support, uniform
benefits and the universal respect and protection so woefully
needed.[192]
The attempt was not successful. The lumber industry was destined to
be one of the most fertile fields for the propaganda of the I. W. W.
and to be one of its most solidly established divisions. This disloyal
agitation on the outside in 1906 was a comparatively insignificant
movement. It merely deprived the organization of a few individual
members, and delayed somewhat the I. W. W. invasion of the lumber
industries.
The most serious defections occurred in the Metals and Machinery, and
the Mining Departments. The former department at the outset comprised
two groups of metal workers: the United Metal Workers International
Union and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The United Metal
Workers had been a part of the American Federation of Labor until
shortly before the first I. W. W. convention, and was on its
adjournment installed as a part of the Metals and Machinery Department
of the I. W. W. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers had also been a
part of the American Federation of Labor.
On account of the somewhat industrial structure of that
organization, as different kinds of workers in the metal
industry comprised its membership, said society had been
suspended ... from the American Federation of Labor, but by
a referendum vote of the members living in the United States
and Canada it was decided to become an integral part of the
American Labor Union....[193]
On the merging of the American Labor Union in the Industrial Workers of
the World, the Metal Workers of that union organized in the Amalgamated
Society of Engineers were naturally installed with the United Metal
Workers in the Metals and Machinery Department. Mutual hostility and
friction between these two groups thus arbitrarily forced into one
department, added to a deplorable lack of coöperation and assistance
from the General Headquarters, finally resulted in the breaking away of
the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and the consequent loss to the
I. W. W. of about four thousand wage-earners in this one department
during the first year of its existence. This left the Metals and
Machinery Department, about three thousand strong, practically limited
in membership to the United Metal Workers International Union.[194]
The most paralyzing blow of all came with the loss of the whole of the
Mining Department in the defection of the Western Federation of Miners
in 1907. Indeed, the Federation really ceased to be an active member of
the I. W. W. after the second convention of the latter organization in
September, 1906. The W. F. of M. defection was so intimately connected
with other dark troubles which came to light at the second convention
that the subject will best be treated in that connection.[195]
The strikes conducted by the Industrial Workers of the World during
the first fifteen months of its existence were almost uniformly
unsuccessful. Its strike activities were, however, quite widespread
and pushed in most cases with energy and enthusiasm. The following
groups of workers were involved: the Stogie Workers of Cleveland, Ohio;
Hotel and Restaurant Workers of Goldfield, Nevada; the Window Washers
of Chicago; the Marble Workers of Cincinnati; the Miners of Tonopah
and Goldfield, Nev.; the Silk Workers of Trenton (N. J.) and Staten
Island (N. Y.); and the Saw Mill and Lumber Workers of Lake Charles,
Louisiana. The Stogie Workers were on strike from January 1 to October
1, 1906. They demanded a ten per cent wage increase, abolition of the
black list, and one apprentice to every ten employees.[196] Although
the strikers were unable to get the aid they needed from the General
Organization, the strike seems to have been quite successful.[197]
In Goldfield, Nevada, strikes were conducted by two different locals.
The demand of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers for the eight-hour day
was finally acceded to. The Miners were on Strike both in Goldfield
and Tonopah. They were bitterly opposed by the Allied Printing Trades
Council of the American Federation of Labor, and seem not to have
reached a settlement until late in 1907.
The Window Washers' strike in Chicago began August 1, 1906, and was on
at the time of the second convention. Members of the Window Washers'
Union quit work in thirty-five buildings in the down-town district of
Chicago. The General Executive Board advised that the striking men be
kept at work in other occupations so far as possible in order to keep
down expenses. The Marble Workers of Cincinnati demanded a nine-hour
day and a Saturday half-holiday. There appears to be no record of the
result of their efforts.
The strikes of the Silk Workers at Trenton, N. J., and
Staten Island, N. Y., were both lost, the cause assigned by the
strikers for their defeat being the fact that they could get no support
from the General Organization.[198]
There was a disproportionate amount of energy given to strikes at this
time. Moreover, most of this energy was misdirected. President Sherman,
in his report to the convention, said: "There has been no time since
August, 1905, but what we have had one or more strikes to contend with,
which has been more or less responsible for our organization not being
in a position to place more organizers in the field than what it has
maintained."[199]
In discussing the I. W. W. strike record, Secretary Trautmann declared
that "there was not a single solitary strike that the I. W. W. won."
They were not rightly conducted, nor called at the right time.
Those organizations [he explained] formed in the last year on
a strict observance of the laws and principles of the I. W. W.
did not have a strike while those organizations organized on
the craft union principle of immediate gains without voluntary
coöperation of the membership, those organizations were the
only ones that were plunged into a fight immediately after we
were organized.[200]
There was certainly little or no coöperative planning of strikes,
especially no careful timing of them, between the local unions and
the general administration. Often during the first year "strikes were
called in times when the general organization was least prepared, and
when it required strenuous efforts to meet the requirements of such a
conflict with the employers."[201]
President Sherman believed that the strike activities had been too
exclusively confined to the eastern states, and even suggested that it
might be better for the time being to conduct strikes only in the West.
He explained his position as follows:
Nearly all the strikes which have taken place during the life
of the organization have been in the eastern States. The
workers at those points, being so poorly paid, it has been
necessary for them to immediately appeal for benefits, which
demonstrates the fact that we must prepare for war before
war is declared. Many of our strikes ... have taken place
immediately after the local union was organized, before the
members involved in such strikes were hardened and drilled in
the principles of industrial unionism.... One local union in
the East ... becomes a greater responsibility to the general
organization than three local unions in the West.[202]
At the same time that the industrial unionists were pushing their
strike propaganda some of them who were also members of the radical
political parties were trying to bring those parties (_viz._, the
Socialist party and the Socialist Labor party) together. To do this
they realized that the two parties must agree upon a policy in regard
to the attitude which the party should assume toward the trade unions.
With this object in view representatives of the two socialist parties
called a conference which was afterwards known as the New Jersey
Socialist Unity Conference. The sessions of this conference were held
in various New Jersey towns--Orange, Paterson, West Hoboken, Newark--at
irregular times between September 10, 1905, and March 4, 1906. The
purpose of the conference, as expressed in the Manifesto issued at the
close of its sessions, was "to consider the causes of the division
between the two [socialist] camps and ascertain, if possible, whether
solid grounds could be found for a union of the militant socialist
forces ... of the State...."[203]
The conference believed that any union between the revolutionary groups
in America depended upon a proper solution of two problems: "First, the
proper attitude for a political party of socialism to assume toward the
burning question of trades unionism; and second, the proper attitude
for a political party of socialism to assume toward the ownership of
its press, the voice of the movement."[204]
The first of these two problems took up the greater part of the
attention of the conference, and it is the only one which was of
special import in the development of industrial unionism. The very
fact of such a conference indicates that there was at least that
harmony between the two camps which was necessary to enable them to
get together to discuss differences. Members of both parties, too,
believed that a harmony platform was actually in process of successful
application, so far as the economic or labor-union policy of both
parties was concerned. For--behold the I. W. W.! "Such a conference,"
said the secretary of the State Executive Committee of the Socialist
Labor party, "taking place at a time when the hitherto divided
socialists are approaching one another and joining hands on the basis
of the Industrial Workers of the World--such a conference we feel
confident, at least feel hopeful, will promote the desired end of
socialist unity."[205]
Shall the political party, the radical political party, be neutral in
its attitude towards the economic organization of the working class?
This was the real question at issue. The prevailing sentiment at this
conference was in the negative.
A socialist political movement [declared one delegate] cannot
be neutral with regard to economic movements. The Socialist
party itself, on the speakers' banners, says to the workers,
"Join the union of your craft. Join the party of your class."
Evolution forced the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the
class conscious, economic organization of labor. It was not a
mistake. It organized with 25,000 men and today we have the
Industrial Workers of the World with 100,000 men, organized on
class conscious lines. If it was a mistake, it was the kind of
a mistake that helps. Neutrality is nonsense.[206]
Some of the delegates were more hesitant about such a proposition as
the unqualified endorsement of the I. W. W. One of the Socialist party
representatives expressed his opposition to such support in these words:
The I. W. W. may be good enough now [he said] but it may drift,
may become bad. Should the Socialist movement base itself on
the I. W. W. and that organization fall, the party would fall
with it. I am opposed to recognizing that organization until
it has proved itself to be of use. In Colorado the Western
Federation of Miners adopted declarations similar to those of
the I. W. W., endorsed the Socialist party, then went to the
polls, not to cast their ballot for the Socialist candidate,
but for a reactionary Democrat. We have nothing definite to
show that the I. W. W. would not do the same thing.[207]
The I. W. W. _has_ changed--shifted very decidedly--and in that the
delegate proved himself something of a prophet, but its new position
is anything but that of a reactionary labor organization voting for a
Democratic--or Republican--candidate!
The majority were emphatically for a recognition of the principle of
industrial unionism, but there was some difference of opinion as to
whether any particular organization should be endorsed. A number of
the conferees felt that the I. W. W. should simply be commended as
useful for working out the industrial-union idea, rather than given an
unreserved endorsement. The final conclusions of the conference were
embodied in a series of resolutions, and also expressed in detail in
the Manifesto already referred to. The resolutions pertaining to the
question of political-economic relations were as follows:
I. Resolved, that the Socialist political movement of the
working class cannot remain neutral to the organized effort
of the working class to better their economic conditions on
class-conscious, revolutionary lines.
II. Resolved, that the A. F. of L. form of organization and its
principles are an obstacle to working class emancipation.
III. Resolved, that the Conference places itself on record as
recognizing the usefulness of the Industrial Workers of the
World to the proletarian movement....
X. Resolved, ... that ... steps be taken to bring about a
national conference between the two organizations in order to
bring about unity on a national basis.[208]
The Conference holds [reads this Manifesto] that without the
political movement backed by a class-conscious ... economic
organization, ready to take and hold and conduct the productive
power of the land, and thereby ready ... to enforce if ...
and when need be, the fiat of the socialist ballot of the
working class; that without such a body in existence, the
socialist political movement will be but a flash in the pan
...; that a political party of Socialism which marches to
the polls unarmed by such [an] organization, but invites a
catastrophe over the land in the measure that it strains for
[and achieves] political success.... It must be an obvious
fact to all serious observers of the times, that the day of
the political success of such a party in America would be the
day of its defeat, immediately followed by an industrial and
financial crisis, from which none would suffer more than the
working class itself.... By its own declarations and acts the
American Federation of Labor shows that it accepts wage-slavery
as a finality ... holding that there is identity of interest
between employer and employee.... Consequently [the Conference]
... rejects as impracticable, vicious, and productive only of
corruption the theory of neutrality on the economic field ...,
condemns the American Federation of Labor as an obstacle to
the emancipation of the working class ... [and] commends as
useful to the emancipation of the working class the Industrial
Workers of the World, which instead of running away from the
class struggle bases itself squarely upon it, and boldly and
correctly sets out the socialist principle "that the working
class and the employing class have nothing in common...."[209]
The second I. W. W. convention met on September 17, 1906, with
ninety-three delegates. The sessions continued for sixteen days. It
had been predicted at the first convention that the Industrial Workers
of the World would within a year be one hundred thousand strong. This
forecast was, according to Secretary Trautmann's report to the second
convention, very much too sanguine. This report indicated that there
were some sixty thousand members (including 27,000 in the Western
Federation of Miners) at the opening of the second convention. The
following tabulation of the growth of the membership during the first
year is arranged from the data given in Mr. Trautmann's report:
I. W. W. MEMBERSHIP--FIRST YEAR[210]
_Unions_ _Transportation_ _Metal_ _Total_
_directly_ _Dept._ _Dept._ _Membership_
_Date_ _attached_
1905
Aug. 1 1,900
Sept. 1 4,247[211]
Oct. 1 1,000 840 5,078
Nov. 1 840 5,482
Dec. 1 840 7,971
1906
Jan. 1 840 8,200
Feb. 1 7,817
Mar. 1 9,275 1,500 10,775
Apr. 1 10,288 3,000 13,228
May 1 13,520 195 3,000 16,715
June 1 21,000
July 1 22,500
Aug. 1 45,000
Sept. 1 60,000
The data, it will be noticed, is very fragmentary in regard to the
growth of the various departments, and even the figures representing
total membership can be considered by no means conservative. Mr. St.
John, until recently Secretary-Treasurer of the organization, wrote
"that the Second Annual Convention reports claim 60,000 members, but
the books of the organization did not justify any such claims; in fact,
the average _paid-up_ membership _with the W. F. of M._ for the first
year of the organization was 14,000 members in round numbers."[212]
As has already been intimated, the Mining Department was from the first
not very securely held in the bonds of the general organization, and
it is very doubtful whether the 27,000 miners should be included in I.
W. W. membership estimates even during the period while the Western
Federation was nominally a department of the Industrial Workers of the
World. According to Secretary Trautmann, it was evident "on August
1, 1905, that those brave men of the American Labor Union, numbered
then 1,100, and approximately 700 in the Metal Department, [and] could
not be swayed by the denunciation of the opposition in the West,
those under cover as friends, often more dangerous than those openly
fighting the I. W. W." "These 1900 [1800]," continued Mr. Trautmann,
"constituted the only force with which the constructive work was
begun."[213]
President Sherman reported that on September 10, 1906, the locals
holding charters in the Industrial Workers of the World numbered
394, of which number 120 were not at that time in good standing,
so that there were at the time of the second convention 274 active
locals enrolled.[214] The greater part of this number consisted of
local unions directly attached to the general organization without
any intervening subordinate division or subdivision. A considerable
minority of the total, however, comprised local unions which were only
indirectly attached to the general organization, such locals being
enrolled in District Councils or National Industrial Unions, or even
Industrial Departments and being directly responsible to that council,
national union, or department.
There were but three departments actually organized as such during
the first twelve months. These were the Transportation Department,
the Metals and Machinery Department, and the Mining Department. The
Mining Department was the only one of the three having the members
necessary to justify existence as a separate autonomous department,
and it was finally the only department recognized as such at the
second convention. The Western Federation of Miners was thus the I. W,
W.'s only genuine department--and a department, moreover, which was
agitating _sub rosa_ all the while against the general organization of
which it was even a nominal department for but a few months.
Concerning the Transportation Department, Secretary Trautmann reported
to the convention that, "the United Brotherhood of Railway
Employees ... installed itself as the Transportation Department of
the I. W. W., it being accepted as a fact that said Brotherhood was
an integral part of the American Labor Union and had at the time of
installment 2,087 members...."
... this so-called department [he said] proved to be a constant
drain on the general treasury.... While the Transportation
Department has paid in taxes to the Industrial Workers of the
World the sum of $130.75, the main organization was constantly
paying more into that department in the vain hope that
eventually the workers in that industry would rally around the
banner of industrial unionism....[215]
Although the convention decided not to recognize the Transportation
Department, it did endorse a resolution providing "that the
credentials of all local unions of transportation workers who are
sending delegates, be recognized and the delegates seated."[216] The
break-up of the Metal and Machinery Department and the bolting of that
(chief) subdivision of it which was formerly and now again became the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers has been referred to above.[217] The
convention took the same action in regard to this as in the case of
the Transportation Department, denying recognition to the Department
but granting it to those local unions (the United Metal Workers Union
in this case) which had sent delegates to the convention.
It was claimed that seven international unions voluntarily joined
the Industrial Workers of the World, "even though they were forced
by the power of the capitalist combinations to remain ... attached
to the American Federation of Labor."[218] The seven "international"
industrial unions are nowhere specifically mentioned but must
presumably have included unions belonging to the three departments
mentioned above and which were organized during the first year. The
International Musical Union was one of these so-called international
unions. This organization was not even satisfied to be an international
industrial union--it insisted on being a Department as well--and
claimed the title of
the International Musical and Theatrical Union, Subdivision
of the Public Service Department of the Industrial Workers of
the World ... [all this] on the grounds ... that organizations
comprising 1000 and even less members were allowed autonomous
department administration and department executive boards; and
so that organization has since been using the prestige of the
I. W. W. to justify its existence as a part of a department not
at all organized.[219]
There is not now and never has been a genuine, that is to say a
constitutional, Public Service Department in the I. W. W., and of
course the convention could not recognize a mere fragment of what might
some day become a Public Service Department.
Since 1906 there have been no Industrial Departments (_i. e._, no
divisions larger in scope than the National Industrial Union) in the
I. W. W. Nevertheless, the Constitution continued, up to the tenth
convention in 1916, to speak of the organization as being composed
of National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions,
_etc._[220] The Agricultural Workers' Organization (the "A. W. O."),
organized in 1914, which now constitutes a large and increasingly
important division of the I. W. W., is akin to what the founders wanted
to have in the I. W. W. in 1905. There is more _body_ to it today than
there was to any of the so-called International Industrial Departments
of the earlier period. It is to be noted that in all the editions of
the Constitution since 1906 the word "International" has been replaced
wherever it occurred by the word "National."
Throughout the whole of its history the Industrial Workers of the World
has been composed almost entirely of local unions scattered throughout
the United States and Canada, all directly connected with the central
office or what is called the General Organization. The development
of subdivisions (such as Industrial District Councils, International
Industrial Unions, and Industrial Departments), between the general
organization and the local union has not been appreciable until within
the last two or three years.[221]
FOOTNOTES:
[180] "The World of Labor," _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi,
pp. 434-5 (Jan., 1906).
[181] The Red Lodge, Mont., and Pittsburg, Kans., locals.
[182] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, p. 324.
[183] _Voice of Labor_, June, 1905.
[184] _Voice of Labor_, June, 1905.
[185] _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, pp. 434-5 (Jan., 1906).
[186] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 71-2.
[187] _Cf. Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, p. 338.
[188] Report of General Secretary-Treasurer Trautmann, _ibid._, p. 63.
[189] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, p. 356.
[190] _Ibid._, p. 294.
[191] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, pp. 61-2.
[192] For the letter in full _vide Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), p. 146.
[193] From the report of General Secretary-Treasurer Trautmann,
_Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), pp. 51-52.
[194] _Ibid._, p. 53.
[195] _Cf. infra_, ch. v.
[196] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 106.
[197] _Ibid._, p. 169.
[198] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 169.
[199] _Ibid._, p. 43.
[200] _Ibid._, p. 377.
[201] Report of General Secretary-Treasurer Trautmann, _ibid._, p. 59.
[202] Report of President Sherman, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), p. 46. For partial list of I. W. W. strikes _vide_
Appendix viii.
[203] _Proceedings of New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference_, p. iv.
The Manifesto is reprinted on pp. iv-ix of these _Proceedings_.
[204] _Ibid._
[205] In a letter to W. B. Killingbeck of the Socialist party, _ibid._,
pp. xv-xvi.
[206] Delegate Gallo, S. L. P., _Proceedings of New Jersey Socialist
Unity Conference_, pp. 7-8.
[207] Delegate Killingbeck, _ibid._, p. 17.
[208] _Proceedings of New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference_, pp. x and
xii.
[209] _Proceedings of New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference_, pp. v-vi.
[210] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, p. 60. These figures
are based on per capita taxes paid and do not include the mining
department which at the time referred to was paying taxes on 22,000
members. _Ibid._
[211] Including S. T. & L. A. accession, 1200 members.
[212] _Private Correspondence_, Oct. 5, 1911. (The italics are mine.)
[213] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 60.
[214] _Vide_ President's report, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), p. 43.
[215] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), pp. 55-56.
[216] _Ibid._, p. 9.
[217] _Cf. supra_, p. 122.
[218] Report of General-Secretary Trautmann, _Proceedings, Second I. W.
W. Convention_ (1906), p. 63.
[219] Trautmann, _loc. cit._, p. 57.
[220] I. W. W. Constitution (1914), p. 4.
[221] The writer is unable to find any complete list of the
"individual" locals belonging to the I. W. W. in 1906 or 1907. It is
not probable that any such record has been preserved. The following
very incomplete list has been put together from scattered references in
the _Proceedings of the Second Convention_:
Local Union No.
144 Power Workers Denver, Colo.
Industrial Workers Union Jersey City (Mixed local).
Retail Clerks Union Flat River, Mo.
Industrial Workers Union Paterson, N. J.
Textile Workers Pawtucket, R. I.
Bakery Workers Butte, Mont.
177 Capmakers New York City.
183 Cement Workers Spokane, Wash.
313 Paper Makers New Haven, Conn.
176 Silk Workers New Haven, Conn.
190 Silk Workers New Haven, Conn.
Marble Workers Cincinnati, Ohio.
90 Shoemakers St. Louis, Mo.
299 Window Washers Chicago, Ill.
Miners Pittsburg, Kans.
Miners Chicopee, Kans.
139 Hod-carriers
Tobacco Workers Cleveland, Ohio.
365 Mixed Industries Jamestown, N. Y.
185 Mixed Industries San Antonio, Tex.
307 Mixed Industries St. Paul, Minn.
83 Bartenders and Waiters Chicago, Ill.
263 Hotel and Restaurant Employees Chicago, Ill.
Arizona State Union No. 3 of the Department of Mining.
CHAPTER V
THE _Coup_ OF THE "PROLETARIAN RABBLE"
(1906)
The second convention was the occasion of the first split in the ranks
of the Industrial Workers of the World. At this time the friction
seemed to be chiefly personal, whereas the second schism in 1908 was
primarily due to differences in regard to principles and policies.
It is true that principles and policies were involved in the feud of
1906, but they lurked obscurely in the background, while personal
antagonisms--charges and counter-charges of graft, corruption and
malfeasance in office--held the center of the stage. From the inception
of the movement the year before a smouldering dissension developed
between the poorer and less skilled groups of workers--largely
migratory and casual laborers, the "revolutionists" or the "wage-slave
delegates" as they were called in the second convention--these on
the one side, and the more highly skilled and strongly organized
groups called (by the other side) the "reactionaries" or the
"political fakirs." It might be remarked in passing that, in
this ultra-revolutionary I. W. W., the "conservatism" of the
"reactionaries" ought to be heavily discounted and the radicalism
of the "revolutionists" raised to the _n_th degree to get the true
perspective! Involved with this group hostility was the trouble stirred
up by various members of the two Socialist political parties.
The first years [writes Mr. St. John] was one of internal
struggle for control by these different elements. The two
camps of socialist politicians looked upon the I. W. W. only as
a battle-ground on which to settle their respective merits and
demerits. The labor fakirs strove to fasten themselves upon the
organization that they might continue to exist if the new union
was a success.[222]
But all this internal antagonism was very obscure. It evidenced itself
chiefly in the personal fight between the Sherman-Hanneman-Kirkpatrick
faction and the Trautmann-DeLeon-St. John faction at the second
convention, which finally resulted in the deposition of C. O. Sherman
as General President. Mr. St. John has described the situation as it
appeared from his side of the controversy. At the second convention it
soon developed, he says,
that the administration of the I. W. W. was in the hands of
men who were not in accord with the revolutionary program
of the organization. Of the general officers only two were
sincere--the General Secretary, W. E. Trautmann, and one
member of the Executive Board, John Riordan. The struggle for
control of the organization formed the second convention into
two camps. The majority vote of the convention was in the
revolutionary camp. The reactionary camp, having the chairman,
used obstructive tactics in their effort to gain control of the
convention. They hoped thereby to delay the convention until
enough delegates would be forced to return home and thus change
the control of the convention. The revolutionists cut this knot
by abolishing the office of president and electing a chairman
from among the revolutionists.[223]
The revolutionists, who were referred to later by their opponents
as the "proletarian rabble" of the "beggars," held a pre-convention
conference in Chicago on August 14, 1906. This little "curtain-raiser"
was called by Local Union No. 23 of the Department of Metal and
Machinery which on July 20 sent out a letter to the various I. W.
W. locals in Chicago, which declared that "developments during the
past year have proven to us that the constitution does not come up to
the requirements of the rank and file ...," and urged a preliminary
conference to consider the following propositions:
First. Is a president necessary in our form of organization?
Second. Shall this organization be the expression of the
membership?
Third. Who shall direct the organization work?
Fourth. Shall the local unions receive a copy of the minutes of
the General Executive Board sessions?
Fifth. Shall the local unions be represented at the National
Convention, as set forth in Article VI., General Constitution?
Sixth. Any other question that the Conference may deem
necessary to discuss.[224]
The conference met with delegates present from about sixteen local
unions and unanimously decided that a president was unnecessary, that
all organizers, lecturers, etc., should be nominated by the local
unions and elected by the "rank and file," that each local should
receive reports of all Executive Board sessions, which, moreover,
should be open to the rank and file, and that every local union be
represented at the approaching convention by at least two delegates.
Whereas, the day is at hand [runs their resolution] when
we must abolish anything that pertains to aristocratic
power or reactionary policy, the office of president of a
class-conscious organization is not necessary. The rank and
file must conduct the affairs of the organization directly
through an executive board or central committee ... and,
whereas a president can only be in one place at one time and
can only personally organize the working class in the district
in which he is; he, therefore, can only act in the capacity
of an organizer.... [Moreover], the expense of a president
[$150 per month] would support at least four class-conscious
organizers....[225]
Commenting on the conference, J. M. O'Neill remarks that "there
is a vast difference between being class-conscious and being
class-crazy."[226]
An inkling of the beautifully chaotic condition of affairs no later
than December, 1905, is given by the comments of Max Hayes in the
_International Socialist Review_ for January, 1906.
I am told by a prominent member of the I. W. W. [he says] that
not all is lovely in that organization, that the original
industrialists and the departmentalists are lining up to give
battle, and that in some places where the DeLeonites and
the Anarchists had combined and held control the Socialists
obtained possession of the machinery.... "If a convention were
held next month," an industrialist writes, "the element in
control in Chicago last July wouldn't be one, two, three, and
I predict that at the next convention the academic vagaries
forced upon us by the DeLeon-Anarchist combine will be dropped
for a plain fighting program that everybody can understand and
conjure with." Rumors are in the air that the Western Miners
and President Sherman and his friends are souring on DeLeon and
Secretary Trautmann and his followers.[227]
The principal charge against President Sherman was that of misdirected
and generally extravagant expenditure of the funds of the organization.
The auditing committee at the 1906 convention reported that "the
expenditures of the ex-General President show gross extravagance and
strong evidence of corruption. During a period of thirty-three days he
flung away on a junketing trip, not a single local being organized by
him at any time, the sum of $731.55...."[228] William. E. Trautmann,
the General Secretary-Treasurer, reported that he was "compelled to pay
bills under protest for services never rendered, or for such things
as should be considered an insult and outrage against the entire
membership."[229]
The opponents of Sherman did not believe that these alleged offenses
were either the most important or the most dangerous of his pernicious
activities. When the case finally came before the Master in Chancery,
there was among the affidavits filed in the case of St. John _versus_
Sherman one by a certain Lillian Farberg,
who swears that Sherman ... told her that a conference had been
held at Denver, which was attended by himself (Sherman), James
Kirwan, J. M. O'Neill, and Victor Berger (of Milwaukee). At
this conference Sherman said an understanding had been reached
that the Western Federation of Miners should endorse the
Industrial Workers of the World, that later at the convention
of the I. W. W. such action would be taken as would result
in the radical element [the "tramps" and "beggars"] being
thrown out of the organization, and that Victor Berger at the
conference had promised that if this was done the Socialist
party would endorse the I. W. W.[230]
The foregoing charges were flatly denied by J. M. O'Neill, the editor
of the _Miners' Magazine_; at the fifteenth convention of the W. F. M.,
he repudiated these and other accusations made by the "DeLeon coterie"
and offered $500 reward for the establishment of the truth of any of
them.[231] Delegate Parks, one of the "wage slave" delegates, declared
that
... it is the general opinion of the members of the
revolutionary element of this convention that there was among
some of the departments of the Industrial Workers of the World
corruption, graft, and fakiration which would put to shame the
worst of the American Federation of Labor.[232]
Immediately on the adjournment of the 1907 convention, ex-President
Sherman issued a statement "to officers and members of all local
unions and all departments of the Industrial Workers of the World"
in which he declared, "that the recent convention ... violated the
constitution in various ways"; "that the convention was controlled by
the members of the Socialist Labor Party under the leadership of Daniel
DeLeon," and that this "most disgraceful gathering" was "illegal and
unconstitutional."[233] A month later Sherman issued on his own behalf
a letter to the I. W. W. membership, in which he denied the various
charges of extravagance and connivance at illegal tactics on his part.
In this letter Sherman says that "not a vote was cast on any important
matter in this so-called convention until DeLeon had been consulted, or
he had given them the 'wise business wink.'"[234]
As far as parliamentary convention tactics are concerned there is
no doubt that both factions displayed a lofty contempt for parlor
etiquette. Several months later William D. Haywood wrote to St. John
in regard to this matter. He emphatically condemned "Shermanism," but
goes on: "You were entirely too harsh, unnecessarily so; the Gordian,
presidential and other knots that you cut with a broad axe were only
slip knots that could have been easily untied." "In this way," he
concludes, "much dissension could have been avoided."[235] An anarchist
sympathizer with the "proletarian rabble" frankly writes: "Some might
claim that the action of the convention of 1906 was illegal ... [but]
in a crisis there is no question of legality. It is the time for
deeds...."[236]
Seven days had elapsed since the opening of the convention before the
reports of officers were given. During this time--nearly half the time
the convention was in session--almost nothing was accomplished. This
delay made very plausible indeed the accusation made by the "wage
slave" delegates that the reactionaries had deliberately planned to
force them out of the convention by resort to these dilatory tactics.
Whether or not the Sherman faction had decided on such tactics, there
is no question but that the freezing out of the "wage slaves" would be
a very natural result. Article VI. of the Constitution provided that
"the expenses of delegates attending the convention shall be borne by
their respective organizations." Now many of the local unions could
afford to provide their delegates with adequate expense money; others
could afford but very inadequate provision for expenses. Thus, most
of the delegates from unions in the Mining Department--and those in
general from the relatively better established unions--were quite
well provided for, the Miners' delegates, _e. g._, receiving mileage
plus five dollars per day expense money for every day they were away
from home. The great majority, however, were paid nothing but mileage
and were obliged to pay their own expenses and had come with funds
absolutely insufficient for a prolonged meeting. Delegate Lingenfelter,
in a speech in support of an unsuccessful motion to allow proxies to
delegates who were compelled to leave on account of lack of funds, said:
These dilatory tactics that have been pursued by the
opposition have prolonged the convention, due to their express
determination, in my opinion, to freeze out these wage slave
delegates.... Only last night the boys came to me and said: ...
"We can't stand it any longer; we are going broke; we can't
sleep in boxcars and eat handouts and remain here."[237]
The "beggars" gained the upper hand. Mr. DeLeon succeeded in putting
through a motion to suspend the above mentioned article of the
Constitution concerning delegates' expenses, and a resolution was
finally passed which authorized the payment of $1.50 per day from the
general treasury to all without the necessary expense money.[238]
In this way the Trautmann-DeLeon-St. John faction secured control
of the convention and brought about the deposition of President
Sherman--the first and last President of the Industrial Workers of the
World. The convention now proceeded to consider some of the problems
of industrial unionism which had cropped out in the course of twelve
months' experience. Meanwhile ex-President Sherman and his followers
had decided to stand pat--but not on the floor of the convention. They
took possession of the General Headquarters and with the assistance of
the police successfully held them against all comers.
Upon entering the premises of the General Headquarters the
members of the General Executive Board [newly elected] were
prevented from entering by thugs engaged by members of the old
General Executive Board and two members [of the new board],
Vincent St. John and Fred Heslewood, were attacked by these
sluggers.[239]
This picturesque situation is explained to the membership in an
official announcement issued by the new Executive Board in behalf of
the "proletarian rabble":
Sherman and his hired sluggers are now in forcible possession
of the general office and all the books, records, papers,
roster of local unions, mailing list and other property of the
organization, necessitating legal procedure on our part to oust
them and regain control of the office and property.... The
majority of the General Executive Board was his perfect tool.
They winked at his irregularities, endorsed his extravagance
and lent their efforts to perpetuate him in this organization
as they are now lending their assistance to help him disrupt
it.[240]
The success of the "beggars, tramps, and proletarian rabble," that is
to say, of the Trautmann-DeLeon-St. John faction, was hardly complete.
They were officials without an office in which to do business, without
equipment of any sort, and without money. Secretary St. John writes
that they "were obliged to begin work after the second Convention
without the equipment of so much as a postage stamp." The financial
routine in the general office had required the signature of the
president on all checks and prohibited the withdrawal of funds from
the bank without that signature. Now the President was deposed, the
office abolished, and the deposed President refused to sign the
necessary requisitions so that the four thousand dollars belonging to
the I. W. W. in the Prairie State Bank of Chicago was safely out of
reach of both factions.[241]
The matter was at last taken to the Court of Chancery and a restraining
order issued prohibiting Sherman and his friends from appropriating the
property of the Industrial Workers of the World. The findings of the
Master in Chancery were in substance as follows:
1. That the Industrial Workers of the World is a voluntary
association consisting of about 62,000 members residing in
various cities and villages throughout the United States and
Canada.
2. That its 1906 convention was legal and valid.
3. That the acts of Mr. C. O. Sherman after that convention
were illegal, and,
4. That the "attempted abolition" of the office of General
President was illegal and void.[242]
The findings were on the whole favorable to the "wage slaves" faction,
but even so the latter were in a rather forlorn position now, having
been abandoned to their fate by the Western Federation of Miners (whose
delegates supported Sherman, some of them bolting the convention
before its adjournment), and by the Socialist party. Before long the
Western Federation finally withdrew its support from the Sherman
faction and early in the year 1907 the "would-be usurpers" gave up
the struggle,[243] but the Western Federation of Miners did not come
back into the fold. They decided to withhold payment of dues to either
faction pending their anticipated and formally realized secession at
their convention in May, 1907.
Mr. Sherman had made a desperate fight. He and his followers conducted
what was virtually a duplicate even if spurious general office and
organization of the I. W. W. The Shermanites, who had retained control
of the "_Industrial Worker_,"[244] the journal of the organization,
continued its publication for several months at Joliet, Illinois.
Herein were published refutations of the charges set forth by the
"DeLeon-Anarchist Combine" in their special series of _Bulletins of the
Industrial Workers of the World_. With the surrender of the Shermanites
the "Industrial Worker" was discontinued, and the Trautmann-DeLeon-St.
John faction--now _the_ I. W. W.--established the _Industrial Union
Bulletin_ as a weekly organ.
The now triumphant revolutionists considered that the whole
trouble was due to an attempt to sell out to the capitalists, to
make the organization a conservative--and therefore a perfectly
harmless--association. Mr. Trautmann insisted that their "sole
object when forcibly taking possession of headquarters and all their
documents" was to destroy all evidence of their plots for
surrendering the Industrial Workers of the World to the
employing class and their agents. The stenographic report of
the second convention will prove the falsity of every charge
made against the "tramps" and "beggars" who saved the I. W. W.
to continue its work as the revolutionary economic organization
of the working class of America.[245]
"The danger was great," declared Daniel DeLeon in his speech at the
adjournment of the 1906 convention. "The conspiracy was deep laid. We
see it appearing in the papers from Denver all the way across to New
York. It was a conspiracy to squelch the revolution in this convention,
and to start over again another American Federation of Labor."[246]
DeLeon's sentiments regarding the schism of 1906 are particularly
worthy of note, because of the fact that he was destined two years
later to figure with seceders in a split of that same "DeLeon-Anarchist
Combine" which was now victorious and of one mind in overthrowing
"usurpers" and apparently in harmony in every way. But in two years the
"DeLeon-Anarchist Combine" was to change to the DeLeonites _versus_
the Anarchists, each of whom was to constitute a separate organization
called the Industrial Workers of the World.
Socialist party leaders were as firmly convinced as was DeLeon that
there was a "deep-laid conspiracy," but they believed that _DeLeon_
was the arch conspirator. When the Seventh International Socialist
Congress met in Stuttgart in 1907, Morris Hillquit and J. Mahlon Barnes
presented the Socialist version of the affair.[247] The fatal trouble
from the very beginning, they thought, was the inclusion in the I. W.
W. of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the "_enfant chétif_" (as
they expressed it) of the Socialist Labor party.[248] They go on to
tell how this alleged conspirator prepared the ground for the "capture"
of the convention in the interest of this "_enfant chétif_":
Several months before the 2nd Convention, the Alliance, under
the direction of the adroit chief of the Socialist Labor party,
Daniel DeLeon, planned to take possession of the administration
of the I. W. W., and by means of a skillful manipulation of
the delegates, succeeded in obtaining a majority for itself
in the convention. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance,
indeed, dominated the convention. It completely modified the
constitution of the organization, abolished the office of
General President, and chose a new Executive Board from among
its friends and adherents. But the triumph of the Alliance did
not last. In conformity with the constitution of the I. W. W.,
the acts of the convention are not valid unless ratified by
a referendum of the members.... The leaders of the Alliance
refused to submit the acts of the convention to a vote of the
members, and the old officials immediately declared them null
and void. The division was therefore complete in the ranks
of the I. W. W. The two factions maintained rival bodies of
officials and the dispute was carried to the courts, which
pronounced in favor of the old administration [Sherman, _et
al._]. The great majority of the members supported the original
organization directed by Mr. Sherman in the capacity of
President, while the number of adherents to the DeLeon faction
did not exceed 2000 members.[249]
Vincent St. John offers some interesting testimony against the
allegation that DeLeonism dominated the second convention:
It is my opinion [he says] that they [the Shermanites] are,
because of lack of argument with which to sustain a wrong
position, hoping to cause the prejudice which exists against
DeLeon and the Socialist Labor party to blind many to the true
state of affairs, a prejudice to which I plead guilty to having
had, but which I was unable to justify upon investigation,
a prejudice which exists against this organization and man
because it and he stood upon the ground that we now occupy
fourteen years ago, struggling against grafters and traitors,
and for which they have paid the penalty in being slandered and
vilified. This is no eulogy of DeLeon or the S. L. P.... It is
my conclusion.[250]
These conflicting opinions are presented for what they are worth. On
both sides they should be taken with salt. The writer makes no attempt
to pass judgment except to point out that the Socialist party report
to the Stuttgart Congress is obviously in error in claiming that
the Master in Chancery pronounced in favor of the old (_i. e._, the
Sherman) administration.[251]
The "proletarian rabble" recognized that the power of the opposition
would be fatally undermined if it lost the active support of the
Western Federation of Miners. It has been seen that they did finally
lose that support when the W. F. M. finally cut loose entirely from
anything and everything calling itself I. W. W. This--the most
staggering defection of all that the young I. W. W. had to face--had
been rather plainly foreshadowed as early as the fall of 1905. Within
three months of the adjournment of the first convention the report was
circulated among various unions in the West that the Western Federation
had refused to join the Industrial Workers of the World.[252] This
rumor was without foundation. The Western Federation _did_ join the I.
W. W.
Immediately after the close of the first convention
[according to Secretary Trautmann's report] the officers of
the Western Federation of Miners reported to the members of
that organization the actions of the first convention, and a
referendum was issued for the purpose of having the work of the
delegates ratified by the rank and file. At the end of August,
notice was received that the members of the Western Federation
of Miners had approved, by a big majority, the actions of
the delegates in installing that organization as an integral
part of the Industrial Workers of the World, and on September
1, 1905, the Western Federation of Miners became the Mining
Department of the Industrial Workers of the World.[253]
But this was not to be for long. Although the break did not come for
some months after the second I. W. W. convention, some premonitory
evidences of disaffection came to the surface at that meeting. As will
be seen, there were several things which aggravated the trouble in the
Mining Department. The deposition of President Sherman by the delegates
to the second convention, and the consequent confusion, especially
in regard to finances, resulted in the bolting of the convention by
the delegates of the Mining Department (the Western Federation of
Miners).[254] From the close of the second convention until the summer
of 1907 the Western Federation was nominally a part of the Industrial
Workers of the World, but was all this time becoming more and more
alienated in spirit. For all practical purposes, January 1, 1907, may
be regarded as marking the termination of the Federation's connection
with the I. W. W. This whole controversy between the I. W. W. and its
Mining Department, _i. e._, between the "proletarian rabble" (the
Trautmann-DeLeon-St. John faction) on the one hand, and on the other
the "reactionaries" (the Sherman-Hanneman faction), supported for the
most part by the Western Federation of Miners--all this frenzy of
squabbling is given a great deal of space in the _Miners' Magazine_
(the official journal of the Western Federation) during the last three
months of 1906.[255]
The men most prominent in the activities of the second convention were
Daniel DeLeon, Vincent St. John, C. O. Sherman, and Wm. E. Trautmann.
Members of the Socialist party were less prominent and numerous than
they had been a year before. Neither Mr. Simons nor Mr. Debs was
present at the 1906 meeting. The Socialist Labor party contingent was,
however, quite as strong as ever--one of its new delegates being Mr.
Paul Augustine, later the National Secretary of the Socialist Labor
party.[256] DeLeon's influence was as strong as ever. He was declared
to have controlled the convention--this was reiterated by individuals
both inside and outside. Ex-President Sherman, in a speech in his own
defense on the convention floor, said:
Delegate DeLeon has controlled this convention.... But, ...
while I endorse the underlying principles that are advocated
by the Socialist Labor party ... I am opposed to their tactics
and I do not hesitate to say that time will demonstrate to the
working class that their tactics are suicide [_sic_] to the
movement.[257]
The members of the Socialist party, naturally biased against the
Socialist Labor party, were quite ready to accuse its representatives
of steam-roller methods at the 1906 convention. As before, these
insinuations were quite correct in that the Socialist Labor party,
through its unofficial representatives, most of all through DeLeon,
did thus indirectly have a great deal of influence in the convention.
But it is yet open to question whether this influence was a pernicious
one. Moreover, the dominant policy of the convention was not an unmixed
DeLeon policy and the dominant group contained another element, _viz._,
the more thoroughgoing non-, or rather, _anti_-political faction,
attaching to no political party whatever. The chief spokesmen of this
element were William E. Trautmann, the Secretary-Treasurer, and Vincent
St. John,[258] who was to succeed the former in that office several
years later. He was a member and official of the Western Federation
of Miners, and a radical and enthusiastic devotee of the principle of
industrial unionism. He emphatically opposed the action of the Western
Federation officials at the 1906 convention and instead of following
the majority bolt from the I. W. W., he bolted the Western Federation
and was elected a member of the General Executive Board of the I. W.
W.[259]
These two men represented the alleged Anarchist end of the so-called
"DeLeon-Anarchist combine" and were the real spokesmen of the more
revolutionary element. They would have preferred to have had the
political clause of the Preamble stricken out, but were not powerful
enough to swing the majority of the delegates to that position and
finally agreed as a compromise to stand with DeLeon and his followers
for the retention of the political clause. The fight over the political
clause was thus postponed to a later convention.
The financial problem was from the first made more difficult by a kind
of dual unionism which was contrary to the spirit, at least, of the
I. W. W. law, but which was tolerated because quite unavoidable. The
involuntary connection of many local unions with more than one general
organization resulted in the subjection of such unions to the payment
of dues to each central organization. To relieve this excessive burden
of taxation it was decided by the General Executive Board to make a
discount from the regular dues in favor of all locals thus situated.
This discounting policy, felt to be necessary in order to hold many
unions in the organization, meant a loss of revenue which could ill be
borne.
Moreover, in consideration of some material equipment in the way of
office furniture and supplies, seals and charters were furnished free
of charge to all unions formerly with the American Labor Union or the
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. To top all, the mismanagement
and extravagance resulting from discord in the general office, and
incompetence among the officials, almost strangled the organization
before its first anniversary. Debts were contracted with manufacturers
and
the inability to pay ... nearly endangered the very existence
of the organization, when threats were made to disclose the
real state of affairs to parties who were straining every nerve
to see the smashing of the I. W. W.... Personal loans had to be
contracted to deposit money at the bank when the account was
overdrawn and for three months in succession the constant fear
that these conditions would become known kept the real workers
on the administration from engaging enough assistance to carry
on the necessary work....[260]
Despite these difficulties there was turned into and expended from the
General Defense Fund (in addition to the voluntary subscriptions) the
sum of $8,910.00 in behalf of twelve different strikes. The report of
the auditing committee showed that there was on hand August 22, 1906, a
net balance of $3,555.92.[261]
FOOTNOTES:
[222] In a letter quoted by Brooks, _American Syndicalism: the I. W.
W._, p. 85.
[223] _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_ (1917 ed.), p. 6.
[224] "I. W. W. Conference Proceedings," _Miners' Magazine_, Sept. 6,
1906, p. 12.
[225] "I. W. W. Conference Proceedings," _loc. cit._, pp. 12, 13.
[226] "That Conference at Chicago," _Miners' Magazine_, Sept. 6, 1906,
p. 7.
[227] _International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, p. 435.
[228] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1901), p. 587.
[229] _Ibid._, p. 58.
[230] _Industrial Workers of the World Bulletin No. 4_, Dec, 1, 1906.
[231] _Proceedings, 15th W. F. M. Convention_ pp. 177-8.
[232] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 226.
[233] Statement dated Oct. 4, 1906, _Miners' Magazine_, Oct, 11, 1906,
col. 2, p. 7.
[234] Letter dated Nov. 6, 1906, _Miners' Magazine_, Nov. 22, 1906, p.
11. Sherman published another letter in his own defence in the _Miners'
Magazine_ of Nov. 1, 1906, pp. 10-11.
[235] Letter dated Ada County Jail, Boise, Idaho, March 17, 1907.
Published in _Proceedings 15th Convention, W. F. M._ (1907), p. 584.
[236] Jean Spielman, _Mother Earth_, Dec. 1907, p. 458.
[237] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 20.
[238] By a vote of 378 to 237, _ibid._, pp. 80, 94.
[239] William E. Trautmann, "A statement of facts," _Industrial Workers
of the World Bulletin, No. 4_, Dec. 1, 1906. _cf._ St. John, _I. W. W.,
History, Structure and Methods_ (3rd ed., 1913), p. 7.
[240] _Machinists' Monthly Journal_, vol. xviii, pp. 1109-10 (Dec,
1906). This announcement is dated Oct. 5, 1906 and carries the
following postscript: "Until we can get charge of the office again we
will be unable to furnish local secretaries with due stamps...." p.
1110.
[241] Mr. Sherman could not draw the money because the signature of the
Secretary-Treasurer was also necessary.
[242] These statements are condensed from the report given in the
_Industrial Workers of the World Bulletin, No. 4_, Dec. 1, 1906.
[243] "The W. F. M. officials supported the old officials of the
I. W. W. for a time financially and with the influence of their
official organ. The same is true of the Socialist party press and
administration. The radical element in the W. F. M. was finally able
to force the officials to withdraw that support. The old officials of
the I. W. W. then gave up all pretense of having an organization." (St.
John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_, 1917 ed., p. 7.)
[244] There is no connection between this paper and the _Industrial
Worker_ later published as a weekly at Spokane, Washington. Nor is this
latter the same Journal as the _Industrial Worker_ recently published
in Seattle. All are I. W. W. organs.
[245] "A Statement of Facts," _Industrial Workers of the World
Bulletin_, No. 4, Dec. 1, 1906.
[246] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 610.
[247] In the Report of the Socialist party of America to the Seventh
International Socialist Congress, _L'Internationale ouvrière et
socialiste. Édition française_, vol. i, pp. 23-32, "Les mécontents de
la Fédération."
[248] _Loc. cit._, p. 30. "La Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance a
obtenu le record d'avoir provoqué plus de disputes et de schismes au
sein des mouvements socialistes et ouvrièrs en Amérique, pendant ces
dernières années, que n'importe quel autre organisime, et son adhésion
au mouvement a été fatal à celui-ci." _Ibid._
[249] Translated from the French. _Loc. cit._, pp. 30-31.
[250] "Vincent St. John on the I. W. W. Convention," Letter to the
Editor, _Miners' Magazine_, Nov. 8, 1906, pp. 5-6.
[251] _Cf. supra_, p. 145. The report of the Master in Chancery,
_Industrial Workers of the World Bulletin_, No. 4, Dec. 1, 1906.
[252] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_, p. 107.
[253] _Ibid._, pp. 50-51.
[254] The bolting delegates were: Mahoney, McMullen, Hendricks and R.
R. McDonald.
[255] Especially important are the various reports on the Second I. W.
W. Convention, appearing in the issue of October 18th.
[256] In general the members of the two Socialistic parties were
arrayed in opposing camps--the Socialist party men siding with the
Shermanites and the Socialist Labor men with DeLeon, of course.
[257] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 271.
[258] Vincent St. John had been a member of the Western Federation of
Miners since 1894 and was in 1906 a member of the executive board of
that organization, but refused to leave the convention and join the
seceding Miners in 1907, choosing rather to bolt the W. F. of M. and
remain with the I. W. W.
[259] "St. John has given the mine owners of the [Colorado mining]
district more trouble in the past year than any twenty men up there. If
left undisturbed he would have the entire district organized in another
year." (Statement attributed to mine-owners' detectives and printed in
the _Rocky Mountain News_, Feb. 28, 1906, and quoted by Geo. Speed in a
letter to the _Weekly People_, April 7, 1906, p. 5, col. 1.)
[260] Report of General Secretary-Treasurer, _Proceedings, Second I. W.
W. Convention_, pp. 57-8.
[261] For complete itemized statement cf. the report of the auditing
committee, _vide Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), pp.
579-94. The cash balance was for some time after the close of the
convention inaccessible to the general officers. _Cf. supra_, p. 145.
CHAPTER VI
THE STRUCTURE OF A MILITANT UNION
With its "house-cleaning" job off its hands, the convention now
turned its attention to some of the specific problems of policy and
constructive work. The activities of the past fourteen months had
brought new and challenging questions to the fore. One of the most
important was the problem of the agricultural laborer. Attention
centered upon the farm laborers and the lumber workers. Most of the
industrialists agreed that the coöperation of the country workers--farm
laborers and lumbermen--and the city proletariat was absolutely
necessary for the success of revolutionary industrialism.
The agricultural elements of the working class [said one of the
delegates at the second convention] are going to be the last
and hardest to be organized into this economic organization,
and ... while we may have the wage slaves of the industrial
centers organized, when the crisis comes we will find [them]
... in an economic organization and bucking against a
combination of capitalists and agriculturists, and when that
time comes we will of necessity have to exercise our political
rights and overthrow that opposition.[262]
The I. W. W. had already made some headway among the lumber workers,
and it was in connection with this element that many believed it most
feasible to organize the farm laborers. Secretary Trautmann devoted two
solid pages of his report to the discussion of the relation of the
farm and forest workers with the city proletariat. He believed that
the failure of revolutionary movements was often due to the lack of
coöperation between these sections of the working class. He urged the
organization to follow among the farm laborers those methods which had
already been applied with some success in the lumber camps.
For this work of organizing the farm laborers [he said] we
must look for actual support to the thousands and hundreds
of thousands of wage-earners in the lumber camps of the
United States and Canada. No element is so faithful to the
principle, when once understood, as the hard-working pioneer
proletarians in the woods, nor a group of toilers who will
fight more vigorously ... than those who ... call themselves
"lumberjacks." Their relation with the farm laborers and the
... [seasonal] character of their employment should serve as
the key to open the field for the organizing of the farm wage
slaves. In the summer months most of the lumbermen work as farm
hands or in the saw-mills, and many a blacklisted mechanic from
industrial centers seeks as a last refuge from the master's
persecution employment as constantly shifting farm laborer and
lumberman. The Industrial Workers of the World have organized
and are organizing with astonishing success the lumbermen in
different parts of the country.... But ... their condition will
be jeopardized if the I. W. W. fails to organize the workers
in the fields in which they seek and secure employment during
the remainder of the year, that is mostly in agricultural
occupations, ... [and] ... to assure a successful protection of
farm laborers and lumbermen, it is absolutely necessary to get
the organizations so organized into direct touch through the
general administration of the I. W. W. with the organizations
of the Industrial Workers in the cities.[263]
An important change in the geographical distribution of propaganda and
organizing activities was that suggested to the convention by President
Sherman. He thought that these activities of the Industrial Workers of
the World should not be immediately spread indiscriminately over all
parts of the country, believing it to be most expedient to allow the
eastern section of the United States to lie fallow for a time, so to
speak. He recommended that
the greater part of the money expended for paid organizers be
devoted to the western States for the next six months, for the
following reasons: West of the Missouri River the industrial
conditions are in a far better state ... than they are in
the eastern States and organizing can be done there without
endangering turmoil in the way of lockouts and strikes.... We
must get a substantial organization in the West ... before we
will be prepared to make a general campaign in the East, as
in the eastern States the workers in many of the industries
are so poorly paid that a strike or lockout means starvation
if finance is not forthcoming.... Hence I feel the necessity
of first fortifying ourselves with a good Western membership
before exposing the organization to a general assault by the
employers of the East.[264]
This proposal was, however, not very favorably received by the
convention. The committee on reports of officers made, among others,
this recommendation, which received the endorsement of the convention:
We disagree with our President regarding organizing in the West
in preference to the East.... The committee believes that [the
fact] that conditions in the East are deplorable is the very
reason why organizing work is necessary in the East, that the
standard of living may be improved, thus accomplishing a more
uniform standard of working-class solidarity.[265]
The average member of the Industrial Workers of the World was
exceedingly sceptical of the value of undiluted representative
democracy for either a labor union or a political state. He suspected
that any official might, and probably would, be disloyal. He
realized how difficult it is for any organization which depends on
representatives to maintain a body of such representatives who really
represent. He knew how easy it is for a delegate to be "reached"--to
be influenced by one of a score of insidious forms of corruption. This
accounts for the stress laid by the Industrial Workers of the World
upon the referendum idea, from the very beginning of its existence. Let
the acts of delegates in convention be ratified by referendum vote.
The convention is the law-making body, but it is always subject to
the will of rank and file. All factions, even that one which plotted
disruption, united in lip service, at least, to the idea of the
referendum. Labor-union democracy must be made democratic by referendum
control. How much of all this referendum clamor was "sounding brass" is
indicated by some remarks made by Mr. DeLeon (who, of course, believed
in the referendum) at the second convention:
I think it is positively comical [he said] to see men who
stand convicted before this convention of having trampled on
the principles of this constitution ... who have refused the
referendum, men who suspended locals because they did not
submit to the men who lined up with those elements; I think it
is positively comical to have such elements come before this
convention and bow down to the referendum and salaam and kowtow
to the rank and file, or start off screeching like howling
dervishes--"referendum"![266]
The convention had to face the important fact that a very large
proportion of the human raw-material for I. W. W. propaganda were
foreigners, new to America and speaking alien tongues. From the very
first a very liberal policy in regard to the foreign element had
been adopted by the Industrial Workers of the World. Certainly they
could not consistently adopt a narrow policy here and draw the color
line it they intended really to become an all-inclusive democratic
organization. It will be remembered that protest against discrimination
against the negro by craft unions was voiced by William D. Haywood at
the very opening of the first convention.[267] At the second convention
this liberal attitude was maintained in regard to all foreign elements.
Moreover, in the work of organizing the immigrants it was proposed to
go still further and take the aggressive.
This convention [said Secretary Trautmann] should instruct
the incoming Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the
World to immediately find the necessary agencies in Europe,
so that immigrants to this country, before leaving, will be
already furnished with all the information necessary, and be
enlightened as to the real conditions in the United States,
and an appeal should be made to them to immediately join the
existing organizations of the Industrial Workers of the World
immediately after they accept employment in any industry. The
literature of the Industrial Workers of the World should be
distributed in different languages in the various emigration
ports in Europe, and central bureaus be established by the
Industrial Workers of the World in American harbors, and be
opened to the immigrants, and information should be furnished
them [as to] how they could ... participate in the struggles of
organized labor....[268]
Requests were made at the convention for literature in many foreign
languages--Macedonian, Jewish, Italian, Slavonian, Spanish, etc.--on
behalf of these and others. Foreign-language publications and pamphlets
were issued and foreign-language branches of the local unions had been
established and continued to be extended in scope after the second
convention. The Italian Socialist Federation asked for the services
of an Italian organizer, and one was provided. An Italian paper,
_Il Proletario_, had been appearing for a short time as an official
organ of the Industrial Workers of the World, and its publication was
continued under the supervision of the General Executive Board.[269]
Furthermore, the structure and scheme of organization in the local
unions was modified to suit the requirements of a polyglot membership.
A motion was proposed and carried
to allow wage-earners of a given nationality to form unions
of their own in the respective industries in which they are
employed and where there are not enough to form unions of that
kind, the parent unions shall allow the [non-English-speaking]
members ... to have branch meetings for educational
purposes.[270]
It is worthy of note that sex lines were ignored quite as completely as
race lines. Perhaps the organization leaned backwards a little in the
policy of special inducements to women and "juniors"--indicated in the
resolution carried "to remit for female members, ten cents per member
per month to the union, the same to apply to juniors."[271]
The character of the unit group--the local union--as being preëminently
industrial in nature, was emphatically reaffirmed and more fully
defined than ever before.
... the smallest unit of an industrial union [says Secretary
Trautmann] comprises the employees in one industrial plant,
whether large or small. Likewise should all the employees
of industrial corporations, no matter where ... employed,
be members in that respective department of wage-earners,
if already organized. Taking for illustration the Mining
Department, it should embrace within its folds not only the
metalliferous, the coal and the salt miners, all the employees
in the oil and gas fields, and the various plants connected
with that industry, but also the employees in oil and gas
refineries, the teamsters and distributors of oil, and any
other mining products in the large or small industrial centers.
They should belong to the same department in which the workers
in the mines, or in the oil fields, are organized.[272]
There was some agitation in New York City in the summer of 1906 to
organize that section on a basis of one local union to each industry,
with each local divided into sub-branches as the needs and extent
of its constituency might require. These latter sub-branches were,
moreover, to have no direct connection with the General Organization.
This plan was opposed at the convention. It was in conflict with the
policy of centralization which characterized the earlier stages of I.
W. W. development. It was emphatically condemned by President Sherman
as a violation of the constitution. He asserted that it centered the
"power of the whole industry in the hands of the members of one local
union."[273]
Centralization was wanted--but it was _national_ (or international)
centralization, not district centralization. A provision had been made
the year before for what were called "mixed locals" which were to
include workers in various industries, but only so to include them
temporarily; it being understood that so soon as a sufficient number
of the workers in any particular industry came into the locality to
warrant their organization into a union that all members of the mixed
local who belonged to that industry should immediately withdraw from
the "mixed" and join the "pure" industrial union. It was, of course,
assumed that no one should join a mixed local or remain in a mixed
local when a union of his industry existed in that locality. The
privilege of membership in the mixed locals had already been very much
abused. In numerous instances it was found that members continued as
members of the mixed local, even after their particular industrial
union had been organized, or even maintained membership in both the
mixed and the industrial body at the same time. This double membership
was not only of no value--it was usually positively disastrous. It
made confusion and brought on factional fights between "mixed" and
industrial bodies,[274] and resulted in a double, and consequently
inflated, membership representation at the annual conventions. After an
extended discussion of the seemingly unmixed evils of mixed "locals,"
the convention passed a resolution defining their functions. "The mixed
local," runs the resolution, "is not to be a permanent institution
in the I. W. W. It is merely the propaganda [body] that will build
up an industrial union for the future. It is a recruiting station
[only]."[275]
Important subdivisions of the organization were the Industrial
Councils. These had been constitutionally defined as "central bodies
composed of seven or more local unions in two or more industries."[276]
Such central bodies had been organized during the first year in New
York, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Paterson, N. J., and Flat River,
Mo., and were, according to Secretary Trautmann, "in process of
formation in Cleveland, Seattle, and Toronto, Canada."[277] Steps had
also been taken toward the formation of the Arizona (state) District
Industrial Council. These bodies had a definite future rôle as well as
an immediate function mapped out for them. Here is given some little
conception of the anticipated _modus operandi_ of one part of the
coöperative machinery of a future industrial society--of which the
Industrial Workers of the World is proposing to be the framework. The
work of the industrial councils, present and future, is explained by
Wm. E. Trautmann as follows:
If it is the final object of the Industrial Workers of
the World to prepare the government for the coöperative
commonwealth, then likewise should provisions be made to
organize the agency, through which the administration of
cities and rural districts [can] be conducted. The Industrial
Council should, therefore, be organized for that purpose, and
the territory to be covered by such organization should be
determined by the central administration.... While the future
functions of such councils will consist in the administration
of the industries by the chosen representatives of the various
industrial unions, their present-day duties should be to
direct the propaganda, the organizing work, the education
through central agencies, the direction of strikes, and other
means of warfare between the workers and the shirkers, and
the supervision of organizers; in fact, all such functions as
will yield better results, if carried out by a collective
direction, should come within the jurisdiction sphere of such
councils.[278]
The original constitution had provided for thirteen international
industrial departments, which could be organized in any industry so
soon as it contained ten locals with a membership of not less than
3,000 members.[279] The reaction against the departmental idea at the
second convention was sufficiently strong to carry an amendment to
the constitution making the prerequisite to departmental organization
in any industry "ten locals with a membership of not less than 10,000
members." This change was partly the result of a general feeling that
the departmental system was not as practicable as had been at first
believed. Moreover, it was believed that, so long as departments could
be organized on the basis of a membership of only 3,000, departmental
autonomy would be an absolute farce, and simply resolve itself into
local union or locality domination. The defenders of the departmental
idea rightly insisted that that idea be given a fair chance to work
itself out. Another group--industrial unionists who laid great stress
on the local industrial union as _the_ division which should first
of all be possessed of complete autonomy--felt that this change
was a change in their favor in so far as it made the attainment of
the departmental status more difficult and the existing number of
departments actually less. The departments, thought DeLeon,
must be in the nature of the states of the United States and
... there should be no less and no more autonomy, and for the
same reason that this government of the United States is not
a government of the states but a government of the people,
for the same reason the government of this I. W. W. is not a
government of departments, it is a government of the rank and
file.[280]
The Universal Label, provided for in Article IV., Section 10, of the
original constitution, had not given entire satisfaction. In fact,
a number of the delegates wished to abolish the label altogether.
This demand grew out of the misuse of the label itself. Many locals
suffered it to get into the hands of employers, others coöperated with
their employers in its use. Now coöperation with employers in any way
whatever is in absolute violation of the spirit and letter of the I. W.
W. law. Hence the label was looked upon by many as something of a very
compromising nature. It came near being entirely abolished, but finally
it was decided that the label be retained, but used only in strict
accord with the provisions of "Resolution A," which reveals the rôle of
the red (revolutionary) label as opposed to that of the orthodox ("pure
and simple") trade-union label. The resolution reads:
Whereas, the universal label of our union has been productive
of both good results, such as the general advertising of
our name and the graphic presentation of the unity and
comprehensive character of the I. W. W. to the minds of the
proletariat; and of evil results, such as the advertising
of merchandise, the fostering of a tendency towards the
coöperation of the classes, the general confusion of the minds
of working men in regard to the nature of the class struggle,
and in its failure to explain its own significance as to just
what or how much of the work on a product was done by I. W. W.
men; and,
Whereas, It should be our endeavor to retain every weapon that
is efficient for the proletariat and against the capitalists;
be it, therefore,
Resolved, That, in an endeavor to eliminate the evils and
continue the good effects of our first year's experiment, we
retain the universal label; and be it
Resolved, That the use of the universal label shall never be
delegated to employers, but shall be vested entirely in our
organization; and be it further
Resolved, That except on stickers, circulars and literature
presenting the merits of the I. W. W., and emanating from the
general offices of the I. W. W., the universal label shall be
retained only as evidence of work done by I. W. W. men; and be
it further
Resolved, That when the label is so printed, it shall be done
by the authority of our union without the intervention of any
employer; and be it further
Resolved, That when our universal label is placed upon a
commodity as evidence of work done by our men, it shall be
accompanied by an inscription underneath the label stating
what the work is that our men have done, giving the name of
the industrial department to which they belong and the number
or numbers of their local unions, and that the universal label
shall never be printed as evidence of work performed without
this inscription; and be it further
Resolved, That the universal label shall be of a uniform
crimson color and always the same in design.[281]
It has been stated that experience with, and the deposition of,
President Sherman resulted in the abolition of the office of General
President. No doubt the Sherman controversy was the principal
predisposing cause, but it is very probable that there would have been
some agitation for the abolition of that office even if there had
not been a single charge against Sherman as President. A good many
were a little shy of the name "President"--it savored of the present
political state! Others thought it involved too great concentration of
power in the hands of one individual. These latter were the sponsors
of the "rank and file" and the forerunners of those who later figured
as "decentralizers" in the controversy concerning centralization in
the Industrial Workers of the World.[282] "The people who direct the
Industrial Workers of the World," said Delegate Reid, "are the rank
and file.... In a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, and wisdom
is not in the brain of one man to direct this institution."[283]
Furthermore, as DeLeon pointed out, "the President is mainly,
essentially and exclusively an organizer, a general organizer with
a high-sounding title and wages and expenses to match...."[284] The
committee appointed to report on the advisability of retaining the
office of President reported that it came to its negative conclusion
"on the assumption that there was not a man in this convention strong
enough or capable enough to assume the office of President."[285]
The efforts of the industrial abolitionists did not end with the
attempt to abolish the departments and the universal label, and the
successful abolition of the office of General President. Many less
important matters were put under the ban. It was decreed that "all
rituals, signs, grips and passwords, borrowed from pure and simpledom,
be abolished," and that the use of all terms of salutation of the
more orthodox sort, such as "brother" and "comrade" be abolished
and the term "fellow-worker" be used on all occasions.[286] Of more
material consequence to those concerned was the reduction made in
the salaries of the national officers. The salaries of the General
Secretary-Treasurer (now the national head of the organization), and
Assistant General Secretary-Treasurer were reduced from one hundred
and twenty-five dollars per month, to one hundred dollars.[287] The
committee making the recommendation felt that former salary was a sum
of absurdly bourgeois magnitude!
The question of political action[288] was thoroughly ventilated once
more. The more revolutionary group of industrialists renewed their
fight to have the clause "until all the toilers come together on the
political as well as the industrial field" cleansed from the taint of
politics by the striking out of the words "political as well as." The
motion involving this change was emphatically opposed by the spokesman
of the Socialist Labor party faction. Daniel DeLeon and Hermann
Richter both spoke against the motion. Mr. Richter, later the General
Secretary-Treasurer of the Detroit (S. L. P.) faction of the Industrial
Workers of the World, believed that "if a man takes the obligation as
a member of this organization there is a duty upon that member to be
active at all times, and especially on election day, in behalf of his
class and of himself as a member thereof."[289]
Neither side was wholly successful. By way of compromise it was
finally agreed that the clause containing the rather distasteful word
"political" should stand unaltered, but that an additional clause
should be appended at the end of the Preamble. This new clause reads:
"Therefore, without endorsing or desiring the endorsement of any
political party, we unite under the following constitution."[290]
Political action was still recognized and no less emphatically endorsed
than before,[291] but all political activities would now be subject to
very definite constitutional restrictions as to the relations between
the Industrial Workers of the World and the political parties.
It would seem that, if politics was to be discounted in the preamble,
the discussion of that subject in the local union should surely be
subject to restriction if not absolute taboo. This was President
Sherman's attitude. He thought
that literature bearing on any complexion of a political nature
should be barred from any economic industrial meeting, and
that all organizers [of] ... the Industrial Workers of the
World shall enforce such principles.... Your president does not
hesitate to say that, in his belief, if the Industrial Workers
of the World is not kept clear from all political agitation
for the next few years to come ... it will be impossible to
build up an industrial organization....[292]
The convention did not agree with him. No doubt this was partly due
to the fact that the majority of the delegates could not persuade
themselves to tolerate any suggestion (be it ever so wise a one)
made by President Sherman. Moreover, it must have been realized that
such a prohibition of political literature or political discussion
could really never be enforced; that on the contrary it would even
_stimulate_ such discussion. However this may be, the committee on good
and welfare submitted under this head the recommendation that "in local
unions at least ten minutes be given to the discussion of economic and
political questions at each meeting." This resolution was endorsed by
the convention.[293]
The famous Moyer, Haywood and Pettibone case occupied much of the
attention of the second convention. At the time of the convention these
three men (of whom the two former were members and officers of the
Western Federation of Miners--then the Mining Department of the I. W.
W.) were imprisoned in the Ada County jail at Boise, Idaho, charged
with the murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg of that state. This great
labor case, culminating in 1907 in the trial and acquittal of the three
men, makes up one of the most interesting and dramatic chapters in the
annals of the labor movement. It was an event which deeply concerned
the Industrial Workers of the World, and was a really potent factor
in shaping the subsequent history of that organization. The story of
the judicial deportation of these three men had of course become
known to the world long before the 1906 convention of the I. W. W.,
but none the less a brief recital of the event and the part taken by
the I. W. W. therein was incorporated in President Sherman's report
to the convention. Some excerpts from this report are here quoted. It
should be remembered that, at the time of the deportation and trial of
these officials of the Western Federation of Miners, that organization
was a part of the Industrial Workers of the World, and that (with the
exception of Pettibone) these men were, at least formally, I. W. W.
men, though they were referred to almost constantly as officials of the
Western Federation of Miners.
It pains me to report [said President Sherman] that on
Saturday evening, February 17th,[294] Brother Charles H.
Moyer, President of the Department of Mining; Brother William
D. Haywood, Secretary of the Department of Mining; and Geo.
A. Pettibone, ex-member of the Western Federation of Miners,
were kidnapped by officers of the state of Idaho and, on the
same date, at 11:30 o'clock P. M., were forcibly placed on a
special train and taken from the state of Colorado and placed
in jail in the state of Idaho, charged with murder. This was
done without giving the accused brothers an opportunity for a
defense or hearing. They were arrested at night and were given
no opportunity to notify their families, friends or legal
advisers of their condition.[295]
The Industrial Workers of the World was among the first to come to the
defense of the indicted men. The General Office in Chicago immediately
sent out thousands of circular letters throughout the country asking
for contributions; large amounts were turned over to the Special
Defense Fund from the General Defense Fund of the I. W.
W., and finally a total of $10,982.51 was raised. This, labor's common
extremity, did actually, though but temporarily, achieve that miracle
(to appear later in San Diego and Lawrence) of I. W. W.'s, Socialists,
Socialist Laborites, Anarchists, and "Pure and Simplers,"[296]
even, coöperating in a common activity. The I. W. W. was the first
to organize protest meetings, and secured the services of Clarence
S. Darrow for the legal defense. The slogan "Shall our brothers be
murdered?" was reiterated on every hand and made the watchword of the
defense.
The situation was still a desperate one at the time of the 1906
convention. The men were still held in jail awaiting trial. It seems to
have been the general belief that they were to be "railroaded" to the
penitentiary or the gallows, and the conduct of the prosecution as well
as the postponement of the trial, all tended to strengthen that belief.
The delegates at the convention decided to turn fifty per cent of the
per-capita tax of the Mining Department into the Moyer-Haywood Defense
Fund. Some of the delegates undoubtedly exaggerated the influence of
the I. W. W. in the Moyer-Haywood affair. Thus William E. Trautmann
asserted on the floor of the convention that
Money and the best legal talent would not have been able to
save the lives of Charles H. Moyer, William D. Haywood, Geo. A.
Pettibone and Vincent St. John;[297] their dead bodies would
... bear testimony to the outrages perpetrated by the class
controlling the resources of this land, and all institutions of
oppression, were it not for the vigilance of the few.... men
of the I. W. W., who, facing all the calumnies of the public
press ... threw their lives into the scale in order to raise
the issue. We must prevent the judicial murder.[298]
The jailing of Haywood, especially, one of the most aggressive and
influential organizers of the I. W. W., deeply affected the members
of that body and really subtracted much from their strength. It was
generally felt among laboring men and women that Moyer and Haywood
were jailed because they were members of the Industrial Workers of the
World, or because they were Socialists. A letter written by Haywood
in the Ada County jail on the day that the second convention opened
in Chicago indicates the active interest he continued to take in the
organization even during his imprisonment. It is here given in part:
ADA COUNTY JAIL,
BOISE, IDAHO, SEPT. 17, 1906.
TO THE OFFICERS AND DELEGATES OF THE SECOND ANNUAL CONVENTION
OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD.
_Comrades and Fellow Workers_:
While you have been in convention today, I have devoted the
hours to a careful review of the proceedings of the initial
convention of the I. W. W. and of the conference that issued
the Manifesto leading up to the formation of the organization
which has ... rekindled the smouldering fire of ambition and
hope in the breasts of the working class of this continent....
[Quoting here from his own letter to the fourteenth convention
of the Western Federation of Miners] organized industrially,
united politically, labor will assume grace and dignity, horny
hand and busy brain will be the badge of distinction and honor,
all humanity will be free from bondage, a fraternal brotherhood
imbued with the spirit of independence and freedom, tempered
with the sentiment of justice and love of order; such will be
... the goal [and] aspiration of the Industrial Workers of the
World.[299]
The message was received with boundless enthusiasm. It stimulated all
to more determined efforts in behalf of the accused. It doubtless
had some share in influencing the minds of that group amongst the
delegates, who were inclined to favor the general-strike idea. At any
rate, they now urged that that idea be applied in the Moyer, Haywood
and Pettibone case. They succeeded in having this resolution presented
to the convention:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that in the
event of a new delay in the trial of our brothers, Moyer,
Haywood, and Pettibone, or in the event of an unjust sentence
in their case, the national headquarters of the I. W. W. shall
immediately proceed to call a general strike and use every
possible means and all the funds at its command in order to
warrant the working class to resist and overcome the violence
of the masters.[300]
A resolution of this sort would, if it had been presented under similar
circumstances, to, say, the 1914 convention of the Industrial Workers
of the World, very probably be quite unanimously endorsed, but the
I. W. W. of 1906 rejected the proposal. This does not mean that the
general-strike principle had not taken root in the I. W. W. at all.
It had. Witness the following excerpt from the recommendation of the
Committee on the Reports of Officers:
We disagree with our President regarding the general strike
and contend that a general lockout of the capitalist class is
the method by which ... to emancipate our class. We believe
that the general strike be employed temporarily, as a means
to wring concessions from the capitalist class from time to
time. The committee believes that a protracted general strike
would be no less than an insane act on the part of the working
class.[301]
Although the Moyer-Haywood trial and the final acquittal[302] of
the accused men made the I. W. W. somewhat more commonly known and
understood among the working class throughout the country, it was on
the whole nothing less than a calamity for that organization. The I.
W. W. did not even get publicity out of the Moyer-Haywood case. The
Western Federation got all the advertising. It was a well-established
labor organization with an eventful--almost a lurid--history. Its early
activities were more or less related to the Moyer-Haywood-Pettibone
affair and the general public very naturally thought of the Western
Federation when they thought of the Haywood deportation. The I. W.
W. was not popularly associated with the Boise trial at all. The
organization was obliged almost completely to suspend its vital work
of organizing to raise funds for the defense. But this was not the
most serious result. The Moyer-Haywood-Pettibone deportation was
unquestionably one of the causes operating to split off the Western
Federation of Miners. The imprisonment of Haywood certainty weakened
that element in the Western Federation which backed the I. W. W.
and strengthened the hands of those who were opposed to continued
incorporation with it. This, combined with the deposition of President
Sherman, which yet further weakened the forces of the Miners who
supported the I. W. W., finally gave the I. W. W. knockers in the
Western Federation the upper hand. The result was, first a decision by
referendum vote of the Western Federation of Miners not to pay dues
to either the Shermanite or the anti-Shermanite factions in the I. W.
W., and second, the formal withdrawal of the Mining Department and the
reëstablishment of an independent Western Federation of Miners in the
summer of 1907.[303]
Several other matters of relatively lesser import were given some
attention. Even the difficulty of jurisdictional conflict, the bugbear
of the craft union, was known and struggled with in a labor body
supposed to be jurisdiction-controversy proof. It was so ideally,
but the compromises it was obliged to make with the craft form of
union naturally made trouble. Slight changes were made in the system
of dues; the preamble and constitution were both somewhat improved
in diction and altered in a few other minor details, but they both
remained fundamentally as worked out in the first convention, except
for the abolition of the presidential office. The following officers
were elected for the succeeding year: William E. Trautmann (to succeed
himself as) General Secretary-Treasurer, and Messrs. Vincent St.
John, A. Maichele, T. J. Cole, C. E. Mahoney and E. Fischer, members
of the General Executive Board, and Mr. A. S. Edwards, Editor of the
_Industrial Union Bulletin_. It was decided that the conventions be
held the third Monday in September instead of the first Monday in May,
and in Chicago unless otherwise specified. The convention adjourned on
Oct. 3, 1906.
The prevalent opinion at the time, and since, among the craft-unionists
of the American Federation and among the party Socialists--in fact,
among all those whose radicalism is comparatively conservative--was
that this second convention marked the beginning of the end of the I.
W. W., or at least that the loss of the Mining Department (probably the
organization's most conservative element) was an almost irreparable
loss. "That the I. W. W. received its death blow at Chicago and will
gradually disintegrate" is a fact, according to Max Hayes, "that no
careful observer of labor affairs will attempt to dispute."[304] But
the I. W. W. continued to exist, and finally to do more than exist,
in spite of the upheaval of 1906. It is indeed doubtful if the losses
of that year were unmixed calamities. Though they did deprive the
organization of its most reputable, best financed, and most respectable
elements, their loss tended to give sharp definition and emphatic
impulse toward a more revolutionary policy. This policy was now to
be applied and tested among those forming the lower stratum of the
proletarian mass--the unskilled and migratory workers. This clear-cut
definition of policy and its point of application might never have
been possible if the complete working-class hierarchy--from lumberjack
to locomotive engineer--had been preserved. The I. W. W. became after
1906, and still more after 1908, an organization of the unskilled and
very conspicuously of the migratory and frequently jobless unskilled.
FOOTNOTES:
[262] _Proceedings_, p. 309.
[263] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), pp. 65-6.
[264] Report of the General President, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), pp. 45-6.
[265] _Ibid._, p. 423.
[266] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 252.
[267] _Cf. supra_, p. 84. Also, _Proceedings, First I. W. W.
Convention_ (1905), p. 1
[268] Report of the Secretary-Treasurer, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), p. 68. There was no action taken by the convention
on Trautmann's suggestion that European propaganda agencies be
established.
[269] _Bulletin of the Industrial Workers of the World, No. 4_, Dec, 1,
1906.
[270] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 110.
[271] _Ibid._
[272] Report of General Secretary-Treasurer, _Proceedings, Second I. W.
W. Convention_ (1906), p. 61.
[273] Report of the General President, _ibid._, p. 46.
[274] _Cf._, _e. g._, the case of the Tinners and Platers of
Youngstown, Ohio, as reported, by Delegate Lundy, _Proceedings, Second
I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 277.
[275] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 287. The
following clause was added to the constitution: "Mixed locals. No
member of a trade that is organized in his locality is qualified for
admission into a mixed local in the same locality, and no member of a
mixed local can remain a member of the same after his trade has been
organized in that locality." _Ibid._, p. 276. For the discussion of the
"mixed local" problem, _cf. ibid._, pp. 276-288.
[276] _I. W. W. Constitution_ (1905), art. i, sec. 2 (b), _cf. supra_,
p, 98.
[277] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 60.
[278] Report of the General Secretary-Treasurer, _Proceedings, Second
I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 62.
[279] _Constitution_ (1905), art. i, sec. 2 (a) and art. vii, sec. 4,
_cf. supra_, p. 96.
[280] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 330. Tridon
makes this statement concerning departmentalism in 1906: "This system
soon appeared impracticable and as the purely industrialist view was
beginning to dominate the membership, it was more and more definitely
recognized that the New Unionism should organize from below upward. In
other words, the local industrial union, not the department, was to
be the basis of organization." (_The New Unionism_, p. 100.) By 1917
the departments had practically vanished from the working structure
of the I. W. W. This is shown graphically in the chart diagram of the
organization's present structure in Appendix iii.
[281] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 463. In
September, 1906, the I. W. W. label had been registered in all but
three of the states of the Union. _Ibid._, p. 45.
[282] _Vide infra_, ch. xiii.
[283] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 231.
[284] _Ibid._, p. 225.
[285] _Ibid._ The amendment abolishing the presidential office was
adopted by a vote of 354-1/2 to 253, _ibid._, p. 246.
[286] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), pp. 567, 420.
[287] _Ibid._, p. 471.
[288] A recognition of a wider meaning in the term "political action"
is evidenced in Delegate Foote's statement that "Every action of every
individual in ... organized society is a political action, whether
it be as you say on the industrial [political] or on the economic
field.... The action of the Industrial Workers of the World as a
so-called economic organization is a political action in an organized
society." _Ibid._, p. 311.
[289] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 309.
[290] For discussion of the change in the preamble and on political
action in general, _cf. ibid._, pp. 305-313. The amended preamble
is printed in full in the _Proceedings_, p. 614, and in a pamphlet
entitled, _Industrial Workers of the World--Preamble and Constitution_,
published by the Detroit faction. _Cf._, also, appendix ii.
[291] Spargo to the contrary notwithstanding. He writes: "At the second
convention, September, 1906, the preamble was amended and all emphasis
on the need for political action omitted." _Syndicalism, Socialism and
Industrial Unionism_, p. 208.
[292] Report of the General President, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), pp. 44-45.
[293] _Ibid._, p. 573.
[294] This should be the 19th.
[295] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 47.
[296] A term applied to members of and believers in what Samuel Gompers
has called the "pure and simple trade union"--the conventional type
of unionist who will have nothing to do with radicalism and accepts
implicitly the capitalistic régime.
[297] Vincent St. John, who had been organizing for the I. W. W in the
Coeur d'Alene district of Idaho, was arrested at about the same time.
[298] In his report to the convention, _Proceedings, Second I. W. W.
Convention_ (1906), pp. 70-1.
[299] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 41.
[300] _Ibid._, p. 411.
[301] _Proceedings, Second I. W. W. Convention_ (1906), p. 422.
[302] Haywood was acquitted July 28, 1907.
[303] _The Miners' Magazine_ continued to bear the I. W. W. label on
its title page until August 1, 1907. As explained elsewhere, the two
organizations were virtually divorced as early as January, 1907. _Cf.
supra_, p. 151.
[304] "The World of Labor," _International Socialist Review_, vol. vii,
pp. 31-2.
CHAPTER VII
THE FIGHT FOR EXISTENCE
The third convention of the I. W. W. was in session in Chicago for
eight days beginning September 16, 1907. This was a much less turbulent
gathering than the one of the preceding year. DeLeon's chronicler says
that: "At the third convention of the I. W. W.... almost complete
harmony prevailed. The organization had so far recuperated from the
blow it had received the year before that several organizers were being
employed and many new locals had been formed."[305] He admits, however,
that there was some friction, explaining that the anarchistic element
"sounded the only note of discord." This, he says, was the "shadow cast
before by the pure and simple physical force craze that came into full
swing a year after."[306]
This, was a congress of the "proletarian rabble"--the DeLeon-St.
John-Trautmann faction. The Sherman faction was no longer in existence.
The DeLeonites looked upon the Shermanites as having been from the
first nothing more than "a bunch of grafting politicians and labor
fakirs." Leaders of the (Chicago) I. W. W. now speak of the 1906 and
the 1908 conventions as marking the sloughing-off of the Socialist
party politicians at the first, and the Socialist Labor party
politicians at the second, respectively. St. John says that at this
1907 convention "a slight effort was made to relegate the politician to
the rear."[307] The Shermanites seem to have had no really substantial
constituency at any time. However, it appears that this group did have
a convention in July, 1907. No proceedings or other documentary records
of this convention have been discovered by the writer. The _Miners'
Magazine_ remarked editorially that "The Sherman faction that held its
convention in July (1907) was but a burlesque, while the Trautmann
faction that held its convention in September was but a grim joke.
The treasury was empty, and both factions are confronted with debts
which cannot be met."[308] The Shermanite journal, _The Industrial
Worker_, which had been held by the Sherman group and circulated
from Joliet, Ill., appeared in July, 1907, and there seems to be no
evidence that any subsequent numbers were issued. Both Shermanites and
DeLeonites claimed control of the bulk of those I. W. W. local unions
which remained after the breaking away of the Western Federation.[309]
Sherman continued to present a brave and optimistic front at the time
of the fifteenth convention of the Western Federation. On June 3, 1907,
he wrote a letter to the convention urging the miners to re-affiliate
with the Industrial Workers of the World (_i. e._, the Shermanite
faction). If they would only agree to that, he declared, it would
"require not more than two months when the so-called revolutionary
movement will die of its own weight, as it is only existing at this
time under false pretenses...."[310]
Neither did the "proletarian rabble" have any very exalted notion of
the power of the "reactionaries."
The plain truth is [declared one of the alleged false
pretenders] that the Sherman-McCabe Slugging Company has at no
time since the [second I. W. W.] convention had the support of
more than 1,000 members--something less than 100 in New York,
100 in Chicago, and the rest (reactionary pure and simple
unions) lost in the distances between Ahern's saloon at the St.
Regis and Motherwell's saloon at Bingham's Canyon.
The Shermanites, however, claimed the Mining Department, and they
seem on the whole to have been justified, for the pro-Sherman or
"anti-proletarian" faction, so called, eventually dominated the
fifteenth convention of the Western Federation of Miners and made
what was already a virtual separation from the I. W. W. a formal and
complete divorce. The Shermanite organ, the (old) _Industrial Worker_,
in its issue for April, 1907, claimed that the "Mining Department of
the Industrial Workers of the World gained nearly 3,000 members during
the month of February" (p. 8). The Shermanites also claimed to have
chartered ten locals (outside the W. F. M.) in January.[311]
There were present at the first day's session of the September 1907,
convention fifty-one delegates representing sixty-five local unions,
and before the close of the convention there were 74 local unions
represented by 53 delegates having a total of 129 votes. Few delegates
had more than two or three votes. The Paterson (N. J.) delegation had
28 votes; George Speed, representing two locals, had twelve; B. H.
Williams, eleven and Daniel DeLeon, three. Contests were made on 26
of the delegates. Among the other delegates to this convention were
Rudolph Katz. E. J. Foote, Vincent St. John, F. W. Heslewood, Wm. E.
Trautmann, M. P. Hagerty, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Mr. Katz was
elected temporary chairman.[312]
The organization was not prosperous at this time. It was weakened
and almost torn apart by the exhausting internal struggles it had
gone though in its two short years of life. It had lost its strongest
member--its main body, almost--the Western Federation of Miners, and
with the Sherman contingent a considerable number of individual members
in local unions even though the locals themselves retained their
affiliation. The writer has not seen any definite statement as to the
magnitude of the loss in locals and individuals due to the Shermanite
defection. The "proletarian rabble," however, claimed that "139 of the
local unions declared themselves in favor of all transactions of the
convention."[313] At this time, on the same authority, there were 358
locals "carried on the books," but only 181 in good standing.[314] On
a basis of locals in good standing the Shermanites took with them less
than twenty-five per cent of the locals in the organization, but if
we include all locals, the Shermanites must be allowed to have taken
with them sixty per cent of the I. W. W. locals. Further evidence of
serious decline is found in the very low proportion of I. W. W. local
unions which were represented by delegates at the third convention. If
we may accept Secretary Trautmann's statement[315] to the convention
that there were at the time about 200 local unions in the organization,
it appears that but slightly more than one-third of these locals were
represented at the convention. The "Wobblies" had very little to say at
this time about the membership of the organization. Indeed, there has
never at any time been much to say about it. In 1907 they were even
less aware of their own numerical strength than they usually are. They
knew, of course, that it was small and that it had dwindled much since
1905.
The leaders of the Western Federation of Miners followed the
proceedings with no friendly eye. J. M. O'Neil declared that "the
Trautmann faction does not dare disclose its membership...."[316]
He stated further that "a delegate upon the floor of the September
convention asked to know the membership of the organization, but he was
curtly told by the chairman of the convention to 'never mind counting
noses but [to] go home and organize.'"[317]
Official reports to the fifteenth convention of the Western Federation
of Miners held the preceding June, credited the I. W. W. with a
membership of 32,000, of which number 8,000 were delinquent.[318]
This estimate is presumably exclusive of the Western Federation.
Delegate F. W. Heslewood (W. F. M. and I. W. W., later a member of the
General Executive Board of the [Chicago] I. W. W.) who was one of the
so-called "wage-slave delegates" at the second I. W. W. convention,
tells the miners' convention that "in one local in the state of Oregon
there are over 3,000 members that travel the streets with red flags
and red neckties demanding the full product of their toil...."[319]
Professor Barnett puts the membership for 1907 at 6,700.[320] General
Secretary St. John places it at 5,931.[321] He estimated the membership
for 1905-6 as 23,219. Barnett's figures are: 1905, 14,300; 1906,
10,400.[322] These estimates vary widely, but this at least is evident:
there was a marked and progressive decline in membership during the
organization's first two years of existence.
During the twelve-month period ending September, 1907, one hundred and
eighteen locals were organized.[323] Reports published from time to
time in the _Miner's Magazine_[324] indicate that from the birth of
the organization to September 17, 1906, three hundred and ninety-four
locals had been organized. A total of 512 locals had, therefore, been
organized up to the convening of the third convention in September,
1907. As already noted, there were in the organization at that time
about 200 local unions. The necessary inference is that three out of
every four locals organized so far in the history of the I. W. W.
had either broken away from the organization or simply expired. This
condition has been characteristic of the I. W. W. in greater or less
degree throughout its brief career. The "turnover" of local unions as
well as of individual members has been immense and very irregular. No
continuous reports of the new locals chartered have appeared in the I.
W. W. press. Weekly reports appeared quite regularly in _The Industrial
Union Bulletin_ through the spring of 1907 and showed that four or
five new locals were being chartered each week during the three-months
period. There is no record of locals disbanded.
In August, 1907, the International Socialist and Labor Congress met
at Stuttgart. Both factors of the I. W. W. were represented: the
Sherman faction by Hugo Pick and the DeLeon-St. John faction by Fred
Heslewood. The latter group in its suspiciously optimistic report
claimed that, "... starting out with only 2,000 members in 1905, the
Western Federation of Miners not included, the organization has now 362
industrial unions and branches organized in 37 States and 3 Provinces
of Canada ... [and] embraces now 28,000 militant workers...."[325]
The Congress devoted considerable attention to the problem of
labor organization. The discussion of this problem centered almost
exclusively upon two topics: (1) the relations between the political
party and the trade union, and (2) the defects of the craft union. The
I. W. W., through its representatives, was actively interested in both
of these matters. Its sustained opposition to the craft type of union
is characteristically displayed in the report[326] which the Socialist
Labor party presented to the Congress. It was evidently written by
DeLeon and it may be taken fairly to represent the attitude of the I.
W. W. One paragraph of this report, which puts very comprehensively the
Industrialist's indictment of the old-line union, reads:
The trades-union field [in America] was found by the political
movement of socialism to be preëmpted by what is called
craft or pure and simple unionism. This system of unionism
organizes the crafts, not simply as units but as autonomous
and sovereign bodies. The fundamental error of this system
of economic organization was soon found to be desirable by
the capitalist class. The craft union rendered all economic
movement fruitless. If indeed the wages in these unions were
ever found higher than among the unorganized, the price that
the union paid for such higher wages was to divide the
working class hopelessly. In the first place, the craft union
deliberately excluded the majority of the members of the trade
from participation, by means of apprenticeship regulations,
high dues, high initiation fees and other devices. In the
second place, each of these craft unions, in turn, could earn
its Judas pence only by allying itself with the employer each
time that some other craft was at war with the employing class.
It is superfluous to enumerate the long catalogue of deliberate
acts of treason to the working class at home and abroad, and
the shocking corruption that such style of unionism was bound
to breed. Suffice it to say, as proof, that these craft unions
are found amalgamated with an organization of capitalists,
known as the "Civic Federation," the purpose of which is to
establish "harmonious relations between labor and capital."
These craft unions are mainly organized in the American
Federation of Labor.[327]
During the discussion of the relations between the political
parties and the trade unions a heated argument took place between
representatives of the I. W. W. (DeLeon faction) and of the Socialist
party.[328] The Socialist party delegation made a long report in
which the I. W. W. was referred to in no complimentary terms. F. W.
Heslewood, representing the I. W. W.,[329] retorted that the report was
"a tissue of lies and misrepresentations concerning the Industrial
Workers of the World in America."[330] He went on to indicate the I. W.
W. conceptions of the Socialist party of America in these terms:
This vote-catching machine of which the previous speaker from
America (A. M. Simons) is so proud, will stoop to anything and
_go to any length to secure votes_. They have defended a lot
of scab unions of the A. F. of L. in California, have endorsed
resolutions condemning the Japanese and asking for their
exclusion from America, although we find that the Japanese,
with very little education in revolutionary unionism, make
better union men than the sacred contract scab of the A. F. of
L.
At the other end of the continent, in New York, they place
their candidates on the same ticket as Randolph Hearst, a
Democrat, a trust-buster of the Roosevelt type. I have in my
hand here a card ... asking the workers to vote for "Hearst
and Hillquit." "Hearst and Hillquit" for good government?
"Hearst and Hillquit" for socialism? No. "Hearst and Hillquit"
for votes! Hillquit, the "revolutionist," one of the leading
stars at this congress, the chief representative of this
vote-catching machine: Hillquit, who has fed you on lies
concerning the Industrial Workers of the World. If this is the
way to get socialism, I hope that such a damnable brand will
never be ushered in in my time. What bearing has this criminal
work on our grand old slogan, "Workers of the world unite"?
In America we have two kinds of unions, one is known as the
American Federation of Labor and the other is the Industrial
Workers of the World. One has a million and a half members
and the other has over 70,000 members including the Western
Federation of Miners, that is 40,000 miners and 30,000 directly
chartered members from the headquarters of the Industrial
Workers. The larger one is called by the capitalist masters
and their agents, "The bulwark of Capitalist Society," and the
chiefs at the head of this scab arrangement were classed by
Mark Hanna as his "able lieutenants," and that is what they
are.[331]
DeLeon and Heslewood endeavored to put through a resolution in
condemnation of the general position of neutrality taken by Socialist
parties in their relation with labor organizations. They believed that
a Socialist party should definitely endorse radical or socialistic
trade unions and officially frown upon all reactionary unions, and
especially condemn and discourage reaction wherever it might appear
among labor organizations. "Neutrality towards trade unions," reads
their resolution, "is equivalent to neutrality toward the machinations
of the capitalist class."[332]
The resolutions on this subject which were finally adopted by the
congress were much less militant in tone than the I. W. W. statement.
The prevailing resolution read in part as follows:
To enfranchise the proletariat completely from the bonds of
intellectual, political and economic serfdom, the political
and the economic struggle are alike necessary. If the activity
of the Socialist party is exercised more particularly in the
domain of the political struggle of the proletariat, that
of the unions displays itself in the domain of the economic
struggle of the workers. The unions and the party have
therefore an equally important task to perform in the struggle
for proletarian emancipation. Each of the two organizations has
its distinct domain defined by its nature, and within whose
borders it should enjoy independent control of its line of
action. But there is an ever-widening domain in the proletarian
struggle of the classes in which they can only reap advantages
by concerted action and by coöperation between the party and
the trade unions.[333]
Further along in the same resolution the Congress declared that the
unions could not fully perform their duty in the struggle for the
emancipation of the workers unless "a thoroughly socialist spirit
inspires their policy" and that it was the duty of the party and
the unions to render each other "moral support."[334] The editor of
the official organ, however, looked upon these resolutions as being
very favorable to the I. W. W., which he declared had forced the
Congress to "a recognition of the paramount importance of the economic
organization, with the result that the Congress itself stands almost on
I. W. W. ground."[335]
The 1907 convention was a gathering of the DeLeon-Trautmann-St. John
faction. At the fourth convention the first hyphen was to be smashed,
but in 1907 both links held firmly. The general tone was one of
harmony. An attempt was made, however, to reëstablish the office of
President. After a long debate on a resolution to this effect the
proposition was defeated. It was decided, however, to establish the
office of General Organizer, the incumbent of which was expected also
to act as Assistant General Secretary.
The original preamble of 1905 had weathered the second convention
without being modified. The first lines of the second paragraph read:
"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the
toilers come together _on the political_ as well as on the industrial
field...." A motion was made at the third convention to strike out the
words italicized. It was defeated by vote of 113 to 15.[336]
The "political clause" of the preamble was the subject of extended
discussion.[337] At this time all efforts to alter the preamble were
unsuccessful. The debate was significant, however, in foreshadowing
the much more serious struggle which was to take place a year later
when the I. W. W. was literally split in two over the question of
the retention or the elimination of the "political clause." Daniel
DeLeon was a member of the Committee on Constitution and made a long
speech in opposition to the motion to eliminate from the preamble all
reference to the "political field," declaring that "the position of the
I. W. W. is that when the day [_der Tag_ of the socialists, the day of
the Revolution] shall come it shall itself project its own political
party."[338] DeLeon was supported in his position by George Speed, who
later became a member of the General Executive Board of the so-called
anti-political--or Chicago--faction and who has been prominent in the
activities of the I. W. W. on the Pacific Coast.[339] Delegate E. J.
Foote took the same stand and made a cogent argument for retaining the
political clause.
[The word] "political" [he said] does have a meaning....
The point is raised that the working class will not have a
"government." With that I might agree, but they will have an
industrial administration ... and that administration must be
political in the sense that it is controlled by the ballot on
the inside of your own organization.[340]
The constitution committee presented a resolution declaring that "the
I. W. W. seeks its political expression only in its own industrial
administration." This is vague, and it may have been made designedly
so. It might have been brought in to appease those who feared that the
I. W. W. would be made the tail to some political party kite.[341]
FOOTNOTES:
[305] Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Nov. 20,
1915, p. 2, col. 1.
[306] _Ibid. Cf._ also _infra_, ch. ix.
[307] _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_ (1917 ed.), p. 7.
[308] November 14, 1907, p. 8, col. 2.
[309] The fifteenth convention of the W. F. M. (June, 1907) may be
considered as marking its final separation from the I. W. W.; the
connection had been only nominal after the Second I. W. W. Convention
in October, 1906. As already stated (supra, p. 151) the Federation was
formally _suspended_ from the I. W. W. for non-payment of dues, in
January, 1907.
[310] _Proceedings, Fifteenth Convention, W. F. M._, pp. 232-3.
[311] _Industrial Worker_, February, 1907.
[312] _Proceedings_, p. 1.
[313] _Industrial Workers of the World Bulletin No. 2_, October, 1907.
[314] _Ibid._
[315] _Official Report [No. 1], Third I. W. W. Convention_, p. 2, col.
3.
[316] Editorial, _Miners' Magazine_, Nov. 14, 1907, p. 8, col. 2.
[317] _Ibid._
[318] _Proceedings, Fifteenth Convention, W. F. M._, p. 614.
[319] _Ibid._
[320] "Membership of American Trade Unions," _Quarterly Journal of
Economics_; vol. xxx (Aug., 1916), p. 846.
[321] _Private Correspondence_, Feb. 1, 1915.
[322] _Loc. cit._, p. 846.
[323] Report of Secretary-Treasurer to Third Convention, _Industrial
Union Bulletin_, September 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 1.
[324] Especially in the issues from February 22, 1906, on.
[325] _Compte Rendu_, VIIe Congrès Socialiste Internationale
(Brussels, 1908), p. 60.
[326] _Cf._ also _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Aug. 10, 1907, p. 3, col.
3, p. 4, col. 5. The report further stated that I. W. W. literature was
then being printed in seven different languages and that the official
organ--the _Industrial Union Bulletin_--had attained a circulation of
7,000 paid copies. (_Ibid._, p. 4, col. 5.)
[327] (Translated from the French of the report.) _L'Internationale
ouvrière et socialiste. Rapports soumis au Congrès ... de Stuttgart_,
18-24, aout, 1907 ... ed. française (Brussels, 1907), v. 1, pp. 61-62.
[328] "Les rapports entre les partis politiques et les syndicats
professionels," _Compte rendu analytique_ (Stuttgart Congress, 1907)
_publié par le Secretariat du Bureau Socialiste International_
(Brussels, 1908), pp. 184-215.
[329] Unless it is otherwise specifically indicated, the letters "I.
W. W." will be used in this chapter in reference to the DeLeon-St.
John-Trautmann faction. After the 1908 convention these letters will be
understood to refer to the St. John-Trautmann faction, _viz._, to the
(Chicago) I. W. W. of today.
[330] Speech before the Congress on "The relations between trade unions
and the political party," _Industrial Union Bulletin_, September 14,
1907, p. 1, col. 5.
[331] _Loc. cit._
[332] Delegate Heslewood's report on the Stuttgart Congress to the
Third I. W. W. Convention, _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Sept. 28, 1907,
p. 1, col. 6.
[333] Translated from the French. La résolution relative aux "Rapports
entre les partis et les syndicats," _Compte Rendu Analytique, Congrès
socialiste internationale, Stuttgart, 1907_ (Brussels, 1908), p. 424.
This resolution was reaffirmed at the Copenhagen Congress in 1910.
_Compte Rendu Analytique_ (Ghent, 1911), p. 476.
[334] _Compte Rendu Analytique_, Stuttgart Congress (Brussels, 1908),
p. 477.
[335] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, November 9, 1907, p. 2, col. 1.
[336] R. Katz. "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Nov. 27, 1915,
p. 2, col. 6. See also, _Proceedings, Third Convention_ (Official
Report No. 3, p. 5).
[337] _Proceedings, Third I. W. W. Convention_ (Official Report No. 3,
_passim_.)
[338] _Ibid._, p. 5, col. 3.
[339] _Proceedings, Third Convention_ (Official Report No. 3, p. 3,
col. 5).
[340] _Proceedings, Third Convention_, loc. cit., p. 2, col. 1.
[341] _Ibid._, p. 1, col. 5.
CHAPTER VIII
"JOB CONTROL" AT GOLDFIELD
It was in a Nevada mining camp that the I. W. W. made the first notable
application of its principles of revolutionary industrial unionism.
During the years 1906 and 1907 Goldfield as the scene of bitter
disputes between the mine operators on the one hand and the Western
Federation of Miners and the I. W. W. on the other.[342] These disputes
were caused, chiefly, by a more or less successful effort on the part
of these two local organizations to supplant the traditional craft
unionism in Goldfield by the "new unionism."
The Western Federation of Miners was quite strongly entrenched at
Goldfield by the time the I. W. W. made its _début_ in the labor world.
Its local union at Goldfield, No. 220, was an _industrial_ union,
that is, its membership comprised, as provided for in the W. F. M.
constitution, "all persons working in and around the mines, mills and
smelters...."[343] Early in 1906 the I. W. W. had a flourishing local
(No. 77) composed of the "town workers" of Goldfield. The American
Federation of Labor had almost no foothold in Goldfield at the time,
the only A. F. of L. locals in the camp being the carpenters' union and
the typographical union. The I. W. W. local was a more comprehensive
organization even than an industrial union. It was a _mass_ union
which aimed to include all the wage-earners in the community. "We
proceed," says an editorial in the I. W. W. official journal, "without
force, without intimidation, without deportations and without murder,
to organize all wage workers in the community.... In the organization
were miners, engineers, clerks, stenographers, teamsters, dishwashers,
waiters--all sorts of what are called common laborers."[344]
It was apparently this unconventional type of unionism along with the
very radical socialistic leanings of both town unionists (I. W. W.,
No. 77) and the mine unionists (W. F. M., No. 220, affiliated with the
I. W. W.) that brought trouble. The I. W. W. accused the A. F. of L.
unions of beginning it,[345] but the controversy was primarily with the
Mine Operators' Association. Vincent St. John, in a letter published
in the same issue of the _Industrial Union Bulletin_, says that the
carpenters and typos were used "by the Mine Owners' Association as a
nucleus to colonize the camp against the Western Federation of Miners
and the I. W. W." The dispute began in a "controversy which arose
between the _Tonopah Sun_, supported by A. F. of L. locals in the camp
the one side, and the locals of the Industrial Workers of the World and
the Western Federation of Miners on the other."[346] The _Sun_ attacked
the I. W. W., whereupon the I. W. W. (including the W. F. M.) boycotted
the newspaper, and the newsboys, who were organized in the I. W. W.,
refused to sell it. The _Sun_ then, according to this W. F. M. version
of the affair,[347] sought the services of strike-breakers to scab on
the newsboys' union, but were unsuccessful. The miners' union (No.
220. W. F. M.) now called a meeting at which they decided
that local No. 77, Industrial Workers of the World, which
comprised all the town workers with the exception of the
building trades, cease doing business as a local and go
into local 220 of the Western Federation of Miners ...
[and thus place] all wage-earners in the camp in No. 220
with the exception of the newsboys who held a charter from
the Industrial Workers of the World, and a portion of the
building trades, who held membership in their international
organizations.[348]
St. John says that this merger was made at the instigation of the Mine
Owners.
The plan was finally broached [by them] to consolidate the
I. W. W. local--cooks, waiters, teamsters, bartenders, and
clerks--with the W. F. of M. This was looked upon with favor
by the Mine Owners, as they looked upon the I. W. W. local ...
as the radical organization of the district, and the miners
... were in their opinion more conservative, and they reasoned
that if the 1,500 miners had a voice and vote on any demands
made by the 400 radicals--the conservativeness of the 1,500
miners could blanket the efforts of the 400 radicals. The
miners, on the other hand, thought they saw an easy, quick and
satisfactory solution of what promised to be a serious struggle.
It was voted on and carried.[349]
At first the project was apparently favored by the employing interests
of the district, but they faced about when they saw that the miners'
union (No. 220) "practiced solidarity" and apparently used the
carpenters' union as their tool. At any rate the miners' union
"passed a motion that all men working in and around the mines as
carpenters must become members of the Miners' Union." This demand was
ignored.[350] The Mine Owners now issued a statement setting forth that
because of the "unreasonable agitation" by the I. W. W. "... we hereby
pledge ourselves to absolutely refuse to employ any man in any capacity
who is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, ..." and "that
the Mine Owners will recognize any miners' union, that is independent
of the Industrial Workers of the World...."[351]
Pressure from the Mine Owners' Association finally brought about a
referendum on the question of unscrambling. A canvass taken on March
20, 1907, showed a large majority in favor of the miners and the town
workers meeting separately but continuing in other respects as one
union.[352] Nevertheless, the situation continued to grow more acute,
and during the spring the I. W. W. and the W. F. M. were involved in a
desperate struggle for their existence in Goldfield.[353] From March
10, 1907, according to St. John's account of it,
until April 22, the W. F. M. and the I. W. W. at Goldfield,
Nevada, fought for their existence (and the conditions they
had established at that place) against the combined forces of
the mine owners, business men, and the A. F. of L. This open
fight was compromised as a result of the treachery of the W. F.
M. general officers. The fight was waged intermittently from
April 22 till September, 1907, and resulted in regaining all
ground lost through the compromise, and in destroying the scab
charters issued by the A. F. of L. during the fight. The fight
cost the employers over $100,000.[354]
The American Federation of Labor locals in Goldfield during this
period were more or less at the mercy of the I. W. W. and the Western
Federation. It is admitted that A. F. of L. men who were obnoxious to
the I. W. W.s were handled without gloves. Some A. F. of L. members
were forced out of town by the more radical unionists who confessed
that "they were probably not provided with all the luxuries of modern
civilization."[355] This I. W. W. account of the situation continues:
The I. W. W. and the W. F. of M. were on strike for a
considerable time in Goldfield and had the town thoroughly
unionized. The bosses, realizing that they were up against
a rebel class of workers, conferred with their good friends
and tools, the A. F. of L., and the result was that _the A.
F. of L. sent their own members into Goldfield to scab on the
strikers_. This did not happen once, but continuously, and
the strikers ... did use a little direct action by giving
the "union" scabs orders to the effect that their room was
preferable to their company.[356]
In April it was reported that "seventy-five per cent of the business
men of Goldfield have locked out the members of No. 220. They shut down
their places of business and told their help they had to join the A.
F. of L. or there would be no work...."[357] The situation steadily
grew worse, and finally, in December, Governor Sparks telegraphed to
Washington for Federal troops and they were finally sent.[358] The
Governor's second telegram to the President (dated Dec. 5. 1907) read
in part:
At Goldfield ... there does now exist domestic violence and
unlawful combinations and conspiracies, ... unlawful dynamiting
of property, commission of felonies, threats against the lives
of law-abiding citizens, the unlawful possession of arms and
ammunition, and the confiscation of dynamite with threats of
the unlawful use of the same by preconcerted action.[359]
Soon after the troops were sent President Roosevelt dispatched a
special commission[360] to investigate the trouble at Goldfield. The
salient facts of the situation are set forth by this commission as
follows:
There has existed at Goldfield, which is exclusively a mining
town of an estimated population of between 15,000 and 20,000
in South Nevada, for over a year past, and especially since
the spring of 1907, a disturbed industrial situation, due
to frequently recurring labor difficulties between the mine
operators on the one hand and the miners on the other. The two
sides were represented almost completely by the Goldfield Mine
Operators' Association, ... on the one hand and by the local
union of the Western Federation of Miners on the other, a union
comprising substantially all the miners in Goldfield. This
union, known as Goldfield Miners' Union No. 220, is a branch
of the general organization known as the Western Federation of
Miners. It has carried on its rolls a membership estimated
at above 3,000 men, which number, however, included members
of crafts in Goldfield other than workers in and about mines.
Figures furnished us by the mine operators showed that about
1,900 mine workers went on a strike on Nov. 27, 1907. Although
a number of strikes and minor difficulties had occurred during
1907, the only acute situation arising prior to the call for
troops existed in the spring of 1907. This controversy involved
not only a dispute between the mine owners and the miners
at Goldfield, but also between the members of the miners'
union and the members of other crafts in Goldfield affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. The Goldfield Miners'
union was also affiliated with the organization known as
the Industrial Workers of the World, and an effort was made
to force members of other crafts not affiliated with this
organization to join its ranks. Not only the Mine Owners'
Association and members of the miners' union went armed, but
members of crafts not affiliated with the Industrial Workers
of the World felt it necessary to carry arms to protect
themselves while at work. The condition of Goldfield at that
time was that of an armed camp, and for a time a serious clash
seemed imminent. The controversy resulted in the murder of a
restaurant keeper[361] and aroused such opposition against the
Industrial Workers of the World that a ban was practically put
upon them, and the organization under that name was forced to
abandon Goldfield. This acute situation disappeared before
the spring of 1907. A succession of miners' strikes, however,
had taken place throughout 1907, some of them with apparently
little justification; and although the operators had yielded to
nearby all the demands of the union, it seemed impossible to
secure any settled industrial conditions.
The mine operators insist that the socialistic doctrine adopted
and preached by the Western Federation of Miners practically
justified the stealing of ore by the miner.... The industrial
situation was further aggravated by the fact that the Goldfield
Union would not enter into any contract governing working
conditions for any specified length of time, and the mine
operators, therefore, could have no assurance at any time
that any settlement of a dispute was more than a temporary
makeshift, nor could they secure any assurance of stable
industrial conditions for any fixed length of time. Moreover,
the Goldfield Miners' Union embraces in one single union not
only the various crafts working in and about the mines, but
also clerks, waiters, bartenders and other miscellaneous crafts
and avocations in Goldfield. On Nov. 27, 1907, a strike of the
miners was inaugurated and is still in effect. This strike grew
out of a refusal on the part of the miners to accept cashier's
checks in payment of their wages. The miners insisted upon some
form of guaranty by the mine operators of whatever paper was
accepted in lieu of cash. Various propositions were made, but
no basis of agreement was reached.[362]
The commission reported that there was no adequate excuse for the
request for Federal troops.
The action of the mine operators [said the commissioners]
warrants the belief that they had determined upon a reduction
of wages and the refusal of employment to members of the
Western Federation of Miners, but that they feared to take this
course of action unless they had the protection of Federal
troops, and that they accordingly laid a plan to secure such
troops and then put their program into effect.[363]
Although at the time the I. W. W. and the W. F. M. made common cause,
after the final separation of the two national bodies the Federation
was not only critical but bitterly denunciatory. The editor of the
official organ of the W. F. M.--J. M. O'Neill--was derisive in his
comments on the rôle of the I. W. W. at Goldfield. "The I. W. W. took
root at Goldfield, Nevada," he says, "and a vast number of the miners
became the victims of the sophistry and fell for the propaganda of the
spouting hoodlums.... Other mining camps of Nevada became infected with
I. W. W.-ism...." But he comes thankfully to the conclusion that "the
labor movement of Nevada is slowly recovering from the pestilence of I.
W. W.-ism...."[364]
Charges of a very different character were hurled at the I. W. W.
and its Goldfield activities from financial circles in Chicago. It
was stated that "detectives have substantiated allegations of a
conspiracy to commit ten murders, a conspiracy formed and fostered
within the hierarchy of the I. W. W...." And that "leaders of the I.
W. W.... have been using this labor trouble as a lever for stockmarket
jobbery...."[365] This last charge was reiterated in another issue of
the same paper, in which it was suggested that "certain stock brokers
were working hand in glove with the leaders and agitators at the head
of the I. W. W. to break the market...."[366]
A member of the I. W. W. now living in Goldfield, and who took part in
the industrial struggles of 1906 and 1907, sends the following brief
comment:
In September, 1906, at the behest of the mine owners, 220 of
the W. F. M. took a vote to take the town workers, No. 77
of the I. W. W., into their fold. It was carried with the
assistance of the church, and 220 and 77 were amalgamated. The
first cry on the streets before they even held a meeting was
that the cooks and waiters were running the miners' meeting;
then followed the dissensions mapped out by the mine owners,
the Citizens' Alliance, the stool-pigeons, spies and gum-shoes,
till the following September the convention expelled the W.
F. M. for non-payment of per-capita tax and the W. F. M. sent
organizers of the Sherman faction, but the dual unions did not
last long, and in fact 220 itself was shaking, till finally it
went down and the only cry you hear from those whom the powers
that be cannot control is the one big union, and it is only a
matter of a short time till the workers get aroused, and then
there will be something doing.[367]
The I. W. W. and the W. F. M. did win important concessions from the
Mine Operators in Goldfield and that, according to officials of the
I. W. W., was the reason why they were so roundly abused. "The chief
crime of the I. W. W. in Goldfield," said St. John, "was that they had
secured the eight-hour day with wages from $3.00 to $5.00 and board for
all restaurant and hotel employees; a ten-hour day with $5.00 wages for
clerks, and an eight-hour day with $6.00 per day for bartenders."[368]
Most I. W. W. leaders point to the Goldfield situation in those early
days as a conspicuous illustration not only of improvements gained in
wage and hours, but also of the possibilities of job control by the
workers. An I. W. W. who was an active participant in the Goldfield
achievements of the I. W. W. and is now a district organizer on the
Pacific Coast, writes:
At that time we had job control in many mining camps. At
Goldfield, I. W. W. miners received $5.00 for eight hours;
bakers, $8.00 per eight hours and board; dishwashers, $3.00 per
eight hours and board. After three years of I. W. W. prosperity
the Nevada employers, with the aid of the A. F. of L. scabs and
organizers, conservative Irish-Catholic I. W. W. members(!),
detectives, spies, state police and Federal troops, broke up
the I. W. W.[369]
St. John also looks back to the Goldfield period as a kind of an I. W.
W. Golden Age. In his historical sketch of the I. W. W., he writes:
Under the I. W. W. sway in Goldfield the minimum wage for
all kinds of labor was $4.50 per day and the eight-hour
day was universal. The highest point of efficiency for any
labor organization was reached by the I. W. W. and W. F. M.
in Goldfield, Nevada. No committees were ever sent to any
employers. The unions adopted wage scales and regulated hours.
The secretary posted the same on a bulletin board outside of
the union hall, and it was the LAW. The employers were forced
to come and see the union committees.[370]
The I. W. W. member quoted above does not agree with St. John as to
the cause of the downfall of the I. W. W. in Goldfield. The latter
attributes it to the occurrence of a strike during the financial panic
of 1907.[371]
Oddly enough, these anti-political, direct actionist I. W. W.s figured
rather prominently in Nevada state politics at this time. Among the
candidates on the Socialist party ticket in 1906 were the following:
For Governor, Thos. B. Casey, miner, W. F. M.
For State Treasurer, J. W. Smith, waiter, I. W. W.
For Register, General Land Office. T. Chambers, laundry worker,
I. W. W.
For Regent, State University, Frank Myrtle, shoemaker,
I. W. W.[372]
Despite the success which mass organization met with in Goldfield,
the I. W. W. was not at that time at all partial to the idea of mass
organization. F. W. Heslewood declared that he was opposed to taking
into one local union every worker around a town, believing as he did
that the Goldfield practice was contrary to "the very fundamental
principles of industrial unionism...."[373] Another member said:
I claim that we have left the field of mass organization
and have got down to the field of industrial integral
organization. I claim that industrial organization as it shall
be exemplified by the Industrial Workers of the World is of
an organic nature.... We recognize that mass organization is
a thing that is to be abjured when we come into an industrial
organization.... The difference between a mass organization and
an industrial organization is that the mass organization is
destructive ... [whereas the integral] industrial organization
is constructive. It proposes to recognize the laws to the
minutest details that environ, govern and control the working
class.[374]
The reality of the sentiment in favor of some modification of the
original structural form of the I. W. W. in the direction of a
more simple or mass form of organization is evidenced by the long
discussion on the floor of the convention of a proposal to abolish the
departments. Since 1908 the I. W. W. has had a precarious foothold in
Goldfield. The combined effects of the exhausting struggles which
have been described and the financial panic of 1907 were overwhelming
for an organization which at the best had little in the way of reserve
resources. "The strike of the W. F. M. in October, 1907," says St.
John, "took place during a panic and destroyed the organization's [_i.
e._, the I. W. W.'s] control in that district."[375]
There is at this time (1916) a struggling local in Goldfield--Metal
Mine Workers' Union No. 353, organized in August, 1914. The author
recently wrote to the secretary of this local, making inquiries in
regard to the present labor situation in Goldfield and the condition
of the local union. He replied: "The economic conditions of this camp
forbid the answer of the question you ask.... I trust ... it will not
be long before 353 can meet openly and above board."[376]
The organization continued to over-indulge in strikes. It was more or
less involved in the strike of the Electrical Workers of Schenectady
in December, 1906. In 1907 it was involved in the following strikes
among others: textile workers, Skowhegan, Maine, February to April;
silk workers of Paterson. N. J., March; silk workers of Lancaster, Pa.,
fall of 1907; piano workers of Paterson, N. J., April; the loggers in
Eureka, Cal., May, 1907; the saw-mill workers of Portland, Ore.; the
sheet steel workers in Youngstown; the tube-mill workers in Bridgeport,
Conn.; the miners in Tonopah, Nevada; the foundry workers in Detroit;
and the smeltermen in Tacoma, Wash., in the summer of 1907. Goldfield,
of course, was the scene of an almost continuous epidemic of strikes
during the years 1906 and 1907.
In his report to the third convention the General Secretary-Treasurer
says that
Not counting the strike and lockout in Goldfield, ... we had
24 strikes in which approximately 15,500 members participated.
Most of these strikes lasted two to six weeks, one nine weeks,
two lasted ten weeks and longer, and the strike of the Tacoma
smeltermen lasted over six months.... Out of all these strikes
... two [those at Tonopah and Detroit] must be considered flat
failures.... All other strikes ended either in compromise
or in the complete attainment of what the strikes had been
inaugurated for.[377]
The strikers at Schenectady made use of syndicalistic tactics which
have been strongly advocated in the I. W. W. literature. "At two
o'clock Monday," [December 10] it was reported, "about 3,000 men
struck. They did not walk out, but remained at their places, simply
stopping production."[378] Reports of this strike from I. W. W. sources
give the impression that the American Federation of Labor bodies in
Schenectady did much to block the efforts of the I. W. W. It was said
that on December 12 the local Trades Assembly of the A. F. of L. sent
a statement to the press repudiating the I. W. W. and declaring that
the A. F. of L. was not concerned in the strike and that "as to any
individual organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor going out on a sympathetic strike, such action would result
in the forfeiture of its charter."[379] In both the Bridgeport and
Youngstown strikes, according to St. John, failure resulted from the
alleged obstructive tactics of the American Federation. In both cases
the loss of the strike is attributed to "the scabbing tactics of the
A. F. of L."[380] The strike of the Portland (Ore.) saw-mill workers
in March and April is worthy of more than passing notice. On the first
of March 3,000 men walked out on strike, for a nine-hour day and an
increase in wages from $1.75 to $2.50 per day. It is not probable that
any great proportion of these men were members of the I. W. W. at the
time they went on strike. However, I. W. W. leaders soon came upon the
scene and most of the strikers very soon joined the organization.[381]
The strike lasted forty days.
On account of the exceptional demand for labor ... most of the
strikers secured employment elsewhere and the strike played out
at the end of about six weeks. [Nevertheless, the employers]
were forced indirectly to raise the wages and improve
conditions [and] ... this strike gave much impetus to I. W. W.
agitation in the western part of the United States.[382]
During this strike the I. W. W. opened an employment office and a
restaurant for the benefit of the strikers.[383] The I. W. W. reports
of the duration of the strike and the number of men out may be
exaggerated. John Kenneth Turner, in his "Story of a New Labor Union,"
says "that more than 2,000 were out for over three weeks."[384] The
Portland saw-mill strike really marked the _début_ of the I. W. W.
before the public of the Pacific Northwest, and it was something of a
surprise to the community. The I. W. W. was promptly written up as a
feature story for the _Oregon Sunday Journal_ by John Kenneth Turner.
The opening paragraphs of his article read:
Portland has just passed through her first strike conducted by
the Industrial Workers of the World, a new and strange form
of unionism, which is taking root in every section of the
United States, especially in the West. The suddenness of the
strike and the completeness of the tie-up are things quite
unprecedented in this part of the country. These conditions did
not merely happen--they came as direct results of the peculiar
form and philosophy of the movement that brought the strike
into being. "If the street-car men had been organized under our
motto, together with all other A. F. of L. men, the street-car
strike would have lasted ten minutes," says Organizer Fred
Heslewood. The boast is not an extravagant one. Wherever the
Industrial Workers of the World are organized they can paralyze
industry at almost the snap of a finger. It is the way they
work.
"Well, you've tied us up. I didn't think you could do it, but
you did. You're clever; I'll give you credit for that. I didn't
think any union could close this mill," one of the mill owners
is reported as having said to Organizer Yarrow. "You yourself
have taught us all we know," replied Yarrow. "We organize on
the same plan as you do and we've got you."
One peculiar feature about the great mill strike was that ...
there was absolutely no violence, no law-breaking and no crying
of "scab." Just one man was arrested for trespassing, and he
imagined that he was standing in a public street. Other strange
features were the red ribbons, the daily speech-making and the
labor night and day shifts of organizers who received not a red
cent for their services.[385]
In September, 1907, there were undoubtedly not less than 200 locals
in the I. W. W.[386] Between September, 1906, and September, 1907,
one hundred and eighteen charters were issued to local unions,[387]
making the total number of locals chartered since the launching of
the organization not less than nine hundred and twenty-eight. It is
evident that in this period also the "turnover" of I. W. W. locals
was very heavy. There is apparently one report showing the number of
locals disbanded during this period. The average membership for 1907
was considerably lower than it was for 1906 and was probably about
six thousand.[388] The financial condition of the I. W. W. at this
time was indicated by the report of the Secretary-Treasurer to the
third convention. For the period from October, 1906, to August, 1907,
receipts were given as $30,550.75 and disbursements as $31,578.76.[389]
Considerable progress had been made in organizing the coal miners.
Secretary Trautmann reported to the third convention that "fourteen
unions of coal miners were organized in Illinois, four big
organizations in Pennsylvania, three in Texas, two in Kansas, one in
Colorado--a total of twenty-four unions with an approximate membership
of 2,000 ...," and he went on to the optimistic conclusion that "the
wedge has been driven into the unholy alliance between operators and
the United Mine Workers."[390] Later on, when the convention was
discussing the United Mine Workers and the conditions in the Illinois
coal mines, Trautmann commented on the remarks made by a delegate of a
United Mine Workers' local (No. 1475) which had apparently swung to the
I. W. W. He (Trautmann) said:
He represents by a vote of the United Mine Workers an element
that is today in rebellion against the United Mine Workers of
America, that element being not only that one local which is
in rebellion, but three or four or five, and very likely [it]
... will be followed by at least one-third of the locals in the
state of Illinois.[391]
A few of the problems of policy and internal organization which were
discussed at the third convention deserve consideration. Not least
important of these was the problem of the Japanese in California. From
the very first the I. W. W. had taken a definite stand against any and
all discriminations based upon race, color or nationality. Among the
first words uttered by Wm. D. Haywood in calling the first I. W. W.
convention to order were words of criticism of the American Federation
of Labor for its discriminations against Negroes and foreigners. From
that day to this the organization has been unique in the constancy
and strength of its appeal to and attraction for foreigners. This
particular phase of the I. W. W.'s activities has been given endless
publicity in connection with the Lawrence and Paterson strikes. At
the third convention, George Speed, a delegate from California, quite
accurately expressed the sentiment of the organization in regard to the
Japanese question. "The whole fight against the Japanese," he said, "is
the fight of the middle class of California, in which they employ the
labor faker to back it up."[392] He added, however, that he considered
it "practically useless ... under present conditions for the Industrial
Workers of the World to take any steps" to organize the Japanese.
This primarily because he felt that the organization had more work on
hand than it could well attend to.[393] _The North American Times_, a
daily paper published in the Japanese language in Seattle, printed in
the spring of 1906 an editorial on the I. W. W., which ran in part as
follows:
To promote the rights and happiness of the workers they have
the intention to make ... a grand success so that the I. W. W.
will finally become the most powerful labor organization in the
world. In the American history of labor there has never been
such a union that may contain the laborers of every nationality
in its membership.[394]
A reaction from an excessive indulgence in strikes, or at least a sign
of the consciousness of this excess, is evident from two resolutions
adopted by the third convention:
Resolved, that the convention instruct all our organizers to
discourage strikes and strike talk, and to impress upon those
whom they are organizing the necessity of realizing that the
conquest by the workers of the power to retain and enjoy the
full product of their labor should take precedence in their
minds of all smaller ameliorations of our conditions.[395]
Resolved, that during this, the constructive period of the I.
W. W., no portion thereof shall enter into any strike, unless
conducted in an industrial plant which is thoroughly organized
in the I. W. W....[396]
In regard to the general organizing activity of the I. W. W., it was
proposed in one of the resolutions adopted, that the organization
confine its work for the time being to the smaller cities where the
A. F. of L. was comparatively weak, and in connection with this that
efforts in organization be concentrated for the present on certain
selected industries.[397] Fred Heslewood, member of the General
Executive Board, in his report to the convention, said:
I believe it is an entire waste of money at the present time
to keep said organizers in cities where the A. F. of L. has
the workers divided and organized into crafts. We are not
financially able to tear down this barrier of fakerism at
present. I do not mean that we should not fight it. I mean that
we should pay special attention to the lumber industry before
they [_sic_] are rent into fragments by the American Federation
of Labor.[398]
It was urged that special attention be directed to the mining and
lumber industries and that for the general organizing propaganda
one-half of the income of the general administration be devoted to
the payment of organizers and the printing of literature.[399] The
editor of the official organ of the I. W. W. declared that the third
convention was
free from the sentimentalism and bourgeois reaction which
characterized the gathering of 1905, and the pure-and-simple,
destructive tactics of the [1906] assembly; ... [that] it
marked a distinct advance in an understanding of the philosophy
and structure of the movement and was a gathering typically
working-class and loyal ... to the workers....
and that for these reasons there could be no possible doubt of the
stability of the organization.[400]
A few weeks after the third convention had adjourned the panic of 1907
struck the country. The I. W. W. was nearly wiped out of existence.
Its only organ, _The Industrial Union Bulletin_, was obliged first
to appear fortnightly instead of weekly and finally to suspend
publication. "Its locals dissolved by the dozens and the general
headquarters at Chicago was only maintained by terrific sacrifice and
determination...."[401] The report of the General Secretary to the
fourth convention explained that when the third convention closed,
General Headquarters expected to collect the moneys due from the local
unions, but before collections could be arranged "the industrial panic
struck the country with all its force, and the misery following in the
wake of that collapse was mostly felt in places where the Industrial
Workers of the World had established a stronghold." The Secretary
went on to say that the revenue for December, 1907, was not more
than half what it had been the year before.[402] To aggravate the
situation still more were rumors of internal friction between a group
of Socialist Labor party followers of Daniel DeLeon and the rest of the
organization. Indeed, very soon after the convention, charges were made
that the _Weekly People_, the official organ of the Socialist Labor
party, was being used against the I. W. W.[403]
This was the beginning of the most serious internal fight in the
career of the I. W. W. It was to turn on that same vexed question
that seems eternally to plague those who want to construct labor
organizations along radical lines--namely, the relationship that
should exist between the union and the political parties, especially
the Progressive, Labor and Socialist parties. The second clause of the
Preamble (spoken of among the "Wobblies" as "the political clause")
held the seeds of discord in its apparently harmless assertion that
the class struggle "must go an until all the toilers come together _on
the political_ as well as on the industrial field." Here we have the
phrase which, at the 1908 convention, was to make the revolutionary
syndicalists see red and which was finally to result in a bifurcated I.
W. W.
FOOTNOTES:
[342] _Cf. supra_, p. 123.
[343] Article I, Section 1, _W. F. M. Constitution_ (1910). In 1916 the
Federation changed its name to "The International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers."
[344] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, March 30, 1907, p. 2, col. 1.
[345] _Ibid._
[346] Report of Acting President Charles Mahoney to the Fifteenth
Convention W. F. M., _Proceedings_, p. 33.
[347] _Ibid._, pp. 33-35. This was in the autumn of 1906.
[348] Report of Acting President Mahoney to Fifteenth W. F. M.
Convention, _Proceedings_, p. 33.
[349] "Review of the facts in the situation at Goldfield," _Industrial
Union Bulletin_, April 6, 1907, p. 1, col. 3.
[350] Report of Acting President Mahoney to Fifteenth Convention W. F.
M., _Proceedings_, p. 34.
[351] _Ibid._
[352] _Ibid._, p. 35.
[353] See Tridon, _The New Unionism_, pp. 105-6. Tridon states (p.
105) that in April a compromise was reached owing to the weakness of
the W. F. M. officials. However, it settled nothing, for the struggle
continued intermittently through the summer and fall.
[354] St. John, _I. W. W., History_ (1917 ed.), p. 18.
[355] "What happened at Goldfield," _The Industrial Worker_, Aug. 27,
1910, p. 3, col. 1.
[356] _Ibid._ Italics in the original.
[357] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 20, 1907, Special
Correspondence.
[358] _Labor troubles at Goldfield, Nevada_, 60th Congress, 1st
Session, House Document No. 607, pp. 3-5.
[359] _Ibid._, p. 4.
[360] Consisting of Lawrence O. Murray, Herbert Knox Smith and Charles
P. Neill. Their report as well as other data bearing on the matter are
printed in House Document No. 607, 60th Congress, 1st Session. "Papers
relative to labor troubles at Goldfield, Nevada." Their report is
reprinted in the _Congressional Record_, Feb. 3, 1908. pp. 1484-1487,
vol. xlii, no. 35.
[361] The reference is to the killing of Tony Silva by M. R. Preston
(a member of the Socialist Labor party and its candidate for President
of the United States) who was on picket duty for the I. W. W. and
the W. F. M. The I. W. W. has always insisted that Preston shot
in self-defense and the weight of evidence seems to justify that
contention. See "Preston's Crime," _The Weekly People_, July 18, 1908,
p. 3, col. 1. (Author's note.)
[362] 60th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 607, _Labor
troubles at Goldfield, Nevada_, pp. 20-21.
[363] _Ibid._, p. 21.
[364] Editorial, _Miners' Magazine_, Aug. 1, 1912, p. 7, col. 1.
[365] Special correspondence, _Journal of Finance_, Chicago, reprinted
in the _Weekly People_, June 1, 1907, p. 2, col. 5.
[366] Special correspondence, _Journal of Finance_, reprinted in the
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, May 18, 1907.
[367] Letter to the author, dated October 21, 1912.
[368] "The Goldfield Situation," _Weekly People_, April 6, 1907, p.
1. He tells here the complete story of the Goldfield labor troubles
of 1906-07. It was also claimed that the I. W. W. forced the wages of
railroad laborers in this region from $1.75 for ten hours to $4.50 for
eight hours. _Industrial Worker_, Jan. 29, 1910. p. 1, col. 5.
[369] Letter to the author dated April 22, 1916. For the Goldfield
situation in general, _vide_, "Papers relative to labor troubles at
Goldfield, Nev." 60th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 607, and St.
John, "Review of the facts in the situation at Goldfield," _Industrial
Union Bulletin_, April 6, 1907, p. 1.
[370] St. John, _op. cit._, p. 18. So capitalized in the original.
[371] See _infra_, p. 203.
[372] _Miners' Magazine_, vol. viii, no. 161, July 26, 1906, p. 13.
[373] Fifteenth Convention W. F. M., _Proceedings_, pp. 832-3.
[374] Delegate E. J. Foote, _Proceedings_, 3rd Convention, Official
Report, no. 3. p. 2, col. 1.
[375] St. John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_, p. 18.
[376] Letter dated April 19, 1916.
[377] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, September 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 4.
[378] _The Weekly People_, Dec. 22, 1906, p. 1. This paper is to be
considered as virtually an I. W. W. organ between July, 1905 and
September, 1908. After the latter date, of course, it backed the
Detroit I. W. W.
[379] _Weekly People_, Dec. 22, 1906, p. 2, col. 5. In the same column
is a dispatch containing this statement: "... the general foreman
of the turbine department was called upon to fill the places of the
strikers; he said he would sooner resign than fill the places with
other than I. W. W. men. We may witness in the near future that foremen
will join the I. W. W., and then--good-bye, capitalism!"
[380] St. John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_, p. 18.
[381] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 27, 1907, p. 2, col. 4-5.
[382] St. John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_, pp.
17-18. A similar estimate is given in the _Industrial Union Bulletin_
of April 27, 1907, p. 2.
[383] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, _loc cit._
[384] _Industrial Union Leaflet No. 16_, p. 1.
[385] "Story of a new labor union," reprinted from the _Oregon Sunday
Journal as Industrial Union Leaflet No. 16_, p. 1. This article was
also reprinted in the _Industrial Union Bulletin_ of April 27, 1907.
[386] This number was reported to the Third Convention by Secretary
Trautmann, _Official Report No. 1_, p. 2, but in the "Report of the I.
W. W. to the Stuttgart Congress" (1907) we read: "... the organization
has now 362 industrial unions and branches organized in thirty-seven
states and three provinces of Canada." _Industrial Union Bulletin_,
Aug. 10, 1907, p. 3, col. 3.
[387] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Sept. 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 1.
[388] Secretary-Treasurer St. John put it at 5,931, (Letter dated
Feb. 1, 1915); Prof. Barnett makes it 6,700, (_Quarterly Journal of
Economics_, vol. xxx, p. 846.) Apparently the administration included
the Western Federation of Miners when they reported to the Stuttgart
Congress, 28,000 members. (_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Aug. 10, 1907,
p. 4.)
[389] Third Convention Proceedings, _Official Report No. 8_, p. 2, col.
4.
[390] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Sept. 14, 1907, p. 8, col. 3, 4.
[391] Proceedings, Third I. W. W. Convention, _Official Report No. 1_,
p. 4.
[392] Proceedings of the Third Convention, _Official Report No. 7_, p.
1, col. 2.
[393] _Ibid._
[394] Reprinted in English in the _Weekly People_, June 2, 1906, p. 1.
[395] Proceedings of Third Convention, _Official Report No. 7_, p. 2.
col. 3.
[396] _Ibid._ _Official Report No. 4_, p. 5, col. 1.
[397] Proceedings, Third Convention, _Official Report No. 5_, pp. 4-5.
[398] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Sept. 28, 1907, p. 2, col. 5.
[399] A few weeks later the editor of the _Industrial Union News_
wrote (in the issue of Nov. 9, 1907, p. 2, col. 1) that the I. W. W.
"accomplished the organization of a body of metalliferous miners,
nearly 3,000 strong, in the far-off territory of Alaska since the third
annual convention which adjourned September 24."
[400] "Reflections on the Third Annual Convention," _Industrial Union
Bulletin_, Oct. 5, 1907, p. 2.
[401] "The I. W. W., its Strength and Opportunity," by "The
Commentator," _Solidarity_, Feb. 25, 1911.
[402] _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24. 1908.
[403] Rudolph Katz, "With DeLeon Since '89," _Weekly People_, Dec. 4,
1915, p. 2, col. 4.
CHAPTER IX
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_.
CHAPTER X
THE I. W. W. ON THE "CIVILIZED PLANE"
(1908-1915)
The Detroit faction of the I. W. W. which in 1915 changed its name to
the Workers' International Industrial Union, never attained a strength
at all comparable to that of the direct-actionist group. In Appendix
IV are given what membership figures are available for both locals and
individual members. For the total membership, the figures in columns
3 and 4 (Table A) are probably the most accurate. They show that the
Detroiters had in 1910, two years after the schism of 1908, about 3,500
members. The following year their membership was about the same, but
in 1912 it very nearly reached 11,000. That was the year of maximum
membership, as it was also, except possibly for the year 1916, for the
Chicago faction. In every year the figures show a very much smaller
membership for the Detroit than for the Chicago faction. The difference
in favor of the direct-actionists is still more marked in regard to the
number of local unions. The Secretary-Treasurer of the Detroit faction
says that only one new local was organized in 1909--the year following
the split.[474] The following table shows the growth of local union
membership:[475]
DETROIT I. W. W.--MEMBERSHIP FIGURES
-------+-------------------------------+---------+------------
| New locals formed. | |
| | Defunct | Total No.
Year. |--------+-------------+--------| locals. | of locals.
| Mixed. | Industrial. | Total. | |
-------+--------+-------------+--------+---------+------------
1908-9 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 23
1910 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 16 | 14
1911 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 26
1912 | 7 | 25 | 32 | 24 | 34
1913 | 6 | 16 | 22 | 17 | 39
1914 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 4 | 49
1915 | 1 | 1 | 2 | .. | 51[476]
-------+--------+-------------+--------+---------+------------
The reports of membership from the Detroit office are probably
generous, to say the least. The Secretary wrote on October 23, 1911:
"Our membership at present is about 10,000. Locals ... in nearly all
states as well as Canada. Organizations identical with ours ... in
principle and method are active in England, Australia and Africa."[477]
On March 30, 1912, he wrote that the membership had "passed the 20,000
mark." When the Detroiters held their national convention in 1913--it
was called by them the Sixth I. W. W. Convention--there were 17 locals
represented by delegates and the Secretary reported a membership of
11,584. Twenty-two new locals had been organized, he said, during the
year ending September, 1913.[478] "The principal reverse," says the
correspondent of the _Weekly People_, "was the lapsing of 14 locals,
an unfortunate occurrence caused solely by the financial inability of
headquarters to send out organizers...." The local unions represented
at the convention included the silk workers of Paterson, N. J.; car
and foundry, carpenters', and a "mixed" union in Detroit; a metal
and machinery, and a "mixed" local in Chicago; metal workers of Erie,
Pa.; hotel and restaurant, "public service" and lumber workers in
Seattle; mattress makers in Columbus, Ohio; and "mixed" locals in
Lynn, Mass., San Francisco, Portland, Ore., Los Angeles, and New York
City. The convention voted down a resolution to change the name of the
organization and alter the "political clause" of the Preamble--the
vital part of it which kept the I. W. W. high and dry on the civilized
plane.[479] The Secretary reports that while the membership of the
Detroit faction includes workers from nearly all industries the chief
industries represented are the following: textile, garment making,
metal and machinery, tobacco, food stuffs, furniture, transportation,
automobile, building, lumber, printing, shoe making, and public
service.[480]
The DeLeonites probably held a convention in 1914, but the writer
has not come across any report of it. In September, 1915, they held
an "Eighth I. W. W. Convention" in Detroit. A brief report of the
proceedings in their official organ indicates that, in addition to
three officers, there were present seven accredited delegates from the
following cities: Hartford, Conn., St. Louis, Columbus, Detroit and
Cristobal, Panama.[481]
Not only were DeLeonite locals fewer in number than the
direct-actionist locals, but their average length of life was
undoubtedly shorter. The General Secretary-Treasurer says that the
more important reasons for the disbanding of locals were opposition
by employers after strikes, the removal of members to other cities
in search of work, and the lack of men and women for the work of
organizing.[482] In reply to a letter addressed to the secretary of a
certain local in New York, the writer was informed that "there is now
no such local union."
We had an organization [the former secretary says] under the
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, which was begun in 1897 and
which, though greatly reduced, was continued until the I. W. W.
was organized in 1905. [Then] ... it grew to about 250 members,
but after the split in 1908 it began to decline, and though we
tried several times to reorganize, we failed and it has gone
out of existence.[483]
Another typical case is that of a cigarmakers' local in Baltimore,
which, according to its former secretary, started in November, 1913,
with 22 members and "increased the wages of all the cigarmakers in
the city from 50 cents to $1.00 per thousand." In January, 1914, the
local had 350 members. Then came evil days. "The strike forced on us by
the Royal Havana ... demoralized the membership [and] the S[ocialist]
P[arty] members added to the confusion by creating dissensions. In
the year 1915 the organization was non-existent," and remains so,
probably.[484]
The Detroit faction being much less exclusively reliant on the more
strictly economic methods of carrying on the labor struggle, was
naturally much less addicted to strikes. Nevertheless they did conduct
a number of them. In May, 1910, the laborers of the Michigan Malleable
Iron Company of Detroit, after being on strike two weeks, were given
an increase in wages. In April, 1911, the DeLeonites conducted a
strike of structural-iron painters in New York, in which 200 men
were involved. The following month they called out 40 machinists
in Canton, Ohio. Their most important strike efforts were made in
1911 and 1912 in the silk mills of Paterson and Passaic, N. J., and
Easton, Pa. In these strikes the two I. W. W.s very often clashed.
Rudolph Katz, of the Detroiters, reports that during the silk strike
of 1911-12 "the silk workers of Paterson ... joined the Detroit I. W.
W. _en masse_" but that "in the midst of the strike Wm. D. Haywood
was brought to Paterson and Passaic ... and the apple of discord was
thrown among the strikers."[485] The Socialist Labor party reported
the Paterson-Passaic situation to the Socialist Congress at Vienna
in 1914: "In the big textile strike in Passaic, N. J.," their report
says, "this organization [_i. e._, the S. L. P. or Detroit I. W. W.]
was fought by both the Socialist party and the Chicago I. W. W.-ites,
with Haywood leading this opposition and the capitalist press ably
supporting their flank.... That strike of 4,000 men, women and children
was lost through such treachery." The report adds that a few months
earlier in 1912 "the Detroit I. W. W. won a great strike of 6,000
silk weavers."[486] On December 20, 1913, one of the Paterson members
of the DeLeonite faction sent the following dispatch to the _Weekly
People_: "Local 152, Bummery Bunch, did their best to pack last night's
meeting [of the Paterson silk workers] but only partly succeeded. Many
legitimate delegates raised their voices against anarchy expressed
through sabotage and direct action...."[487] Contrary to the foregoing
evidence, the testimony of Adolph Lessig before the United States
Commission on Industrial Relations seems to indicate that there were
no serious differences between the two I. W. W.s during the Paterson
strike. Lessig says that there was no attempt to either quarrel or get
together.[488]
In 1913 the Detroiters were also concerned in several smaller strikes.
They report a successful strike of textile workers at Mystic, Conn.,
in January; a successful strike involving 50 Philadelphia mechanics in
August, and one involving 16 cigarmakers in Baltimore, who won the wage
increase demanded. In 1914 and 1915 a few San Francisco ladies' tailors
were on strike against the piecework system and alleged bad treatment.
They were both reported as successful.
The two I. W. W.s continued to hate each other quite as much as they
hated the capitalists, reformers, progressives, and Socialists. St.
John has a paragraph in his historical sketch of the (Chicago) I.
W. W. which may very well stand as the official expression of the
direct-actionists' opinion of the doctrinaires. He says:
The politicians [_i. e._, the Socialist Laborites] attempted to
set up another organization claiming to be the real industrial
movement. It is nothing but a duplicate of their political
party and does not function at all. It is committed to a
program of the "civilized plane," _i. e._, parliamentarism.
Its publications are the official organs of a political sect
that never misses an opportunity to assail the revolutionary
workers while they are engaged in combat with some division
of the ruling class. Their favorite method is to charge the
revolutionists with all the crimes that a cowardly imagination
can conjure into being. "Dynamiters, assassins, thugs,
murderers, thieves," etc., are stock phrases. Their only virtue
is that they put their assertions into print, while the other
wing of the politicians [the Socialist party men] spread their
venom in secret.[489]
In May, 1914, St. John testified as the official representative
of the I. W. W. before the United States Commission on Industrial
Relations. The Detroit I. W. W.s, he said, "have no information--do
not give out any information; have no organization except on paper,
and are committed to the program of capturing plates at the political
pie-counter ... and trading ... on the name of the I. W. W. That is the
way they keep alive."[490] At the Seattle hearings of the Commission in
August, 1914, James P. Thompson, at one time the General Organizer of
the Chicago I. W. W., expressed himself on the subject of the other I.
W. W. He said that the Detroiters were "quite different from the I. W.
W."
They stole our name [he went on]. They have a political idea
instead of the union idea.... After the 1908 convention, when
the politicians of the Socialist Labor Party found themselves
outside of the I. W. W., they held a conference in Paterson, N.
J., and they decided they would [have] an organization of their
own, with a political clause; and when they came to decide on a
name there was much debate. [The name "Socialist Labor Union"
was proposed.] ... But another motion prevailed, and they stole
the name of the I. W. W., and called themselves the Industrial
Workers of the World, although they don't amount to much.[491]
What the doctrinaires thought of the direct-actionists--or at least
what their leaders wanted workingmen in general to think of them--is
of equal importance. In a leaflet published by the Detroit faction we
are told that "the anarchist element that still calls itself the I. W.
W. proceeded from the close of the 1908 convention to reveal its true
nature by its actions. The western official organ of this element '_The
Industrial Worker_,' of Spokane, Wash., began to advocate theft, petty
larceny, chicken-stealing, breaking up small employment agencies, and
also advised the workers to 'strike at the ballot-box with an ax.'"[492]
When the doctrinaires held their 1915 convention (the "Eighth I. W. W.
Convention") General Secretary Richter, in his report, took pains to
pay his compliments to the direct-actionists.
The anarcho-syndicalist aggregation [he said], the so-called
"Chicago I. W. W." which in 1908 with great blare of trumpets
was going to show the workers how to get out of capitalism,
_via_ "sabotage" and "direct action" in double-quick time--what
is left of them has a precarious existence, trimmed to a
frazzle by the relentless forces of social progress, their
panaceas shrivelled, they make indeed a sorry-looking
crowd.[493]
A few months before this, Richter remarked: "Many of the followers of
the Saint [St. John] and 'Big Bill' [Haywood] are a sadder but wiser
lot. Hundreds have already joined the Socialist [meaning the Detroit]
I. W. W., and more are on the way."[494]
The Chicago I. W. W. was bracketed with the American Federation of
Labor as being equally with it a snare and a delusion to the working
class.
We find the Bummery [the Chicago I. W. W.] denying the
ballot-box; we find the American Federation of Labor denying
the class struggle and proclaiming the identity of interest
between master and slave; we find the Socialist party of
America ... seeking the support of the craft union; ... we
find the Socialist Labor party which says the workers must own
collectively the land and the tools; ... we find the I. W. W.
of Detroit which says the workers must come together on the
political and industrial fields....[495]
A sober explanation of the DeLeonites' position as compared with the
American Federation of Labor and the "Bummery" was made by Rudolph Katz
to the Commission on Industrial Relation. He said that the Chicago I.
W.W.s look upon the ballot as a gift from the capitalist class. The
Detroit I. W. W.s consider the ballot "a conquest of civilization,
and," continued Katz,
we are going to use it. Now a body that repudiates the ballot
naturally has to take something else, such as sabotage and
direct action. Now the American Federation of Labor does not
preach sabotage, but it practices it; and the Chicago I. W. W.
preaches sabotage but does not practice it.... The position
that we take [he concluded] is that if we have the majority,
and the capitalists [and] officials who count the ballots ...
refuse to count us in, well,--then there will be a scrap. But
we are going to test the peaceful method first.[496]
The DeLeonites cite the recent strike of the clothing workers in
Baltimore in support of their strictures on the Federation and the
Chicago I. W. W. They call it "a desperate attempt" by the "Bummery" I.
W. W. and the American Federation of Labor to crush out the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers. The strike was directed, they say, by leaders of
the United Garment Workers, the American Federation of Labor, and the
Chicago I. W. W.[497]
The struggle that is raging in Baltimore between the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers, on the one side, and the American
Federation of Labor and the Bummery I. W. W. on the other
side, is a struggle of clean _versus_ corrupt unionism.... In
this Baltimore affair we have revealed the kinship between the
Bummery I. W. W. and the American Federation of Labor. These
are both nothing more than parasites upon workingmen....[498]
The Detroiters and the Socialist Labor party fight the
anarcho-syndicalist faction of the I. W. W., according to the report of
the party to the International Socialist Congress at Brussels in 1911,
because the direct-actionists "advocate physical force exclusively; at
the same time it [the Socialist Labor party] gives all possible support
to the workers who, even under the otherwise baneful leadership of
anarchy, are trying to throw off the yoke of the capitalist masters and
the reactionary trade-union lieutenants of those masters."[499]
The doctrinaires consider the Chicago I. W. W.s anarchists and
themselves socialists--but socialists of a simon-pure Marxian stripe
as opposed to the opportunist socialism of the Socialist party. In
one of their propaganda leaflets they declare that "the only labor
organization in the United States today which is wholly dominated by
anarchists is the so-called Industrial Workers of the World, with
headquarters, in Chicago, Ill."[500] A propaganda leaflet already
quoted sums up in very characteristic fashion the theoretical position
of the DeLeonites:
This, then, is the inspiring task of the I. W. W., and its
purpose and reason of being: To decry the ballot, which is
a civilized method of settling social issues; to advocate
physical force only; to preach petty larceny, rioting,
smashing machines, and all these things that come under
the term "direct action," is unnecessary, and also invites
disaster to the workers and helps the forces of reaction. Such
measures are suicidal and condemned by civilization. For these
reasons the _bona fide_ I. W. W. sets its face like flint
against any organization that teaches such tragedy-producing
tactics. The working class cannot "sabotage," cannot dynamite
itself into possession of the plants of production. Its only
requisite and available _might_ is its sound, class-conscious,
properly-constructed Industrial Union. With such it is
irresistible. By such agency, and by it alone, can it take
permanent possession of the tools of production, and only in
that way can civilization be saved from a catastrophe. As has
been well said, "Right without Might is a fool's pastime; Might
without Right is the sport of the savage."[501]
Eugene Debs, who was one of the leading spirits in the organization
of the I. W. W. in 1905, and who thought that the elimination of
the political clause by the Chicago faction in 1908 was a monstrous
blunder, endorsed the position of the DeLeonites on political action.
"This faction," said Debs, "is corner-stoned in the true principles of
unionism in reference to political action."[502] He thought that there
was "no essential difference between the Chicago and Detroit factions
of the I. W. W." "If I am right in believing that a majority of the
rank and file of the Chicago faction favor political action," he said,
"then there is no reason why this majority should not consolidate
with the Detroit faction, and thus put an end to the division of
these forces."[503] Debs was of the opinion that, if the I. W. W. had
continued as it began, "a revolutionary industrial union, recognizing
the need of political as well as industrial action, instead of being
hamstrung by its own leaders and converted ... into an anti-political
machine, it would today be the most formidable labor organization in
America, if not the world."
The end of the bifurcated era of I. W. W. history came in September,
1915, when the DeLeonites at their national convention (called the
"Eighth I. W. W. Convention") changed their name to the Workers'
International Industrial Union, and the _Weekly People_[504] announced:
"The Industrial Workers of the World as founded at Chicago in 1905
is no more." The reason given by the Detroiters for the change was
virtually that the "Bummery" had disgraced the letters "I. W. W."
"The name I. W. W.," declared Fellow Worker Crawford, "has come to be
associated with petty larceny and other slum tactics. It is up to us to
choose a new name so as to escape the odium attached to the one we now
bear."[505] Their attitude was more fully explained in an announcement
by the General Secretary-Treasurer in their official journal.
While the principles, methods and form of organization adopted
in 1905 have stood the test of time [the announcement runs]
a new element has asserted itself under the name of I. W. W.
whose practices and beliefs are different and opposed to
socialist Industrial Unionism. The capitalists and their
hirelings, quick to exploit any condition that serves their
interests, boosted along the shouters of "sabotage" and "direct
action" with such success since 1906 that today "I. W. W."
stands for lunatics on a rampage, in the public mind and a
large portion of the workers.[506]
The name Socialist Labor Union, originally proposed in 1908,
was again discussed and considered very seriously because their
desire was appropriately to label an organization which claimed to
stand for "socialist class unionism." Finally, however, the name,
Workers' International Industrial Union, was decided upon "as most
appropriate for the designation of the economic wing of the Socialist
movement."[507]
The W. I. I. U. soon issued a "Manifesto of Socialist Industrial
Unionism" which explained the principles of the newly-christened
organization. The W. I. I. U., declares the Manifesto,
refuses to conduct the class struggle on the lines of a
dog fight. It does not sanction lawlessness on the part of
employers, the capitalists and their hirelings by doing
likewise. It condemns "sabotage" and all such childish
practices by any one as useless for the working class and
harmful to real progress.[508]
FOOTNOTES:
[474] _Private correspondence_, Feb. 17, 1915.
[475] Arranged from figures given by Secretary-Treasurer Richter in
letter dated Feb. 17, 1915.
[476] Includes 15 mixed locals.
[477] _Private correspondence._
[478] Report of the convention by Russell Palmer, _Weekly People_,
September 27, 1913.
[479] Palmer, _op. cit._
[480] _Private correspondence_, H. Richter, Feb. 17, 1915. "Public
service" refers, for the most part, to unskilled laborers working for
municipalities--on street work, etc.
[481] _Industrial Union News_, October and November, 1915.
[482] _Private correspondence_, Secretary H. Richter, Feb. 17, 1915.
[483] _Private correspondence_, H. D. Deutsch, April 23, 1916.
[484] Letter from the former secretary, April 14, 1916.
[485] "With DeLeon since '89," _Weekly People_, Jan. 22, 1916, p. 3.
[486] _Weekly People_, Aug. 22, 1914, p. 2, cols. 2, 3. Report of
Socialist Labor party to the International Socialist Congress, Vienna,
Aug. 23-9, 1914.
[487] "R. H. P." in _Weekly People_, Dec. 27, 1913, p. 1.
[488] _Report of Testimony U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations_,
vol. iii, p. 2456.
[489] "The I. W. W. History, Structure and Methods" (1st ed.), pp. 9-10.
[490] _Report of Testimony, U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations_,
vol. ii, p. 1458.
[491] _Ibid._, vol. v, pp. 4240 (Aug. 12, 1914).
[492] "_The Two I. W. W.'s_" (Detroit I. W. W. leaflet).
[493] _Industrial Union News_, October, 1915, p. 3, col. 5.
[494] "The I. W. W. and its Activities," _The Weekly People_, March 20,
1915, p. 2, col. 2.
[495] _Weekly People_, February 21, 1913, p. 2.
[496] _Report of Testimony, U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations_,
vol. iii, p. 2482.
[497] _Weekly People_, Aug. 19, 1916, pp. 1-2.
[498] _Weekly People_ (Editorial), Aug. 19, 1916, p. 4, col. 4.
[499] "Le Socialist Labor party combat ceux-ci parce qu'ils prêchent
'seulement la force physique', mais en même temps je donne tout l'appui
qu'il peut aux travailleurs qui, même sous la direction autrement
funeste de l'anarchie, tentent de se délivrer du joug des maîtres
capitalistes et de leurs réactionnaires lieutenants des syndicats de
métier." ["L'Unité socialiste en Amérique: Memoire de la Commission
Executive Nationale du Socialist Labor party (Parti Socialiste
Ouvrière) au Bureau Socialiste Internationale"--Bulletin Périodique du
Bureau Socialiste Internationale. _2e_ année, no. 7, p. 30. (Brussels,
1911).]
[500] Detroit I. W. W. leaflet, "Two Enemies of Labor."
[501] Detroit I. W. W. propaganda leaflet, "The Two I. W. W.'s."
[502] "A Plea for Solidarity," _International Socialist Review_, March,
1914, vol. xiv, p. 536, col. 2.
[503] _Ibid._, p. 537, col. 1.
[504] October 9, 1915, p. 1.
[505] Report of the convention, _Industrial Union News_, October, 1915,
p. 2.
[506] H. Richter, "The Workers' International Industrial Union,"
_Industrial Union News_, January, 1916, p. 1.
[507] H. Richter, _ibid._
[508] W. I. I. U. leaflet No. 1, "Principles of the W. I. I. U."
PART III
THE DIRECT-ACTIONISTS
CHAPTER XI
FREE SPEECH AND SABOTAGE
The existence between 1908 and 1915 of two national labor organizations
bearing the name, Industrial Workers of the World (or "I. W. W."),
with labels of identical design--bodies closely paralleling each
other in scope and structure despite their disparity in doctrine and
tactics--makes it very difficult to discuss either group, or I. W.
W.-ism in general, without ambiguity. The I. W. W. which has been most
advertised in the United States is the Chicago, or "Direct-Actionist,"
or "Anarcho-Syndicalist," or "Anti-Political," or "Bummery" or "red" I.
W. W. This is the I. W. W. which was actively interested in the strikes
at Lawrence, Massachusetts, Wheatland, California, and many other
places, and in "free speech" fights at Spokane, Fresno, and San Diego.
They are the "Wobblies" of the West. In this present work they are
considered, entirely without prejudice to the admittedly more "correct"
and consistent position of the doctrinaires of the Detroit wing, to be
_the_ I. W. W. The doctrinaires are the socialistic, pro-political,
"yellow" I. W. W.
It is proposed in these chapters to sketch the main lines of
development of the Chicago organization from 1908 to the present
time, as well as to indicate the general character of its activities
from year to year. The important and bitterly fought struggle at the
seventh and eighth conventions in 1912 and 1913 over the question of
decentralization is described as faithfully as possible. The relations
between the I. W. W. and the Socialist party are set forth, especially
in connection with the adoption of the famous _sabotage_ clause by
the Socialist party at its Indianapolis convention in 1912. The newer
phases of the organizing and propaganda work of the I. W. W., the
free-speech fights, and its increased activity among the unskilled and
floating laborers are described. No attempt is made here to go into
the various strikes and free-speech controversies in more than a very
cursory manner. This is not because their importance is underestimated.
The writer feels that the field work of the "Wobblies" is really the
most significant part of their history, if for no other reason than
that the I. W. W. expends perhaps more energy in proportion to its
strength and resources in propaganda, organizing and advertising
work afield than does almost any other labor organization in the
country. The more striking episodes in the career of the I. W. W.,
like the Lawrence strike and the Wheatland hop riots, have, however,
been extensively written up in the magazines and recorded as well
in scientific journals and government reports. On the contrary, the
vicissitudes of the career of the I. W. W. as an organized body of
workers have never even been recited.
The split of 1908 left the direct-actionists in almost as weak a
condition as the doctrinaires. The weakness of the latter has been
chronic. The former were able to develop great strength because they
had modified their theories to the extent necessary to make some
appreciable application of them to the actual conditions of economic
life. They were confronted by conditions and met them at the cost
of doctrinal consistency. They were unconscious pragmatists and the
result is that they have made themselves felt to a much greater
extent than the doctrinaires. They have been strikingly successful as
gadflies--stinging and shocking the _bourgeoisie_ into the initiation
of reforms. If the "anarcho-syndicalist" I. W. W. may not properly be
called a successful organization, there is at least this much to be
said for it: it has been a far less _unsuccessful_ organization than
has the doctrinaire faction.
For some time after the split in 1908 the Industrial Workers of the
World scarcely more than kept alive. The membership dwindled and
locals expired by the score. Between September, 1908, and May 1, 1910,
only sixty-six new local unions were chartered.[509] Only in 1911 did
their number begin to increase, and even then it was a halting and
fitful progress. Levine writes that the I. W. W. had "shrunk to a mere
handful of leaders, revolutionary in spirit and ideals, and persevering
in action, with a small, scattered and shifting following and an
unsatisfactory administrative machinery."[510]
During the year 1909 the organization was actively interested in a
number of strikes. The most important of these was the McKees Rocks
(Pennsylvania) strike in which 6,000 employees of the Pressed Steel Car
Company were out for two months. Other strikes of the year involved the
lumbermen at Somers and Kalispell, Montana; Eureka, California, and
Prince Rupert, B. C.; the sheet and tin plate workers at New Castle
and Shenango, Pennsylvania; and the farm laborers at Waterville,
Washington. Secretary Trautmann believed that these "constant
irritative strikes" were more than all else responsible for the fact
that less than one-third the gross membership was active (dues-paying)
membership. These strikes, he said, involved half the membership in the
course of one year.[511]
It was in this same year that the I. W. W. made its bow to the American
public as the militant jail and soap-box belligerent in the free-speech
fight. As early as April, 1906, there was a minor clash between
the police and the "Wobblies," but it was not until nearly three
years later that the I. W. W. free-speech epidemic assumed national
proportions. Since 1909 the I. W. W.s have attracted quite as much
attention by their dramatic free-speech controversies with municipal
authorities here and there as they have by the time-honored resort
to the strike. During the next few years after the schism of 1908
these free-speech struggles became rather frequent. The Pacific slope
is the most fruitful soil for these conflicts. Labor is more mobile
there, and when the organizers in any particular town are arrested for
preaching revolution a more effective call to "foot-loose Wobblies"
for an "invasion" is possible. On the Pacific slope the "Wobblies"
almost literally broke into the jails by hundreds. They came to speak,
but with the nearly certain foreknowledge that they would be collared
by the police before they said many words. They simply crowded the
jails, and in this way, as they intended, clogged the machinery of
municipal administration by making themselves the guests of the city
in such numbers as to be no inconsiderable burden to their real hosts,
the taxpayers. Vincent St. John, then Secretary-Treasurer of the I. W.
W., recently told the United States Commission on Industrial Relations
that "wherever any local union becomes involved in a free-speech fight
they notify the general office and that information is sent to all the
local unions, ... with the request that if they have any members that
are foot-loose to send them along." Mr. St. John stated, however, that
the general (_i. e._, the national) organization does not in any way
finance or manage these free-speech fights except to contribute, so far
as possible, at the call of the locals. The management of the struggle
is in the hands, of the local union or unions most interested.[512]
The same tactics are pursued in nearly every instance--a policy of
sullen non-resistance on the part of the I. W. W. and of wholesale
jailing by the authorities. The trouble always seems to begin because
local authorities are revolted by--or at least nervously apprehensive
about--either the substance of the I. W. W. speeches or the language in
which their ideas are conveyed, or both. The remarks are alleged to be
seditious, incendiary, unpatriotic, immoral, _etc._, or, whether they
are any or all these or none of them, they are alleged to be profane
or vulgar beyond the limits of forbearance. In the judgment of the
writer the latter charge can be laid at the door of the I. W. W. with
far greater justification than can the former. Refinement is not the
Wobblies' long suit. How could it be? Our town fathers ought to be
somewhat more tolerant of a want of refinement which is more or less
inevitable under the conditions--for which conditions, moreover, they
are in part responsible.
As to the first charge, it can only be remarked that suppression of
what authorities think is subversive and seditious almost invariable
has the same effect as would an effort to smother an active volcano.
The ideas get expressed anyhow--and more bitterly, with the added
circumstance that those who try to do the smothering are burnt.
Of course, it is not easy to determine at just what point language
becomes directly provocative to violence. This limit of possible
official tolerance is far less often reached than would be indicated
by the actual conduct of local officials in these circumstances. "It
cannot be considered as provocative of immediate disorder," says
Police Commissioner Arthur Woods, of New York, "if speakers criticize,
no matter how vehemently, the existing order of things, or if they
recommend, no matter how enthusiastically, a change which they believe
would improve things."[513] When George Creel was police commissioner
in Denver he took a similar position and worked on the theory that all
ideas could be safely given a hearing. He is reported to have given
the following answer to an I. W. W. committee which applied to him
for a "soap-box permit": "Go ahead, boys; speak as much as you like;
only there's just one favor I'm going to ask. I wish you wouldn't
spout directly under the army headquarters. They're not important, but
they're childish, and they'll make me lots of bother if you do."[514]
The result: nothing more happened than happens when the mine operators
say that the leaders of the United Mine Workers ought to be taken out
and shot. There was free speech but no fight.
After the experience of Spokane, Fresno, and San Diego some members
of the organization at least recognized that no matter how absolute
their right to pitch into established institutions from every angle,
the sober necessities of a successful propaganda for revolutionary
industrial unionism demanded more concentration upon that subject. In
September, 1913, Ewald Koetgen, a member of the General Executive
Board, made this suggestion to the delegates at the eighth convention:
If you confine yourself strictly to the propaganda of
industrial unionism, and then they prohibit you from using the
street corner, you have a much stronger case. Many ... attack
everybody, the police, the city officials, religion, politics,
and everything else. They speak about everything under the
sun and these pretexts are used in order to keep them off the
street, whereas, in a good many cities, the organizer could go
and speak on industrial unionism, and be left there a whole lot
longer....[515]
In the fall of 1909 there were no less than three important free-speech
campaigns conducted by the I. W. W. These were staged at Missoula,
Montana; Spokane, Washington; and New Castle, Pennsylvania. In 1910
small "fights" were conducted in the spring and summer in Wenatchee
and Walla Walla, Washington, and during the fall a much more important
one at Fresno, California. This latter struggle continued until March,
1911. From this time until the end of the year 1913 hardly a mouth
elapsed that did not witness a more or less important free-speech
controversy between the Wobblies and the municipal authorities in some
part of the United States. In the five-year period, 1909-1913, there
were at least twenty free-speech campaigns of importance, continuing
under definite I. W. W. direction for periods ranging from a few days
to more than six months. The most important of these disturbances
was that at San Diego, which broke out about February 1, 1912, and
continued until late the following summer. Since 1913 free speech has
been a less important issue with the I. W. W., and there have been
comparatively few such disturbances.
Paterson, New Jersey, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Old Forge, Pennsylvania,
and Everett, Washington, are almost the only cases of any great
importance. The most serious of these was the Everett free-speech
controversy which culminated in the fatal tragedy of November 6, 1916.
The attitude of the residents of the cities where free-speech
fights have been staged was naturally bitterly hostile. This was
most strikingly noticeable in business and commercial circles and
was of course reflected in the daily press. In San Diego during the
free-speech fight the local papers, almost without exception, kept up
a running fire of editorial abuse of the I. W. W.s. "Hanging is none
too good for them," said the _Tribune_; "they would be much better
dead, for they are absolutely useless in the human economy; they are
the waste material of creation and should be drained off into the
sewer of oblivion there to rot in cold obstruction like any other
excrement."[516] In the face of such a tirade it is interesting to read
the report of the Special Commissioner sent by Governor Hiram Johnson
to investigate the disturbances in San Diego. Commissioner Weinstock
took pains to follow up the stories of the brutality and cruelty of the
self-constituted citizens' committee of Vigilantes not only to the I.
W. W.s but also to any who were outspoken enough to defend them or who
were alleged to have aided and abetted them. Mr. Weinstock says that he
"is frank to confess that when he became satisfied of the truth of the
stories ... it was hard for him to believe that he was not sojourning
in Russia, conducting his investigation there instead of in this
alleged 'land of the free and home of the brave.'"[517]
The organization made no attempt to hold a convention in 1909, but in
May, 1910, the fifth convention met in Chicago. On the first day there
were twenty-two delegates present, representing forty-two local unions
in the following states: California, Colorado, Montana, Rhode Island,
Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, Arizona,
Indiana, and in British Columbia. Judging from the very fragmentary
records available there was little business of any importance
transacted at this meeting. The delegates adopted a resolution to
"reaffirm the original [Industrial Union] Manifesto of 1905,..."[518]
and dispersed.
In September, 1911, fifteen months later, a somewhat more successful
convention was held. This sixth annual meeting of the I. W. W. was in
point of size almost as insignificant as the preceding one, thirty-one
delegates from eleven states being present. In addition to the regular
delegates there were present three "fraternal delegates" from the
Brotherhood of Timber Workers. Twenty-one locals were represented
in addition to the locals included in the Textile Workers National
Industrial Union of the I. W. W.--the only "national industrial union
at that time included in the organization."[519] The convention was
harmonious, and there is, therefore, the less to chronicle. "Most
of the delegates were young men full of the fire and enthusiasm of
youth. 'Intellectuals' were conspicuous by their absence."[520] We
are told that very few changes were made in the organic law of the
organization. Proposals were made, however, by the score. In the
appendix to the _Minutes_ is a list containing seventy resolutions
which were presented on the floor of the convention.[521] The question
of politics was scarcely touched upon. An anti-parliamentary resolution
was voted down without discussion. The bulk of the delegates were
undoubtedly _non_-parliamentarians, that is to say, indifferent about
politics and legislative action. An official report of the convention
in the _Industrial Worker_ says that the report of General Organizer
Trautmann, which it declared would be published later in _Solidarity_,
was a scathing indictment of the criminal alliance between the
A. F. of L. fakirs and the self-styled revolutionary socialist
politicians, who, as the report shows, time and again have
acted in full concert in defeating strikes rather than to allow
the workers to win with I. W. W. methods--methods whose success
spells ruination for the political and craft union movements
which are sucking the life blood of the working class.[522]
Mr. Trautmann later transfered his allegiance to the Socialist Labor
party faction. The _Weekly People_ (the official S. L. P. organ) of
July 26, 1913, published (on page 2) a letter from Trautmann to Eugene
V. Debs in which he says:
In the convention of 1911 of the Industrial Workers of
the World my report contained a scathing attack on the
anti-political politicians and the never-will-I-work scavengers
who pose as organizers and spokesmen of the organization. The
convention ordered that report to be printed ... [but] Vincent
St. John and his clique put away the report and it never
appeared.
Official reports of the convention claimed that there had been "a
gradual increase in the moral, financial and numerical strength of the
I. W. W." This claim is not entirely justified by available figures.
The number of locals in the organization was but slightly, if any,
greater. Fewer charters were issued and more locals disbanded in 1911
than in 1910. The membership figures are conflicting, those furnished
by the Secretary-Treasurer making a less favorable showing than those
of Professor Barnett.[523] Mr. St. John says that the membership of the
organization in good standing in October, 1911, was about 10,000.
We do not claim anything [he said] except membership in good
standing; as a matter of fact, however, the General Office has
issued 60,000 due books in the past eighteen months and of
this number only about one in ten keeps in good standing, due
to the kind of work the membership of the most part follow.
They are engaged in construction, harvesting and working in
the woods, _etc._ This means that they are out of touch with
the organization the greater part of the year either on the
job or moving about the country looking for work, and of
course they cannot and do not keep in good standing, but as
they drift into town they pay up. In passing, it may be stated
that the above number is the largest membership the I. W. W.
has had since its inception, except when the W. F. of M. was
supposed to be a part of the organization. I know that the
second annual convention reports claim 60,000 members, but the
books of the organization did not justify any such claim; in
fact, the average paid-up membership with the W. F. of M. for
the first year of the organization was 14,000 members in round
numbers.[524]
There was at this time a very considerable gain in particular
industries, such as metal working and railroad and building
construction. This development is indicated in Table 1, which shows the
average membership of the I. W. W. in the specified industries during
the period 1910-1913:
TABLE 1[525]
AVERAGE MEMBERSHIP (CHICAGO) I. W. W.--1910-1913, BY INDUSTRIES
----------------------------------+----------------------------
| Average Membership.
|------+------+------+-------
Industry. | 1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1913
----------------------------------+------+------+------+-------
Textile | 4300 | 4397 | 9637 | 1550
Lumber | 1200 | 800 | 1227 | 650
Marine transport | .. | .. | .. | 2100
Metal | 200 | 2000 | 144 | 300
Automobile | 300 | 500 | 83 | 150
Hotel and Restaurant | 150 | 100 | 151 | 50
Building Construction | 150 | 600 | 204 | 1200
Railroad Construction | 1000 | 1800 | 2366 | 1755
Tobacco | 100 | 400 | 200 | 450
Packing House | 100 | 75 | 69 | 50
Public Service | .. | .. | .. | 1700
Coal Mining | 200 | 200 | 207 | 250
Railroad Transportation | .. | .. | .. | 100
Street Railways | .. | .. | .. | 50
Farm Workers | .. | .. | .. | 100
Oil | .. | 50 | 61 | 50
Rubber | .. | .. | .. | 150
Furniture | .. | .. | .. | 100
Electric Power | .. | .. | .. | 150
Reed and Rattan | .. | .. | .. | 100
Amusement | .. | 25 | 130 | 50
Musical Instruments (Piano, etc.) | 100 | 200 | 226 | 450
Leather | .. | .. | 150 | ..
Mixed Locals | 1300 | 1537 | 3532 | 2800
|------+------+------+-------
| 9100 |12834 |18387 |14305
----------------------------------+------+------+------+-------
If figures are ever misleading, they are so in reference to the
"Wobblies." They are presented, however, in the belief that they have
some significance. The organization was now unquestionably picking
up. In 1910 there had been a number of I. W. W. strikes--nine at any
rate in which the organization was actively interested. In April, the
farm hands of North Yamhill, Oregon, who "had been handing out the
principles of revolutionary unionism in huge, raw chunks,"[526] walked
out on account of the discharge of some of their number. In August, the
Gas Works' laborers in southern California, chiefly Mexicans, were out
for about two weeks for higher wages. The settlement as reported fixed
wages at $2.25 and provided that only I. W. W.s were to be employed in
the future. A strike of the window cleaners in Providence for a wage
increase and the closed shop was reported won. These instances will
give an idea of the character of the strikes and the workers involved.
In 1910 there appear to have been very few strikes in which the I. W.
W. was interested. Such meager data as are available about I. W. W.
strikes have been gathered together in Appendix VIII.
Although 1911 was an inactive year as regards strikes, the condition of
the organization was not nearly so hopeless as it had been.
Despite the prevailing "hard times," [writes "The Commentator"]
the I. W. W. is (in February, 1911) upheld by six weekly
papers of its own.... Far from being weak and emaciated, as
in 1907, the I. W. W. is putting up a robust fight for free
speech and assemblage at Fresno, Cal.; and is giving the Shoe
Manufacturers' Association of Greater New York the struggle
of their lives--a struggle in which for the first time the
employers combat an organization which means to make the shop
the collective property of the workers....[527]
Another indication of growth was the expansion of the I. W. W. press.
At the close of the fourth convention the I. W. W. had only one
paper, the _Industrial Union Bulletin_, which suspended publication
early in 1909 and whose place was filled by the _Industrial Worker_
(II.) (Spokane), which in turn passed out in September, 1913. The
_Industrial Worker_ (I.) was published from January, 1906, until
the summer of 1907. The _Industrial Worker_ (III.) (Seattle) began
publication in April, 1916, and continues to appear.[528] It is stated
in _Solidarity_, July 2, 1910, that in that year the I. W. W. had seven
papers in as many different languages.
During the twelve months preceding the sixth convention (September,
1911) seventy locals were organized and forty-eight disbanded. They
were distributed among specified industries, as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2[529]
_Industry_ _Organized_ _Disbanded_
Metal and machinery 11 10
Food stuffs (Bakers) 2 2
Recruiting locals 13 8
Tobacco 1
Building 4 4
Shoe 1 1
Public Service 8 4
Clothing 3 3
Furniture 1
Mining (coal) 4
Transportation 7 2
Smelting 1
Lumber 9 4
Farming 2 2
Car building 2 4
Steel 1 4
-------------
70 48
Secretary-Treasurer St. John presented an interesting classification of
the reasons given for the disbanding of these forty-eight local unions.
He distributes them as follows:
Disrupted by lack of interest 22
Disrupted by strike 6
Disrupted by other organizations 6
Work closing down 5
Disrupted by members leaving locality 2
Incompetent secretary 2
Disrupted by internal dissension 1
Members left for Mexico 1
No record 3
---
48[530]
It was at this meeting that the question of the authority of the
general administration over the rank and file was first seriously
considered in the I. W. W. A number of constitutional changes were
proposed and most of them were brought forward with the more or less
definite idea of minimizing, or at least modifying in some way, the
authority of the national officers and the other members or the General
Executive Board. These amendments originated chiefly from local unions
in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific States. The debates lasted several
days and involved a rather thorough discussion of the relations
between the different parts of the organization. All of these proposed
amendments were lost, the delegates being of the opinion probably that
few constitutional changes were necessary.[531]
At this (1911) convention, W. Z. Foster presented his report as
representative of the I. W. W. at the seventh conference of the
International Labor Secretariat which met at Budapest in August.
He was unable to make a very favorable report. The international
conference, after giving an entire day to a discussion of the question
of the admission of the I. W. W., refused it unanimously despite
the fact that his claims were backed by the representatives of the
_Confédération Générale du Travail_ of France.[532] At about this time
the French syndicalists were facing a serious crisis, which threatened
them as well with complete division. They escaped then, but there have
since developed two groups in the C. G. T.: the "red" (revolutionary)
syndicalists, and the "yellow" (conservative) syndicalists.[533]
Karl Kautsky quotes M. Lagardelle as having admitted in 1911 that "the
present crisis compels a general revision of the facts and the ideas
of syndicalism. After a glorious beginning we find ourselves faced
with that which is generally the result of forced marches in complete
exhaustion."[534]
The I. W. W. had had no direct contact with French syndicalism previous
to 1908. Moreover, its relations with the French movement have not at
any time been as close or as definite as is generally imagined. The
I. W. W. _organization_ is an indigenous American product, if there
ever was such a thing. The tactics used have come in part through the
reading by I. W. W.s of the writings of Pouget, Sorel, Lagardelle, and
others of the French syndicalist school. This contagion of ideas has
also spread through personal contacts. In 1908 William D. Haywood went
to Europe and there met some of the leaders of the C. G. T. Again in
1910 he was present at the International Labor and Socialist Congress
at Copenhagen. He nominally represented the Socialist party of America,
but he also, in an unofficial way, championed the cause of American
syndicalism as it had been developed by the Industrial Workers of the
World.[535]
The biennial conference of the International (Labor) Secretariat
met at Budapest, Hungary, August 10-12, 1911. The entire first day's
session was taken up with a lengthy argument over the admission of W.
Z. Foster, the I. W. W. delegate. His credentials were finally rejected
since he had only the support of the French _Confédération Générale du
Travail_.[536] President Gompers of the American Federation of Labor,
in his report to its convention held later on in the same year, refers
to "the repudiation of the so-called Industrial Workers of the World"
at the Budapest conference. "Inasmuch," he said, "as the would-be
delegate for the corporal's guard that composes the Industrial Workers
of the World professed to support the policies and program of the
_Confédération Générale du Travail_ of France, his pretensions were
supported by the latter organization."[537] James Duncan, the A. F. of
L. delegate at Budapest, reported that "a misguided man, named Foster,
from Chicago, claiming to represent an alleged organization of labor
in America, called the International [_sic_] Workers of the World, had
been for some time in Paris ..." and had apparently convinced the C.
G. T. that he should be recognized at the Budapest conference instead
of the A. F of L. representatives. "During the discussion Foster lost
control of his temper," said Duncan; "he even threatened
assault ...--ocular demonstration of what an I. W. W. really is(!) ...
[But] the Frenchmen were not dismayed at their tricolor being smudged
with I. W. W. mire."[538]
French syndicalism, then, has entered the I. W. W. to give it certain
characteristic strike tactics and a set of foggy philosophical
concepts about the General Strike, the "militant minority," _etc._
To this extent the I. W. W. is a syndicalist union. In structure it
is a decentralized body (to the extent that it has any body to be
decentralized), whereas the C. G. T. is decidedly centralized. In its
organization and in its attitude toward compatriot labor bodies it is
at variance with the French Confédération. The French idea has taken
more definite form in the United States in the shape of the Syndicalist
League of North America.
The Syndicalist League is a propaganda body rather than a labor
organization. It is directed largely against the I. W. W.--opposing
syndicalism to the industrialism of the American organization. It
believes in the possibility of reforming the American Federation of
Labor from within and condemns the dual-unionism of the I. W. W. It
is optimistic regarding the craft union. "It is aware," says William
English Walling, "that it will be impossible to secure a revolutionary
majority in these organizations, whether of a socialistic or of an
anarchistic character, and it has imported for this contingency
the French syndicalistic theory of the power of the 'militant
minority.'"[539] A number of the anarchists were inclined to favor the
Syndicalist League because they feared the "centralized government" of
the I. W. W.[540]
In this connection it may be well to note here the organization in
New York City in October, 1912, of the Syndicalist Educational League
with Hippolyte Havel, secretary, and Harry Kelly, treasurer. This,
we are informed, "is an organization of active propagandists formed
for the purpose of spreading the idea of syndicalism, direct-action
and the general-strike among the organized and unorganized workers of
America."[541]
In 1911 the trial of the MacNamara brothers for the dynamiting of the
_Los Angeles Times_ building was stirring the country. The I. W. W.
so vigorously championed the cause of the indicted men that the _San
Francisco Chronicle_ was moved to say:
... Now comes every socialist agitator and every rascal who
calls himself a socialist, and declares that even the arrest
of the indicted men is an "outrage." That hobo gang which
calls itself the "Industrial Workers of the World" calls for a
"general strike" as a protest against the alleged "kidnapping"
of the men who have been indicted.[542]
A few days later the _Industrial Worker_ carried in capitals on the
front page the following
OFFICIAL I. W. W. PROCLAMATION!
"AROUSE! PREPARE TO DEFEND YOUR CLASS!"
"A general strike in all industries must be the answer of the
workers to the challenge of the masters! Tie up all industries!
Tie up all production! Eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty." Issued Apr. 25, 1911, by the Industrial Workers of
the World.[543]
When the seventh convention met in 1912 the General Executive Board
declared that the MacNamara case "demonstrated beyond doubt that no
legal safeguard can be invoked to protect any member of the working
class who incurs the enmity of the employers by standing between them
and unlimited exploitation of the workers." Furthermore, it charged
that the A. F. of L. "did not come to their assistance as it should
have done ... [because] the moral support guaranteed these members
of the working class was practically _nil_ so far as the American
Federation of Labor was concerned."[544]
These militant utterances of the I. W. W. served to increase a growing
hostility to that organization in the Socialist party. This increasing
opposition was directed against the methods and tactics of I. W.
W.-ism rather than against its criticism of capitalist society, its
form or organization or its idea of the character of the society of
the future. The Socialists objected in general to the whole philosophy
of direct action, and more particularly to certain phases of direct
action--_viz._, the use of _sabotage_ and violence in general.
One I. W. W. official defines direct action as the "withdrawal of labor
power or efficiency from the place or object of production."[545]
Emma Goldman, a prominent anarchist, describes it as the "conscious
individual or collective effort to protest against or remedy social
conditions through the systematic assertion of the economic power
of the workers."[546] Professor Hubert Lagardelle, one of the
_intellectuels_ of the French syndicalist movement, explains that
"Direct Action is opposed to the indirect and legalized action of
democracy, of Parliament and of parties. It means that instead of
delegating to others the function of action (following the habit of
democracy), the working class is determined to work for itself."[547]
_Sabotage_ has been defined by the leading English Syndicalist, Tom
Mann, as "the taking of advantage for personal or class gain."[548]
Pouget says that "le sabotage est la mise en pratique da la maxime: à
mauvaise paye, mauvais travail."[549] In its mildest form sabotage is
simply the time-honored trade-union practice--restriction of output.
Gustav Hervé, the editor of _La Guerre Sociale_, advocates its use as
a kind of _gymnastique révolutionnaire_ or training for the revolution
which many socialists believe may be precipitated by the violence of
the capitalists, in the guise, perhaps, of martial law. It may be
convenient to think of direct action as the _inclusive_ term. Thus it
may take the form of concerted abstention from work and be simply a
strike, or it may take the form of working "in a way detrimental to the
boss" and be one kind of _sabotage_.
An interesting example of the I. W. W.'s press campaign for the methods
of _sabotage_ and direct action was furnished when in the summer of
1913 the I. W. W. locals of Los Angeles began the publication of a
semi-official weekly paper called _The Wooden Shoe_. This name was
selected on the strength of the legend that the word _sabotage_ was
coined in France when a workman with a grievance threw his _sabot_
or wooden shoe into the machinery and so clogged it and stopped
production. This kind of direct action is picturesquely advocated on
the front page of each issue of this paper. Grouped around the title
heading--_The Wooden Shoe_--are the following boxed mottoes and slogans:
"A kick in time saves nine."
"Kick your way out of wage slavery."
"Our coat-of-arms: The shoe rampant."
"A kick on the job is worth ten at the ballot-box."
"Immediate demands: Wooden shoes on all jobs."
"The foot in the wooden shoe will rock the world."
"An injury to one is the concern of all."
These tactics had been more and more _talked about_ if not practised
by the I. W. W. for several years past. Indeed, it is safe to say
that the practical application of those forms of direct action which
the "Wobblies" consider expedient was becoming constantly more
general. When the Socialists met in convention at Indianapolis in
May, 1912, the problem of the proper attitude for the Socialist party
to take toward the I. W. W., and more especially toward the "direct
action" propaganda, was made the occasion of a violent controversy.
The discussion centered on a motion to insert a new clause in the
constitution of the Socialist party providing (in Article II, Sec.
6) that "any member of the party who opposes political action or
advocates crime, _sabotage_, or other methods of violence as a weapon
of the working class to aid in its emancipation shall be expelled from
membership in the party...."[550] After a long debate the amendment was
adopted by a vote of 191 to 90, and the now famous Article II., Sec. 6,
became a party law.[551] During the discussion there were some quite
violent criticisms made of direct action and violence. Delegate W. R.
Gaylord said: "We do not want any of it. None of it! We don't want the
touch of it on us. We do not want the hint of it connected with us.
We repudiate it in every fibre of us."[552] Victor Berger expressed
himself very emphatically on the "sabotage clause."
I desire to say [he declared] that articles in the _Industrial
Worker_, of Spokane, the official organ of the I. W. W.,
breathe the same spirit, are as anarchistic as anything
that John Most has ever written. I want to say to you,
comrades, that I for one do not believe in murder as a
means of propaganda; I do not believe in theft as a means
of expropriation; nor in a continuous riot as a free-speech
agitation. Every true Socialist will agree with me when
I say that those who believe that we should substitute
"Hallelujah, I'm a bum" for the _Marseillaise_, and for the
_Internationale_, should start a "bum organization" of their
own. (Loud laughter and great cheering.)[553]
It was not alone the advocacy of "direct action" which incurred for the
I. W. W. the enmity of the Socialists. The latter felt that when the
I. W. W. in 1908 "repudiated political action," it really declared war
on the Socialist party. That party obviously could not consistently
approve of the Detroit I. W. W. because that faction was really the
ward of a rival political organization, the Socialist Labor party.
Ernest Untermann, who was one of the founders of the Industrial Workers
of the World, said at a previous convention of the Socialist party:
"When we organized the I. W. W., we hoped that it would be both a
political and an economic organization.... Instead of that, from the
very outside there crept in an element that made for disintegration,
and today the I. W. W. has drifted back toward syndicalism."[554] He
declared, moreover, that the I. W. W. deeply in debt to the Socialist
party, as he intimated, had ungratefully obstructed the work of the
party:
We helped the I. W. W. in its fight for free speech in Spokane
and for working-class power on the coast, [he said] and yet
while our speakers were collecting money [in San Francisco] ...
to help the I. W. W., the fighters from the I. W. W. were on
the outside of our meetings and knocking.... They sent their
fighters over to Local Oakland, right across the bay, with the
avowed purpose of breaking up that local and destroying the
activity of the Socialist party.... I shall be true to the
principle of industrial unionism, but the I. W. W. can go to
hell. (Applause.)[555]
Finally the last tie that connected the I. W. W. with the Socialist
party was broken when, in February, 1913, William D. Haywood was
recalled from the National Executive Committee of the party.[556]
FOOTNOTES:
[509] _Cf._ Appendix iv, Table A. The industrial distribution of
fifty-nine of these is given in _Solidarity_ (May 14, 1910) as follows:
Quarry workers 1
Bakery workers 1
Metal and machine
workers 3
Building workers 8
Lumber workers 2
Public service
workers 2
Hotel workers 2
Packing house
workers 2
Garment workers 1
Glass workers 1
Coal miners 7
Harbor workers 1
Steel workers 5
Car builders 5
Transportation
workers 1
Wood workers 1
Textile workers 1
Mixed locals 15
__
59
[510] "The development of syndicalism in America," _Political Science
Quarterly_, vol. xviii, p. 470 (Sept., 1913).
[511] Report of the General Secretary-Treasurer to the Fourth
Convention, _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, 1908. For list of
strikes, _vide_ Appendix viii.
[512] _Industrial Relations_ (Testimony at hearings). vol. ii, pp.
1460, 1461.
[513] Ninth annual meeting of the American Sociological Society,
Dec., 1914. _Publications_, vol. ix, "Restrictions upon freedom of
assemblage," p. 32.
[514] "Free, Speech Fights of the I. W. W." Report to the U. S.
Commission on Industrial Relations. Typewritten MS., p. 20.
[515] _Proceedings_, p. 102, col. 1-2.
[516] San Diego _Tribune_, March 4, 1912 (editorial).
[517] Harris Weinstock, _Report to the governor of California on the
disturbances in the city and county of San Diego in 1912_, p. 16.
[518] Proceedings, _Industrial Worker_ (II), June 25, 1910, p. 3.
[519] _Minutes of the Sixth Convention_ (Typewritten MS.), pp. 1-3.
[520] B. H. Williams, "The Sixth I. W. W. Convention," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xii. p. 302, November, 1911.
[521] Appendix to the _Minutes_, pp. 1-9.
[522] _Industrial Worker_ (II), Sept. 28, 1911, p. 4. col. 1.
[523] See Appendix iv, Table A.
[524] Letter to the author, Oct. 13, 1911.
[525] Compiled from figures furnished by General Secretary St. John
(Letter of Feb. 1, 1915).
[526] _Industrial Worker_, April 23, 1910.
[527] "The I. W. W., its Strength and Opportunity," _Solidarity_, Feb.
25, 1911, p. 3, col. 1.
[528] Since this was written its publication has been suspended by the
government.
[529] From report of General Secretary-Treasurer St. John to Sixth
Convention; in Appendix to _Minutes_.
[530] Report to the Sixth Convention. Appendix to _Minutes_. In
appendix vi, the causes for suspension of locals are shown by
individual unions.
[531] B. H. Williams, "Sixth I. W. W. Convention," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xii, pp. 300-302, Nov., 1911.
[532] _International Socialist Review_, vol. xii, p. 245, October, 1911.
[533] Cf. F. Challaye, _Le syndicalisme révolutionnaire et le
syndicalisme réformiste, passim._
[534] _Chicago Evening World_ (July 13, 1912).
[535] _Compte Rendu_ (Ghent, 1911), p. 42.
[536] _Proceedings, Thirty-first Annual Convention, A. F. of L._
(Atlanta, Ga., Nov., 1911), p. 29.
[537] _Ibid._
[538] _Ibid._, p. 149. Report of James Duncan, delegate to the Budapest
Conference. This report is also published in pamphlet form.
[539] _Internationalist Socialist Review_, Mar., 1913, vol. xiii, p.
667, col. 1.
[540] This view is presented by Harry Kelly, "A Syndicalist League"
(a plea for the launching of a Syndicalist League in the United
States), _Mother Earth_, Sept., 1912. Cf. also Foster, Wm. Z., and
Ford, E. D., _Syndicalism_, which ably draws the distinction between
the semi-anarchistic and semi-conservative syndicalism of the C. G. T.
which some writers have tried to import, out of hand, into the United
States, and the Industrial Socialism of the I. W. W.
[541] _Mother Earth_, Nov., 1912, vol. vii, p. 307.
[542] May 2, 1911 (Editorial). Reprinted in _Solidarity_, May 20, 1911.
p. 4, col. 1.
[543] May 11, 1911.
[544] _On the Firing Line_, pp. 7-9.
[545] William E. Trautmann, _One Great Union_, p. 24. note.
[546] _Syndicalism_ (New York, Mother Earth Publishing Assn.), p. 9.
[547] _Le Mouvement Socialiste_, December, 1908, vol. xxiv, p. 453.
[548] Interview in the New York _World_, Aug. 3, 1913, Sec. N, p. 1,
col. 8.
[549] _La Confédération Générale du Travail_ (2nd ed., Paris, n. d.),
p. 46.
[550] _Vide, National Constitution of the Socialist Party_ (Chicago,
Socialist Party, 1914), p. 2.
[551] _Proceedings, National Convention of the Socialist Party, 1912_,
pp. 136-7. In an analysis of the vote, W. J. Ghent has shown (_National
Socialist_, June 1, 1912) that between 67 and 75 per cent of the
delegates who voted against the clause "were not proletarians."
[552] _Proceedings_, p. 123. col. 1.
[553] _Ibid._, p. 130.
[554] _Proceedings, National Socialist Congress_, Chicago, May,
1910, p. 281. See also Untermann, _No compromise with the I. W. W._,
typewritten MS. (published in 1913 in the New York _Call_ and the
_National Socialist_).
[555] National Convention of the Socialist Party, _op. cit._, p. 163,
col. 1.
[556] Since this chapter was written several laws have been enacted
which have been more or less directly aimed at the Industrial Workers
of the World. Australia led off with the "Unlawful Associations Act"
passed by the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in December,
1916. (Reported in the _New York Times_, December 20, 1916, p. 5. col.
2. Cf. _infra_, p. 341.) Within three months of the passage of the
Australian Act, the American States of Minnesota and Idaho passed laws
"defining criminal syndicalism and prohibiting the advocacy thereof."
In February, 1918, the Montana legislature met in extraordinary session
and enacted a similar statute. (These three state laws are printed in
appendix x.) _Vide_ also _infra_, pp. 344-6.
At Sacramento, on January 16, 1919, according to daily press reports,
all of the 46 defendants in the California I. W. W. conspiracy case
tried there in the Federal District Court were found guilty of
conspiring to violate the Constitution of the United States and the
Espionage Act and with attempting to obstruct the war activities of the
Government. All of the defendants were members--or alleged members--of
the I. W. W. and the case is similar to the one tried in Chicago in
1918. On January 17 Judge Rudkin is reported to have sentenced 43 of
the defendants to prison terms of from one to ten years (_New York
Times_, January 17 and 18, 1919.) The trial is reported in _The Nation_
of January 25, 1919. _Cf. supra_, p. 8.
CHAPTER XII
LAWRENCE AND THE CREST OF POWER (1912)
The year 1912 marks the high tide of I. W. W. activity. From Lawrence,
Massachusetts, to San Diego, California, these restless militants
stirred the nation with their startling strike and free-speech
propaganda. Reports of strikes and free-speech activities in
_Solidarity_ and the _Industrial Worker_ show a higher frequency for
both these types of industrial warfare in 1912 and 1913 than for any
other corresponding period in the organization's career. During the
years 1911, 1912 and 1913 there were some fifteen free-speech fights
of considerable importance--more than have been staged in all the rest
of its history before or since.[557] The dynamic prominence of this
period is less marked for the free-speech propaganda than for the then
strange and novel syndicalist strike propaganda of the I. W. W. The
strike activities were, however, confined quite largely to a shorter
period--1912 and 1913. As already noted,[558] the years 1909 and 1910
were more crowded with I. W. W. strike activities than any previous
period. These fat propaganda and lean organizing years were followed
by twelve months of a general all-round leanness which was only saved
from complete sterility by about half a dozen rather lively free-speech
fights. Then followed the "Wobblies'" two big years, during which more
than thirty "I. W. W. strikes"[559] ran their course in different
parts of the country. In Table 3 are given what facts are available
concerning I. W. W. strike activities in 1912.
Overshadowing all others in importance was the gigantic strike of the
textile workers at Lawrence. This great struggle set new fashions in
strike methods. It Americanized the words, "sabotage," "direct action,"
and "syndicalism" and revealed to the hitherto ignorant public the
manner and effectiveness with which these alleged French importations
could be applied to an existing industrial situation. Lawrence,
together with San Diego, and one or two other "free-speech" cities,
really introduced the Industrial Workers of the World to the American
public. The organization and its activities were known to students of
the labor problem and to others who happened to be on the spot when a
fight was on, but they were not known to the great body of citizens.
Lawrence and the free-speech fights made the name of this little group
of intransigents a household word, hardly less talked about and no whit
better understood than the words "socialist" and "anarchist."
On January 11, about 14,000 of the textile operatives left their work.
During the strike, which continued until March 14, this number was
increased to 23,000. According to a Federal report, "the immediate
cause of the strike was a reduction in earnings, growing out of the
State law which became effective January 1, 1912, and which reduced the
hours of employment for women, and for children under 18 years of age
from 56 to 54 hours per week."[560] At the beginning of the struggle
only a small minority of the operatives were organized.
TABLE 3.
I. W. W. STRIKES IN 1912 (PARTIAL LIST).[561]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local| | |Str|Number|Number |Dura- |
Union| Industry. | Location. |ike|Involv| Arrest-| tion. | Result.
No. | | | s.| -ed.| ed. | |
-----+-------------+---------------+---+------+--------+-------+-----------
10|Electrical |Fremont, O. | 1| 30| ..| ...|Lost.
| Supply | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
161}|Textile and |Haverhill, | 2| 572| 60|7 weeks|Won.
169}| Shoe Wkrs. |Mass. | | | | |
| | | | | | |
194|Clothing |Seattle, Wash. | 10| ..| 15| A few|
| | | | | | hrs to|1 lost.
| | | | | | 2 mos.|
327|R. R. |Prince Rupert, | | | | |
| Construction|B. C. | 2| 2,350| 12| ...|Won.
| | | | | | |
326|Laborers |Shenna | | | | |
| |Crossing, B. C.| 1| ..| ..| ...|Won.
| | | | | | |
327|R. R. | | | | | |
| Construction|Lytton, B. C. | 1| 5,000| 300| 7|Compromise.
| | | | | |months.|
|N.I.U.F. & |Louisiana & | | | | |
| L. W.,[562] |Pac. N. W. | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 72 Unions | | | |"Several| 1-3|
| involved | | 2| 7,000|hundred"| wks.,|Compromise.
| | | | | | 1-2|
| | | | | | mos.|
| | | | | | |
436|Textile |Lowell, Mass. | 2|18,000| 26| ...|1 won, 1
| | | | | | |lost.
| | | | | | |
557|Piano |Boston | 1| 200| ..| 5|Lost.
| | | | | | weeks.|
| | | | | | |
20|Textile |Lawrence | 5|29,000| 333| ...|Won.
| | | | | | |
157|Textile |New Bedford | 1|13,000| ..| ...|...
| | | | | | |
==================================================================
| | | |
Total strike | No. | Aggregate | No. of | No. of
expenditures. | involved. | duration. | arrests. | convictions.
-----------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------
$101,504.05 | 75,152 | 74 weeks. | 1,446 | 577
------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to the beginning of the strike [says the Federal report just
quoted] there was little or no effective organization among
the employees, taken as a whole. A few of the skilled crafts,
composed principally of English-speaking workers, had their own
separate organizations, but the 10 crafts thus organized had at
the time of the strike only approximately 2,500 members. The
Industrial Workers of the World had also some years before this
established an organization in Lawrence. At the beginning of
the strike they claimed a membership of approximately 1,000.
They had at different times names on their rolls in excess
of this number, but it is estimated by active members of the
organization that at the beginning of January, 1912, there
were not more than 300 paid-up members on the rolls of the
Industrial Workers.[563]
This statement of the situation is borne out by Mr. John Golden's
testimony before the House Committee on Rules. He said that when the
strike broke out, "according to the official books of the Industrial
Workers of the World, they had 287 members."[564]
During the period of the strike there were many violent demonstrations
and numerous acts of violence on the part of deputies, police, and
militiamen, as well as on the part of the strikers. Early in the
strike, Joseph J. Ettor and Wm. D. Haywood, both I. W. W. officials,
came to Lawrence and thereafter figured prominently in the conduct
of the strike, preaching "solidarity," "passive resistance," "direct
action," and "sabotage" as means to victory. The daily press reports of
the strike greatly exaggerated the violence of the strikers and almost
uniformly neglected to mention acts of violence on the other side.
In the I. W. W. press the situation was reversed, and the lawlessness
of the constituted authorities greatly overdrawn. A writer who is,
at any rate, not sympathetic with the I. W. W. describes the strike
activities. He says that shortly after five o'clock (a.m., January 29,
1912), when it was still dark, an attack was made upon the street-cars,
during which the trolleys were pulled off the feed-wire, the windows
smashed with chunks of ice, the motormen and conductors driven off,
and the passengers in some cases not allowed to leave the cars, and
in others, pulled from the cars and thrown into the streets.[565] And
while conferences were still going on, according to the same authority,
the leaders of the Industrial Workers of the World
made a determined effort, by violence and intimidation of
various sorts to prevent those wishing to resume work from
reaching the mills. The endless chain system of picketing
was put into force, and women ... who did not work in the
mills, along with "strong arm" men, were pressed into service.
Women were assaulted by men, and pepper thrown in the eyes of
operatives and police officers. Early in the morning powerful
men followed, threatened, and seized girls on their way to the
mills, twisting their wrists, snatching their luncheons, and
terrorizing them generally. During the night strangers visited
the homes of the workers and threatened to cut their throats if
they persisted in going to work....[566]
On the other hand, there is fairly conclusive evidence that the advent
of Ettor and Haywood resulted, if not in the entire elimination of
violent tactics, at least in their marked reduction and shifting of
emphasis to the tactics of passive resistance. According to one who
was on the spot, the riots occurred
before Ettor's organization was effected, when the strikers
gathered about the mills as an organized mob and mill bosses
turned streams of water upon them in zero weather. After the
"blood-stained anarchists" arrived on the scene, a policy of
non-resistance to the aggressions of the police and the militia
prevailed.[567]
Howsoever passive the strikers may have been in their attitude to the
police and the militia, they were probably quite aggressive in their
campaign to win recruits to the ranks of the strikers. A Lawrence mill
overseer reports that the I. W. W. strike committee[568] did it in this
way:
The addresses of the men working are given to a committee. They
are visited after nine o'clock at night by strangers, generally
Poles: "Working today?" "Yah." (The man speaking has a sharp
knife and is whittling a stick.) "Work tomorrow?" "I d'no." "If
you work tomorrow, I cut your throat." "No, no. I no work."
"Shake." And they shake hands.[569]
There is strong evidence of at least one attempt on the part of
the business and commercial interests of Lawrence to discredit the
strikers. In three places in the city a total of twenty-eight sticks of
dynamite were found. The strikers declared that it had been "planted."
Later a business man of Lawrence, who had no connection with the
strikers, was arrested and finally tried and "convicted of conspiracy
to injure by the planting of dynamite." He was fined $500.00![570]
There was great friction between the I. W. W. and the locals of other
labor organizations. The Socialists and I. W. W.s accused the American
Federation of Labor leaders of trying to break the strike. "All the
mechanical crafts," we read in a pro-I. W. W. journal, "including
engineers, firemen, electrical workers, machinists and railroaders ...
remained at work, scabbing on their fellows with the full sanction ...
of their officials."[571] In the face of this antagonism the rank and
file of the A. F. of L. membership contributed liberally to the strike
fund, giving about $11,000 to the cause of the strikers. Socialist
contributions are placed at $40,000 and those of the I. W. W. local
unions at $16,000.[572] The Federal investigators report that "these
relief funds came from all sections of the country and average $1,000 a
day throughout the strike."[573]
The Lawrence strike furnished the opportunity for some parading of the
idea of a general strike. William D. Haywood, in his first speech to
the strikers after his arrival in Lawrence, said: "If we prevail on
other workers who handle your goods to help you out by going on strike,
we will tie up the railroads, put the city in darkness and starve the
soldiers out."[574] This agitation became more vigorous, however, after
the strike itself and during the subsequent trial of the two I. W. W.
agitators, Ettor and Giovannitti.
They were in jail at Salem, Massachusetts, at the time of the seventh
I. W. W. convention in September, 1912, and the General Executive
Board, in its report, threatened that unless these "fellow-workers are
acquitted the industries of this country will feel the power of the
workers expressed in a general tie-up in all industries...."[575]
In addition to the general strike, a boycott was demanded. Under the
caption, "Boycott Lawrence," a heavily headlined announcement was
printed on the front page of the _Industrial Worker_.[576] It ran in
part:
_Boycott Lawrence.... Railroad men: Lose their cars for them!
Telegraphers: Lose their messages for them! Expressmen: Lose
their packages for them! Boycott Lawrence! Boycott it to the
limit!..._
Let nothing, cars, messages, packages, mails or anything
whatsoever that bears the sign, label or address of an official
of the Wool Trust, or of a bank, business house, or prostituted
newspaper, which favors them, or of a judge, policeman or
cossack, or any one who lends the slightest aid to the
mill-owners, go on its way undisturbed!
_Boycott Lawrence!_
Against the bludgeons of _Industrial Despotism_ bring the
silent might of the _Industrial Democracy_!
_Boycott Lawrence!_
The result of the strike was a decided victory for the strikers. The
Federal government's investigators reported that
some 30,000 textile mill employees in Lawrence secured
an increase in wages of from 5 to 20 per cent; increased
compensation for overtime; and the reduction of the premium
period from four weeks to two weeks. Also, as an indirect
result of the Lawrence strike, material increases in wages
were granted to thousands of employees in other textile mills
throughout New England.[577]
It is a significant fact that the highest percentages of increases in
wages were given to the unskilled employees. The General Executive
Board of the I. W. W. reported the range of wage increases as being
"from 5 per cent for the highly paid workers to 25 per cent for the
lowest paid workers."[578] Moreover, there were other effects, no
less important. This strike demonstrated that it was possible for
the unskilled and unorganized workers (preponderantly immigrants of
various nationalities) to carry on a successful struggle with their
employers. It showed what latent power there is in the great masses
of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Moreover, it demonstrated the
power of a new type of labor leaders over the ignorant and unskilled
immigrant workers. A writer who has little sympathy for revolutionary
unionism says concerning Joseph J. Ettor:
This man ... steeped in the literature of revolutionary
socialism and anarchism, swayed the undisciplined mob as
completely as any general ever controlled the disciplined
troops ... [and was able] to organize these thousands
of heterogeneous, heretofore unsympathetic and jealous
nationalities, into a militant body of class-conscious workers.
His followers firmly believed, as they were told, that success
meant that they were about to enter a new era of brotherhood,
in which there would be no more union of trades and no more
departmental distinctions, but all workers would become the
real bosses in the mills.[579]
The Lawrence Citizens' Association reports that Ettor
avowed himself an advocate of the doctrine of "direct action,"
of violence, as a believer in the philosophy of force, for he
proclaimed time and again ... that "he who has force on his
side has the law on his side." He also advocated destroying the
machinery of employers who did not grant all the demands of the
strikers.[580]
The effect of the strike on the membership of the I. W. W. in Lawrence
was to increase it greatly but only temporarily. Just after the
strike the organizers claimed 14,000 members in Lawrence. In October,
1913, there were 700.[581] An investigator for the Federal Commission
on Industrial Relations reports that they had over 10,000 members
immediately after the strike.[582] The I. W. W. itself claimed 20,000
in Lawrence in June, 1912, as well as 28,000 in Lowell, and boasted
that "in nearly every town in the New England states there are locals
ranging from 800 to 5,000 in membership."[583] The Federal investigator
referred to puts the Lawrence membership of the I. W. W. in 1914 at
about 400 and says that local I. W. W. officials attribute this low
figure to unemployment, but he himself thinks that other factors
entered.[584] The wage increase gained was, he said, offset by the
increased speed required on the machines.
This amounted to 50 per cent. Another factor was the forced scattering
of I. W. W. leaders after the strike. He found in 1914 only one of
eight local I. W. W. leaders who were there at the time of the strike
and reports that the employers established a system of espionage in the
mills.[585]
Lawrence made the I. W. W. famous, especially in the East. It stirred
the country with the alarming slogans of a new kind of revolution.
Socialism was respectable--even reactionary--by comparison. The
"Wobblies" frankly abjured the rules under which, as they would
express it, the capitalist game is played. They said: "If it serves
our interests as members of the working class to obey certain accepted
canons of conduct, we will obey them because it would be detrimental
to our class to disobey them." Lawrence was not an ordinary strike.
It was a social revolution _in parvo_. St. John is said to have
written to Haywood, "a win in the Lawrence mills means the start that
will only end with the downfall of the wage system."[586] This was
a class war and the I. W. W. insists that the principle of military
necessity justifies it in a policy of _schrecklichkeit_, at least to
property, which on the syndicalist hypothesis was stolen anyway, in
the beginning. The I. W. W. abjures current ethics and morality as
_bourgeois_, and therefore inimical to the exploited proletarian for
whom a new and approved system of proletarian morality is set forth.
In this proletarian code the sanctions of conduct are founded on the
(material) interests of the proletarian, _as such_. The criterion is
expediency--effectiveness to one particular end, the overthrow of
the wage system and the establishment of--something else--the words
_industrial democracy_ or _coöperative commonwealth_ are commonly
used in reference to that nebulous future state that all radicals
see as in a glass, more or less darkly. This means that staid old
New England was confronted with an organization which derided all
her fond moralities. The most shocking _défi_ of these I. W. W.s was
the _défi_ they hurled at the church. Only less so was the _défi_
they leveled at the flag. The I. W. W. said that the church, obedient
to the dictates of big business, preached to the workers a servile
obedience now for the sake of a hypothetical heaven of comfort later;
"_ergo_," they said, "the church is unethical and we abjure it for a
superior proletarian ethics." It considered that the flag was being
made the excuse for a jingo patriotism which made the enlargement and
conquest of markets and the further exploitation of labor the end and
aim of patriotism. In brief, the church and the flag are made to serve
commercialism. Commercialism is evil because unjust. Therefore, its
servants are, _pro tanto_, evil also and rightly to be repudiated.
The conflicting attitudes are well illustrated by two placards carried
along Lawrence streets during the strike. The I. W. W. paraded first
with, among others, a placard reading:
XX Century civilization.... For the progress of the human race
we have jails, gallows, guillotines, ... and electric chairs
for the people who pay to keep the "_soldiers_" to kill them
when they revolt against Wood and other czars of capitalism.
_Arise!!! Slaves of the World!!!
No God! No Master!
One for all and all for one!_
The citizens (no reference here to the textile operatives) of Lawrence
paraded their righteous indignation as follows:
"For God and Country,
The Stars and Stripes forever,
The Red Flag never.
A Protest against the I. W. W.,
Its principles and methods."
Perhaps there is no better illustration of the reaction of the great
bulk of the progressive citizenship of the country to the I. W. W.
strike-drama than the following editorial paragraph published during
the strike:
On all sides people are asking: Is this a new thing in the
industrial world?... Are we to see another serious, perhaps
successful, attempt to organize labor by whole industrial
groups instead of by trades? Are we to expect that instead of
playing the game respectably, or else frankly breaking out into
lawless riot which we know well enough how to deal with, the
laborers are to listen to a subtle anarchistic philosophy which
challenges the fundamental idea of law and order, inculcating
such strange doctrines as those of "direct action," "sabotage,"
"syndicalism," "the general strike," and "violence"?... We
think that our whole current morality as to the sacredness of
property and even of life is involved in it.[587]
At the seventh convention held in Chicago in September, 1912, there
were present forty-five industrialists; twenty-nine of these being
delegates from as many regular local unions; one delegate each
represented the two National Industrial Unions which were component
parts of the I. W. W., viz., the Textile Workers and the Forest and
Lumber Workers; seven were General Executive Board members, and seven
"fraternal delegates" from the Brotherhood of Timber Workers. Locals in
eight states and in British Columbia were represented.[588] During the
time the convention was in session, Joseph J. Ettor, a member of the
General Executive Board, was awaiting trial in the Essex County jail in
Salem, Mass. He wrote to the delegates that
all of the past term's progress is mainly due to the policies
adopted, particularly by the sixth annual convention, and ...
I feel it an urgent duty on my part to advise that as much
as conditions will allow, the lines laid down by the last
convention be ratified....[589]
The General Executive Board specifically recommended to the convention
the use of direct action as a weapon of the working class.
The only effective weapon that the workers have with which
to meet this condition [runs the Board's report] is to [sic]
render unproductive the machinery of production with which
they labor, and have access to. Militant direct action in the
industries of the world is the weapon upon which they must rely
and which they must learn to use.[590]
With the growing interests of the I. W. W. in the workers in the
agricultural and lumber industries came a realization of the need
for some kind of a land policy. Delegate Covington Hall presented a
petition which was adopted as a resolution by the convention:
Why not ... proclaim today [the resolution asks] what we will
be compelled to proclaim tomorrow--a land policy? Why not
base this policy on the motto of the Russian peasant, "Whose
the sweat, his the land," and couple this with a new I. W. W.
motto: "Whose the sweat, theirs the machines"? In other words,
proclaim that we will recognize no title to machinery except
that which vests its ownership in the users.[591]
The most important aspect of this convention was the sentiment which
was evidenced by some of the delegates in favor of reducing the power
of the national administration--the central office--often referred to
in this and following conventions as "Headquarters." This agitation
for decentralization was not particularly successful, but the idea
was given a hearing. At the following convention a much more extended
discussion took place and the subject will be resumed in connection
with the discussion of that meeting.[592] At this 1912 meeting the
question of decentralization came up in the discussion of a motion
to give the General Executive Board jurisdiction over the calling,
management and settlement of all free-speech fights. The alleged object
of the motion was to restrict the number of such controversies. The
"Wobblies" had been even more inclined to overindulge in free-speech
fights than in strikes, and some thought this appetite might be kept
in better control if it were made more difficult for locals to get
support for such struggles from the national office. The motion was
lost by an overwhelming majority. The vote expressed a significant
reaction from the traditional I. W. W. policy of centralization. That
the latter policy was still strong was indicated in the overwhelming
defeat of motions to deprive the General Executive Board of its power
over the strike activities of the organization.[593] The policy of the
convention was centralist on strike and decentralist on free-speech
fights. The editor of _The Agitator_, an anarchist exponent of
industrial unionism, believes that this was due to the fact that
the I. W. W. had had much experience of "free-speech fighting" and
realized the need for local autonomy, whereas it had had limited strike
experience and so had "not yet learned the danger of allowing a few
men ... to control its strike activities." The writer imagines that
geography was also a factor. The proponents of continued centralization
of strike power were the more disciplined eastern members. The
defenders of local autonomy in free-speech fights were the western
"Wobblies," and the nature of their life and experience bred in them
much of the anarchistic spirit of individualism.
The Socialist Labor party and the doctrinaires of Detroit thought
that this convention was a very insignificant gathering. One of the
DeLeonites described it: "About thirty men acting in the capacity of
delegates and about a score of onlookers, leaning with their backs
against the walls leisurely smoking their pipes or chewing tobacco....
This constituted the convention...."[594] It is interpreted differently
by one who is with the direct-actionists at least in sympathy. He says:
It is a significant proof of the sound base of the I. W. W.
philosophy that the tremendous growth of the past year has
not brought with it the germ of opportunism. There was no
suggestion of a desire on the part of any of the delegates
to swerve from the uncompromising and revolutionary attitude
of the organization; nor was there any reaching out for
"respectability." Every man was a "Red," most of them with jail
records, too.... All striving ... to hasten the day when "the
whistle will blow for the Boss to go to work."[595]
FOOTNOTES:
[557] _Cf._ appendix vii.
[558] _Supra_, p. 261 _et seq._
[559] An "I. W. W. strike" may or may not be managed by the I. W. W.
Also, it may be managed by I. W. W. leaders, but include no appreciable
proportion of "Wobblies" among the strikers. The writer has endeavored
to exclude here all strikes in which the I. W. W. did not in some way
actively participate. _Cf._ appendix viii.
[560] _Report on Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, Mass._, 62nd
Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 870, p. 9.
[561] Compiled from data in St. John, _I. W. W. History, Structure,
Methods_ (1917 ed.), pp. 20-23.
[562] National Industrial Union of Forest & Lumber Workers.
[563] _Op. cit._, p. 11.
[564] _Hearings on the Lawrence Strike_ (Washington, Government
Printing Office, 1912), p. 75.
[565] McPherson, _The Lawrence Strike of 1912_ (Reprint from Sept.,
1912, _Bulletin_ of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers), p.
25.
[566] _Ibid._, pp. 43-44.
[567] Mary K. O'Sullivan, "The Labor War at Lawrence," _Survey_, vol.
xxviii, p. 73 (April 6, 1912).
[568] The chairman of the committee belonged to the I. W. W. but its
personnel included those with other affiliations. (_The Strike of
Textile Workers in Lawrence, Mass._ [Federal report], p. 66.)
[569] "Statements by people who took part." _Survey_, April 6, 1912,
vol. xxviii, no. 1, p. 76.
[570] Federal report, _op. cit._, p. 39.
[571] L. H. Marcy and F. S. Boyd, "One Big Union Wins," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xii, p. 624, Apr., 1912.
[572] _Ibid._, pp. 618-619.
[573] Federal report. _op. cit._, p. 66.
[574] Mary E. Marcy, "The Battle for Bread at Lawrence," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xii, p. 538, March, 1912.
[575] _On the Firing Line_, p. 20. This is a pamphlet containing
extracts from the report of the General Executive Board to the Seventh
Convention. The report is published in full in _The Industrial Worker_
(Oct. 24, 1912).
[576] March 21, 1912.
[577] Federal report, _op. cit._, p. 15.
[578] _Ibid._
[579] McPherson, _op. cit._, pp. 9-10. For a different view _see_ W.
E. Weyl, "The Strikers at Lawrence," _Outlook_, Feb. 10, 1912, p. 311.
Weyl thinks that "the workers' real attitude is that of the ordinary
trade-unionist."
[580] "Lawrence as it really is--not as syndicalists, anarchists,
socialists, suffragists, pseudo-philanthropists, and muck-raking yellow
journalists have painted it." _Congressional Record_, vol. xlviii, no.
82, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 18, 1912, p. 3544.
[581] R. F. Hoxie, "The Truth About the I. W. W.," _Journal of
Political Economy_, vol. xxi, p. 786 (Nov., 1913).
[582] Selig Perlman, "The Relations between Capital and Labor in the
Textile Industry in New England." Report to the Commission, typewritten
MS., p. 12.
[583] _Industrial Worker_, July 4, 1912, p. 1, col. 4.
[584] Perlman. _op. cit._, p. 17.
[585] Perlman, _op. cit._, pp. 12-16.
[586] McPherson, _op. cit._, p. 15.
[587] Editorial, "After the Battle," _Survey_, vol. xxviii, no. 1,
April 6, 1912, pp. 1-2.
[588] _Report of the Seventh Convention_, pp. 2-3. Wm. E. Trautmann,
who had gone over to the Socialist Labor party faction, charged that
"two-thirds of the voting power of the whole convention" was lodged
in the hands of two delegates, one of whom was a paid officer. ("Open
letter to Wm. D. Haywood," _Weekly People_, May 31, 1913. p. 2.)
[589] Letter dated September 14, 1912, _Report of the Seventh
Convention_, pp. 26-27.
[590] _Industrial Worker_, Oct. 24, 1912, p. 4, col. 3.
[591] _Report of the Seventh Annual Convention_, pp. 9, 24.
[592] _Vide infra_, p. 305 _et seq._
[593] "The I. W. W. Convention," _The Agitator_, Oct. 15, 1912.
[594] Arthur Zavels, "The Bummery 'Congress'", _Weekly People_, Oct.
12, 1912, p. 1.
[595] J. P. Cannon, "Seventh I. W. W. Convention," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xiii, p. 424, col. 2 (Nov., 1912).
CHAPTER XIII
DUAL UNIONISM AND DECENTRALIZATION
In 1913 the visit of Tom Mann, the well-known English labor leader and
advocate of revolutionary unionism, revived the discussion of "dual
unionism" and the respective merits of what the French Syndicalists
called _la pénétration_ and _la pression extérieure_,[596] or what
the American "Wobbly" calls "boring from within" and "hammering from
without," respectively. Even before his visit a growing minority had
been feebly protesting against the accepted I. W. W. policy of creating
a new organization without regard to existing labor (or craft) unions
in the locality instead of allowing the unorganized--and especially
the radicals--to enter the old unions (of the A. F. of L.) and
"bore from within" their conservative shells to let in the light of
revolutionary industrial unionism. This renewed interest was largely
due to the exchange of ideas with European radicals at international
congresses. The policy in Europe and in England has been precisely
"the boring from within" policy, and European unions--especially the
_Confédération Générale du Travail_ of France--has prospered by it
both in numbers and influence. In 1911, William Z. Foster, a member
of the I. W. W., visited Europe and made a careful examination of the
labor organizations there. He returned fully convinced that the I. W.
W. should change its policy on "dual unionism" and begin to "bore from
within" the American Federation of Labor.
In connection with the proposal of his name for the office of editor of
the _Industrial Worker_ he sent a letter on the subject to that paper.
He makes such a cogent exposition of the case against dual unionism
that the greater part of it is here given:
The question, "Why don't the I. W. W. grow?" is being asked
on every hand, as well within our ranks as without. And
justly, too, as only the blindest enthusiast is satisfied at
the progress, or rather lack of progress, of the organization
to date. In spite of truly heroic efforts on the part of our
organizers and members in general ... the I. W. W. remains
small in membership and weak in influence. It is indeed time to
examine the situation and discover what is wrong.
The founders of the I. W. W. at its inception gave the
organization the working theory that in order to create a
revolutionary labor movement, it was necessary to build a new
organization separate and apart from the existing craft unions
which were considered incapable of development. This theory and
its consequent tactics has persisted in the organization, and
we later comers have inherited them and, without any serious
investigation, accepted the theory as an infallible dogma.
Parrot-like and unthinking, we glibly re-echo the sentiment
that "craft unions cannot become revolutionary unions," and
usually consider the question undebatable. Convincing arguments
in favor of the theory I have never seen nor heard--I used to
accept it without question like the vast majority of the I.
W. W. membership does now, and in practice it has achieved
the negative results shown by the I. W. W. today with its
membership of but a few thousands. The theory's strength is
due to its being the one originally adopted by the founders of
the I. W. W., and to me this is but a poor recommendation, as
these same founders, in addition to giving us a constitution
manifestly inadequate to our needs and the changing and
ignoring of which occupies a large share of our time, made
the monumental mistake of trying to harmonize all the various
conflicting elements among them into one "Happy Family"
revolutionary organization--a blunder which cost the I. W.
W. three years of internal strife to rectify and one that
gives these founders--who have mostly quit the organization,
anything but an infallible reputation. And if we look about us
a little, at the labor movements of other countries in addition
to considering our own experiences, we will be more inclined
to question this theory that we have so long accepted as the
natural one for the revolutionary labor movement. It has been
applied in other countries and with similar results as here.
The German syndicalist movement, with a practically stationary
membership of about 15,000, is a pigmy compared to the giant
and rapidly growing socialist unions with their 2,300,000
members. The English I. W. W. is ridiculously small and weak;
the German syndicalist organization, the English I. W. W. and
the American I. W. W., using the same dual organization tactics
in the three greatest capitalist countries, are all afflicted
with a common stagnation and lack of influence in the labor
movement. On the other hand, in those countries where the
syndicalists use the despised "boring from within" tactics,
their revolutionary movements are vigorous and powerful.
France offers the most conspicuous example. There the C. G. T.
militants, inspired by the tactics of the anarchists who years
ago, discontented at their lack of success as an independent
movement, literally made a raid on the labor movement, captured
it and revolutionized it, and in so doing developed the new
working-class theory of syndicalism, have for one of their
cardinal principles to introduce [_sic_] competition in the
labor movement by creating dual organizations. By propagating
their doctrines in the old unions and forcing them to become
revolutionary, they have made their labor movement the most
feared one in the world. In Spain and Italy, where the rebels
are more and more copying French tactics, the syndicalist
movements are growing rapidly in power and influence. But it
is in England where we have the most striking example of the
comparative effectiveness of the two varieties of tactics. For
several years the English I. W. W. with its dual-organization
theory carried on a practically barren agitation. About a
year ago, Tom Mann, Guy Bowman and a few other revolutionists,
using the French "boring from within" tactics, commenced in the
face of a strong I. W. W. opposition to work on the old trades
unions, which Debs had called impossible. Some of the fruits of
their labors were seen in the recent series of great strikes in
England. The great influence of these syndicalists in causing
and giving the revolutionary character to these strikes which
sent chills along the spine of international capitalism, is
acknowledged by innumerable capitalist and revolutionary
journals alike.
Is not this striking success of "boring from within" after
continued failure of "building from without" tactics, which is
but typical of the respective results being achieved everywhere
by these tactics, worthy of the most serious consideration on
the part of the I. W. W.? Is it not time that we get up off our
knees before this time-honored dual organization dogma and give
it a thorough examination? And I'll promise--or threaten--that
if I am elected editor the matter will get as thorough an
investigation as lays in my power.... At Berlin a few months
ago Jouhaux, secretary of the C. G. T. [_Confédération Générale
du Travail_], in a large public meeting advised them to give
up their attempt to create a new movement and to get into the
conservative unions where they could make their influence felt.
At Budapest he extended the same advice to the I. W. W. _via_
myself, and I am frank to state that I am convinced that it
would be strictly good tactics for both movements to adopt it.
I am satisfied from my observations that the only way for the
I. W. W. to have the workers adopt and practice the principles
of revolutionary unionism ... is to give up its attempt to
create a new labor movement, turn itself into a propaganda
league, get into the organized labor movement and by building
up better fighting machines within the old unions than those
possessed by our reactionary enemies, revolutionize those
unions even as our French syndicalist fellow-workers have so
successfully done with theirs.[597]
Upon the arrival of Mr. Mann, Mr. Foster again took up the cudgels for
the opponents of dual unionism.
Among many of the syndicalists [he said] the sentiment is
strong, and growing ceaselessly, that the tactics followed by
the I. W. W. are bad, and that endeavors should be made inside
the A. F. of L.; that it is in the existing unions that the
syndicalists must struggle without ceasing....[598]
Mr. Mann agreed with him. In a speech published in the _International
Socialist Review_[599] he expressed his belief that "if the fine
energy exhibited by the I. W. W. were put into the A. F. or L. or
into the existing trade-union movement ... the results would be
fifty-fold greater than they now are." He went on to "urge the
advisability, not of dropping the I. W. W., but certainly of dropping
all dual organizations and serving as a feeder and purifier of the big
movement." William D. Haywood replied that "it might as well be said
that if the fine energy exhibited by the I. W. W. were put into the
Catholic church, that the results would be the establishment of the
control of industry."[600] He went on to show that it is well-nigh
impossible for the unskilled man to get into the A. F. of L., even when
he does desire to do so, because of what Haywood characterizes as "a
vicious system of apprenticeship, exorbitant fees," _etc._[601] Mr.
Haywood's fellow-worker, Joseph J. Ettor, joined him in his attack on
Tom Mann's position:
The theory that what is needed to save the Federation is the
energetic and vigorous men who are now in the I. W. W. is on
a par with the "socialist" advice of [_sic_] how to save the
nation; but we don't want to save the Federation any more than
to save the nation. We aim at destroying it. The Socialists
advised us to roll up our sleeves and become active politically
within capitalism--"We must capture the government for the
workers," _etc._ We tried, but the more we fooled with the
beast the more it _captured us_. Our best men went to "bore
from within" capitalist parliaments, and city councils, only
to be disgusted, thrown out, or fall victims of the game and
environment in which they found themselves.... We learned at an
awful cost particularly this: That the most unscrupulous labor
fakers now betraying the workers were once our "industrialist,"
"anarchist" and "socialist" comrades, who grew weary of the
slow progress we were making on the outside, went over, and
were not only lost, but ... became the greatest supporters of
the old and [the] most serious enemies of the new.[602]
Mr Mann's attitude was not appreciably changed during his trip through
the United States. His reaction to the situation so far as the
principle of "dual unionism" is concerned is explained in an article
contributed to a French journal. He wrote:
As the situation appears to me after many deep conversations
and discussions with working men of all conditions, I say
very emphatically that the I. W. W. should work in harmony
with the American Federation of Labor. There is not the least
necessity for having two organizations. The field of action is
wide enough for all to be able to coöperate in the economic
struggle....
The greatest danger to which it [the A. F. of L.] is subject
at present is the firm hold the politicians have on it. Their
influence grows in the unions as well as in the Federation, and
that because the energetic, militant, enthusiastic men (_les
hommes énergiques et ardents_) who comprise the I. W. W. refuse
to work on the inside of the unions, so that they leave a free
field to the politicians, to whom the task becomes relatively
easy.... We know what comes to pass when politicians get
control of the unions and direct them.[603]
In reporting the eighth convention of the "Bummery" I. W. W., the
_Weekly People_[604] declared that the St. John crowd was in control
and that a wooden shoe was made use of in calling the convention in
order and attempting to maintain it in order. This meeting continued
in session from the 15th to the 29th of September, 1913. There were
present thirty-nine delegates and the seven members of the Executive
Board. Three national industrial unions were represented: the Textile
Workers by two delegates having thirty-one votes; the Forest and Lumber
Workers (formerly the Brotherhood of Timber Workers) by one delegate
with thirteen votes; and the Marine Transport Workers by one delegate
with forty-two votes. The other thirty-five delegates represented
eighty-five local unions with one hundred and ninety-two votes.[605]
Attention has been called to the rather tepid discussion of the problem
of centralization at the 1912 convention.[606] During the intervening
year this question had called forth such bitter factional animosity
in the organization that we find it in 1913 divided into two hostile
camps and threatened again with disruption. The issue is significantly
comparable to the "states' rights" controversy in our political
history. The I. W. W. _administration_ and its supporters were, very
naturally, "centralists." They favored a strong federal government
for the I. W. W. and attacked the "decentralizers'" program for the
emasculation of the general administration and the establishment of
a loose confederation of sovereign local unions--the states' rights
program in industry. The states' rights doctrine failed of acceptance
in the I. W. W. as it has failed in American politics. Nevertheless,
the decentralization crisis in the I. W. W. deserves more than passing
notice. In the first place, the doctrine was not annihilated in 1913;
it was merely smothered. The I. W. W. may yet be "unscrambled." In
the second place, this issue is perhaps the most fundamental one
ever given wide discussion by the I. W. W. membership. It involves
directly the whole question of the structure of the organization,
the proper distribution of functions and authority among the several
parts of the organization and, indirectly, questions of efficiency
in carrying on propaganda and organizing work and of the relative
merits of authoritarian (state) socialism and so-called "voluntary
socialism." As the two groups lined up at Chicago in 1913, we may say
that the controversy between the administration's supporters and the
defenders of the local unions was, on the whole, a struggle between the
western membership, individualistic and tainted with anarchism, and the
eastern membership, more schooled to subordination--infected with state
socialism.
The attack of the decentralizers took the form of specific resolutions
for the abolition of various features of the general administration
and the restriction of the powers of the Executive Board and general
officers. The abolition of the office of president in 1906 was in
part an expression of this revolt against centralized authority. But
now, with the presidency eliminated, with very little organization
at the best, with a degree of central power and authority which the
United Mine Workers of America would consider mild indeed, and with
a constantly shifting membership of less than 15,000, we find that
there is actually a little group of western locals which assumes that
there is already a dangerous centralization of power and authority
at "Headquarters." Some five hundred resolutions were introduced at
the convention and a large number of these were assorted decentralist
proposals for giving the local union relatively greater power--demands,
in other words, for readjustments which were expected to result in
increased "local autonomy." This local autonomy was to be secured for
the benefit of the "rank and file," _i. e._, the individual members,
and particularly for the "rank and file" membership of the "mixed"
locals so predominant in the western part of the country. From the
standpoint of the mixed local, "the disease within the I. W. W.
is ... the gigantic machine formation attempted to be [_sic_] foisted
upon it by the authoritarian socialists who presided at its birth...."
"Decentralization deals essentially," we are told, "with the right of
the locals to _control_ themselves and through their combined wills
to run the general organization."[607] Following up the attack, the
knights of the rank and file proposed to abolish, _inter alia_, the
General Executive Board, the office of the General Organizer, and the
national convention![608] One wonders that the Constitution itself
was not put bodily on the _index_! Indeed, a year later, a leader in
the movement in California did write an article to show that the I. W.
W. Preamble is syndicalistic, and the Constitution state-socialistic,
therefore that the latter should be abolished.[609] For two weeks the
delegates wrangled over propositions of this kind and the general
subject of decentralization. Two and a half days were devoted to the
proposal to abolish the General Executive Board. This action was
desired by locals in southern California and other parts of the West,
as well, as by a few of the eastern locals.[610] Concerning their
demands, a supporter of the administration said:
They [the decentralizers] claim they will never submit to the
rule of a minority of four or five men.... They do not want to
submit to the rule of the G. E. B. composed of four or five,
but they will submit to the authority of the General Secretary
and the General Organizer whom they want to function in the
place of the G. E. B. The authority of the minority of five or
seven men is something terrible, but the authority and rule of
the minority of two is not so terrible.[611]
The locals of Calgary [Canada], Portland, Oregon, Seattle and
Spokane, Washington, and Phoenix, Arizona, presented a resolution
asking that "the function of the headquarters [_i. e._, the general
administration] be reduced to a mere correspondence agency." No action
was taken.[612] "We ... are working ... to overthrow this [wages]
system," said a decentralist fellow-worker, "and we claim ... that
the rank and file of the proletariat will have to do this themselves."
The General Executive Board members, according to this delegate,
"place themselves in exactly the same position over these people [the
workers] and put themselves in the same [position of] unique power
over them as the capitalist class."[613] Said another: "The minority
in this organization is ... ruling ... today, namely, the G. E. B. I
am certainly in favor of abolishing the G. E. B. I don't see any use
for it. I don't see what they can do for the rank and file."[614]
According to the majority report of the constitution committee (which
was lost) all authority was, in the absence of the G. E. B., to be
vested in the General Secretary-Treasurer and the General Organizer,
both responsible to the rank and file.[615] In line with the foregoing
was a resolution providing for a reduction in the per-capita tax of
"mixed" locals from fifteen to five cents per month. The proponents of
this resolution insisted that the "mixed" locals bore more than their
share of the financial burden--that they practically supported the
national organization.[616] The proposition was given extended debate
and finally killed. Naturally it was opposed by the General Executive
Board.[617]
This attack on the already weak central authority took the form of
an attempt, first, to abolish the G. E. B.; second, to cut down
the financial support of the general office; third, to abolish the
convention and substitute for it the initiative and referendum; fourth,
to place agitators under the direct control of the rank and file; and
fifth, to make the general officers mere clerical assistants. The only
real success achieved by the decentralizers in these efforts in 1913
was the introduction into the I. W. W. constitution of a provision for
the initiative and referendum.[618] The introduction of the referendum
feature is another illustration of the unconscious tendency to follow
the lines of our political development. Note, too, that the I. W. W.
referendum advocates hailed from those very states which have recently
attracted attention by introducing this feature into their political
structure. The I. W. W. is now much more decentralized than it was
in 1905 or even 1913, and it appears to be drifting toward further
changes in that direction. So far, the movement away from what little
centralized power it could boast may be seen in two phases: (1) The
abolition of the presidency; (2) the placing of the General Executive
Board under the control of a general referendum which can be initiated
at any time and upon any subject by request of not less than ten locals
in not less than three different industries.
In discussing the proposed abolition of the convention, Delegate B.
E. Nilsson asserted that only at the second and fourth conventions
had anything worth while been done, and that in both these cases all
that had been accomplished had been done against the constitution, and
concluded with the statement that "this [eighth convention] has cost us
over $3,000 and it isn't worth three cents."[619] Delegate Elizabeth
Gurley Flynn advocated the abolition of the convention. She said that
it was not genuinely representative, inasmuch as all the locals could
not afford to send delegates.[620] The proposal was finally defeated.
In general, the decentralizers--anarchistic advocates of the doctrine
of the militant minority--found themselves decidedly in the minority,
and so far unsuccessful. "Fully a hundred of the resolutions," says one
prominent anarchist who attended the convention, "were progressive,
favored decentralization, and were fathered, mothered, and nursed by
half a dozen militants. But every radical resolution," he thought, "was
either lost, laid on the table, or amended so that it was useless.
The motion for decentralization was lost by three to one, as was
the motion to do away with the G. E. B."[621] Another opponent of
centralized authority explained how "for two long and tedious weeks
they [the decentralizers] presented their ideas ... and the centralists
slaughtered them by the _brute force of voting power_...." "The
decentralizers held," lie said, "that a revolutionary movement does
not depend [so much] upon votes as it does upon the recognition ... of
the fact that all minorities are to have an equal voice ... with the
majorities ... [because] the minority is always more militant than the
majority."[622] In the same issue which carried this statement, the
_Voice of the People_ said editorially:
[The decentralization struggle in the I. W. W. is] a war
between the advocates of "I am going to save myself" and those
of "let me save you."... Centralization in labor unions is
nothing less than government by representation, or political
action. The advocates of centralization in the I. W. W. are
socialists, in fact, if not in profession.... Only when they
repudiate labor-union governmentalism will they become real
direct-actionists.[623]
The "decentralist agitation" first assumed definite form at a
conference of the Pacific Coast locals of the I. W. W. held at
Portland, Oregon, in February, 1911. At this conference the eight-hours
movement, plans for the establishment of agitation circuits for
organizers, and--this most of all--the evils of centralized authority
were discussed.[624] At this conference was established the Pacific
Coast District Organization, known among the I. W. W.s as the "P. C.
D. O." This organization was an interesting compromise between the
idea of absolutely self-governing locals on the one side and servile
locals completely controlled by a bureaucratic national machine on the
other. It undertook to exercise some of the sovereign functions of
"Headquarters." According to a member of the General Executive Board,
this P. C. D. O. was to have its own due stamp books,
headquarters, General Secretary, General Executive Board, and
paper--this paper was the [_Industrial_] _Worker_. But the P.
C. D. O. made no success ... because of not having a strong
enough ground to build upon in order to interest the western
membership.[625]
It was believed in some quarters--especially at "Headquarters"--that
the real purpose of the Western Slope constituency which organized the
P. C. D. O. was to disrupt the I. W. W., or to effect a secession from
the national body. Some months after the Conference above referred to
an editorial appeared in _Solidarity_--the administration, organ. It
declared that their purpose
was to disrupt the I. W. W. and form an independent
organization in the West. The Conference itself proposed
that the G. E. B. reduce the _per capita_ [tax] to the P. C.
D. O. to five cents and allow the locals in that district
organization to buy their stamps directly from the district
headquarters.... The final conclusion of the sixth convention
was that such an organization as the P. C. D. O., for purposes
of closer unity, localized activity and propaganda, was fully
justified and should be supported, but efforts to divide or
disrupt the organization as a whole would be fought to the
bitter end.[626]
The administration saw in the P. C. D. O. a very subversive _imperium
in imperio_, and when the eighth convention met, the G. E. B. issued
the following statement concerning the western promoters of the P. C.
D. O. idea:
Decentralization is what they want. To gain this point of
control in the movement, they begin with the officials by
saying they have too much power, and to break up the machine
we must divide up in various parts, do away with the General
Executive Board and the General Office. The first move ... was
... when the scheme of a Pacific Coast District Organization
was launched under the mask of perfecting more organization
[_sic_] in the I. W. W. At the [P. C. D. O.] convention held in
Portland, Ore., they were to establish a western headquarters,
... get control of the western organ, _The Industrial Worker_,
elect their own General Executive Board, and get out their own
due-books and stamps, _etc._ This idea ... is now prevailing in
various sections throughout the organization. The P. C. D. O.
scheme ... failed because of [lack of] support [and] died with
its first convention because of the fact that it smacked of
disruption and decentralization....[627]
In the I. W. W., as in all voluntary organizations covering areas of
continental magnitude, doctrines are allocated territorially. There
are many points of contrast between the eastern and the western
constituencies of the Industrial Workers of the World. At present we
are only concerned with the eastern and western attitudes toward the
idea of decentralization. The western environment drives the _petit
bourgeoisie_ to demand _political_ home rule or local autonomy in
legislative government. The result is the recent remarkable spread
of the initiative, referendum and recall in the three Pacific Coast
states. In these same three states we find the chief strongholds of
_industrial_ autonomy. The life of the western proletarian imbues
him with the more individualistic kind of rebellion which expresses
itself in the more or less coherent demand for an industrial state
made up of self-governing local groups of workers. The results have
been the partially successful drive from the West for the referendum
idea in union government, the chronic decentralist mutterings which
have constantly emanated from the West, the open but unsuccessful
decentralist attack at the eighth convention and--the P. C. D. O. In
the long run the decentralist pressure has had its effect and the
organization, as already intimated, is now less centralized than it
was a decade ago. The writer realizes that the analogy between western
political pioneering and labor-union or industrialist pioneering in
that section must not be pushed too far. For example, the ultimate
result of I. W. W. decentralization is anarchist communism, which is
quite different from the kind of political society resulting from the
home-rule and referendum statutes enacted by a middle-class electorate.
The I. W. W. leaders were not unaware of the effect of the geographical
environment. B. H. Williams, the editor of _Solidarity_ puts it in this
way:
We see in the West, individualism in practice, combined with
a theory of collective action that scoffs at individual or
group initiative by general officers and executive boards and
conceives the possibility of "direct action" in all things
through the "rank and file." Hence the proposal ... for
minimizing the power of the general administration.
He explains that the eastern delegates come from a different
environment. Industry in the East is highly developed and centralized.
They don't think of Pennsylvania in a geographical sense.
Without the individualistic spirit himself, the eastern worker
nevertheless recognizes the value of individual initiative in
promoting mass action and in executing the mandates ... of the
organization. The problem before the sixth convention was to
preserve the balance between these two sets of ideas. In that
the convention succeeded admirably.[628]
Another industrialist thinks that "the western part of the country,
being very little developed industrially, has a tendency to develop
individualism in the minds of the workers.... On the other hand, the
workers in the large industrial centers develop a strong collectivism
which expresses itself in mass action," and which requires a "close[ly]
centralized organization."[629]
The western local union is usually a "mixed" union, and it is therefore
not directly connected with any "shop" or industry. It is more nearly
a propaganda club. It usually has a hall of some kind for meetings,
and in many cases this hall is open all the time. Sometimes there is a
"jungle kitchen" attached and meals can be served to itinerant Fellow
Workers who are passing through. This means that there is naturally
more hall-room conversation and less solid "shop talk" in the western
local than there is in the strictly industrial shop organization of
the East. Many members felt that too much time was wasted in talking
politics and religion. At the eighth convention there was some
criticism of the loquaciousness of the western "wobbly" and of his
personal appearance as well.
To-day you have got to have a man go up and address the public
that looks like a human being [said Delegate Olson]. [See what]
you have got in the western country by their ragged agitators;
you have got nothing but disappointment, and then you holler at
the General Secretary.... If the rank and file were educated
well enough to make use of the organization instead of arousing
animosity they would do away with this spittoon philosophy.[630]
Frank Bohn, in describing the methods by which this group of so-called
"spittoon philosophers" in the mixed locals is said to have attempted
to disrupt the I. W. W., asks, "Is this chair-warming sect now the
leading element in the I. W. W.? Is it in a majority? If it is, the I.
W. W. is not dying. It is dead."[631]
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of philosophic anarchism, it
is unquestionable that the anarchist--the _naïve_ anarchist, at any
rate--is an unmitigated nuisance. Perhaps the General Executive Board
had something of this sort in mind when they said that "word pictures
of the ideal will not serve to satisfy the cry for bread for any great
length of time regardless of how beautifully they may be
portrayed ...," and reminded the delegates that "responsibilities,
financial, moral and physical, must be met and not shirked."[632] The
Board was more specific farther on in its report:
There is an element in the I. W. W. [it declares] whose sole
purpose seems to be to disrupt the organization. We refer to
the syndicalists or decentralizers, as they are all the same,
in their attempt to disrupt the I. W. W.... While we do not
believe in a highly centralized organization, neither is the I.
W. W. such. In fact, it is the most decentralized movement in
the world today. It does not interfere with the action of the
locals as long as they abide by the fundamental principles of
the organization.... We find a situation in the West that if
carried on means a complete disruption of the only industrial
organization in the world. In time of strike they sit around
the hall talking of what ought to be done or devising ways
and means to do away with General Headquarters.... They will
talk of sabotage and direct action but leave it to the boss to
use it on the few who take up the fight. If these conditions
continue, the I. W. W. will die of dry rot.[633]
Delegate Foss, in a despondent moment, remarked that there was "a
general tendency to prevent organization of any kind in this [I.
W. W.] movement."[634] At another time he remarked: "The western
portion of this organization does not need any decentralization.
Decentralization has got hold of it now and that is the very reason why
this organization has no job control in the West...."[635]
In 1912 the G. E. B. had assured the membership that they were "not
unmindful of the danger that will ever live in centralized power,"
but they asserted that "it does not follow that to centralize the
administrative machinery of your organization necessarily means a
centralized power," and that "the only means by which centralization
of power can be avoided is by correct education and a thoroughly
intelligent membership...."[636]
A writer who favored the decentralists says that their defeat was
due very largely to their "crudity and inexperience." "Possessed
of a red-hot issue, they failed," he said, "to make good with it"
partly "because of their unfamiliarity with the principles of
decentralization."[637] Alexander Berkman, one of the most prominent
anarchists in the United States, regretted the victory of what he might
have called the "entrenched oligarchy" at Chicago.
The question of local autonomy [he says], in itself such an
axiomatic necessity of a truly revolutionary movement, has been
so obscured in the debates of the convention that apparently
sight was lost of the fact that no organization of independent
and self-reliant workers is thinkable without complete local
autonomy. It does not speak well either for the intelligence
or spirit of the convention delegates that the efforts of the
decentralists were defeated. The convention has given a very
serious blow to the ... spirit of the social revolution by
[passing] the resolution that the publications of the I. W.
W. should come under the supervision of the General Executive
Board. That is centralization with a vengeance.... We consider
the convention ... a sad failure [and] ... we sincerely hope
that the real militants and revolutionists of the I. W. W. will
take the lesson to heart and exert all their energies to stem
the tide of conservatism and faint-heartedness in the I. W. W.
organization.[638]
In a very interesting article Ben Reitman, another anarchist, has set
down his more personal impressions of this eighth I. W. W. convention.
After assuring us that 98 per cent of the "extremely interesting crowd"
of delegates had in all probability been in prison, but that none of
them were criminals, he continues:
As I sat in the hot, stuffy, smoky room of the convention
hall day after day and heard the discussions, and saw how
little regard the delegates had for grammar and the truth, and
realized that most of the delegates knew as much about the
real labor movement as they did about psychology, and that
they cared little about the broad principles of freedom, ...
I marvelled at the big things the I. W. W. have done during
their short career; ... and I said to myself,--"God! Is it
possible that this bunch of pork-chop philosophers, agitators
who have no real, great organizing ability or creative brain
power, are able to frighten the capitalistic class more than
any other labor movement organized in America? Is it true that
this body of politicians were able to send 5,000 men to jail in
the various free-speech fights?... Are these the men who put
a song in the mouth and a sense of solidarity in the heart of
the hobo? Are the activities of these men forcing the A. F. of
L. and the sociologists to recognize the power and necessity
of Industrial Unionism?" And as I looked at the delegates and
recounted their various activities, I felt that each one could
say, "Yes, I'm the guy." And then I wondered how they did
it.[639]
The I. W. W. was by this time developing some slight capacity for
introspection. A few of the leaders at any rate clearly understood
some of the weaknesses of the organization. The editor of the official
organ makes the frank admission that "at present we are to the labor
movement what the high diver is to the circus--a sensation marvelous
and nerve-thrilling. We attract the crowds ... [but] as far as making
industrial unionism fit the every-day life of the worker, we have
failed miserably."[640]
FOOTNOTES:
[596] E. Pouget, _La confédération générale du travail_ (2nd ed.), p.
47.
[597] "As to my candidacy," _Industrial Worker_ (II), Nov. 2, 1911.
[598] _The Syndicalist_ (London), March, 1913.
[599] Vol. xiv, p. 394 (Jan., 1914).
[600] "An appeal for industrial solidarity." _International Socialist
Review_, March, 1914, vol. xiv, p. 546.
[601] _Ibid._
[602] "I. W. W. _versus_ A. F. of L." _The New Review_, May, 1914. p.
283.
[603] "Impressions d'Amérique," _La Vie Ouvrière_ (Paris), vol. v, pp.
722-723. "Je dis que c'est grand dommage et que cela peut préparer
un désastre, que l'admirable ardeur combattive des _industrialists_
actuellement groupés dans le I. W. W. ne s'exerce pas à l'intérieur
de la Fédération Américaine du Travail." _Ibid._, p. 723. _Cf._ his
pamphlet, _Prepare for Action_, p. 14. For an excellent discussion of
dual unionism, see William English Walling, _Labor Union Socialism and
Socialist Labor Unionism_ (Chicago, C. H. Kerr Co., 1912), chap. xviii,
"The Question of the Moment--Dual Organization" (pp. 90-96).
[604] October 4, 1913. Editorial.
[605] _Proceedings of the Eighth Convention of the I. W. W._,
September, 1913, p. 2. The distribution of voting power among the
delegates depends, as explained in chapter ii, upon the membership of
the locals represented. _Cf._ article iv, section 7, of the I. W. W.
Constitution (1914 ed., pp. 14-16).
[606] _Supra_, p. 297.
[607] Covington Hall in _The Voice of the People_, Oct. 9, 1913, p. 2,
col. 3.
[608] _Proceedings_, p. 43. All of these resolutions were proposed by a
delegate from Phoenix, Arizona. In connection with the resolutions it
was "moved and seconded that a committee on style be called for, whose
duties shall be to strike from the constitution all references to the
powers of the General Executive Board, General Organizer, and General
Secretary." _Ibid._
[609] Caroline Nelson, "Economic socialism or State capitalist
socialism, Which?" _The Voice of the People_, July 30, 1914, p. 4, col.
3.
[610] _Proceedings_, 8th I. W. W. convention, p. 81.
[611] Delegate Schrager, _ibid._, p. 71, col. 1.
[612] _Ibid._, p. 84, col. 1.
[613] Delegate Van Fleet, _op. cit._, p. 69.
[614] _Ibid._, p. 69 (Fellow-worker McEvoy).
[615] _Ibid._, p. 71.
[616] _Ibid._, p. 112.
[617] _Ibid._, p. 33. An unsuccessful effort had been made at the third
convention in 1907 to abolish the initiation fee.
[618] Preamble and Constitution (1914), article vii.
[619] _Proceedings_, p. 117, col. 1.
[620] _Ibid._, p. 118, col. 1.
[621] Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention." _Mother
Earth_, October, 1913, vol. viii, p. 240.
[622] G. G. Soltes, "Convention Notes," _Voice of the People_, Oct. 23,
1913, p. 2, col. 3. The italics are not in the original.
[623] "The question of decentralization," p. 2.
[624] Report of Committee. _Solidarity_, Feb. 18, 1911, p. 2, col. 4.
[625] J. M. Foss in his report to the eighth convention, _Proceedings_,
p. 37.
[626] _Solidarity_, Oct. 21, 1911, p. 2, col. 3.
[627] Report to the eighth convention, _Proceedings_, p. 36. Some of
the delegates at this convention appeared to think that the P. C. D.
O. "scheme" was instigated indirectly by the capitalists. Delegate
Foss said: "... it is much cheaper for the masters to work within our
organization rather than to fight us openly." _Ibid._, p. 38, col. 1.
[628] "The sixth I. W. W. convention," _International Socialist
Review_, vol. xii, pp. 301-2, Nov., 1911.
[629] Ewald Koeltgen, "I. W. W. Convention" (8th, 1913), _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xiv, p. 275, Nov., 1913. Professor Hoxie
took the same general view that decentralization was the slogan of
the western membership. "The Truth about the I. W. W.," _Journal of
Political Economy_, Nov., 1913. vol. xxi, p. 788.
[630] _Proceedings, Eighth Convention_, p. 52.
[631] _International Socialist Review_, vol. xii, p. 44, July, 1911.
[632] Report of the Eighth Convention, _Proceedings_, p. 37, col. 1, 2.
[633] Report of the Eighth Convention, _Proceedings_, pp. 103-4.
[634] _Ibid._, p. 70.
[635] _Ibid._, p. 56, col. 2.
[636] Report to the Seventh Convention, _Industrial Worker_, Oct. 24,
1912, p. 6, col. 1.
[637] Onlooker, "The Question of Decentralization," _Voice of the
People_, Oct. 9, 1913, p. 4, col. 2.
[638] Alexander Berkman, "The I. W. W. Convention," _Mother Earth_,
Oct., 1913, vol. viii, pp. 233, 234.
[639] Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention," _Mother
Earth_, October, 1913, vol. viii, pp. 241-242.
[640] Editorial, "Sensationalism _vs._ Organizing Ability,"
_Solidarity_, Aug. 23, 1913.
CHAPTER XIV
RECENT TENDENCIES
The mutual hostility between the Western Federation of Miners and
the I. W. W. has not lessened since 1907. This antagonism has been
most acute in Arizona, Nevada and Montana mining camps. In the
Arizona-Montana territory the feeling on the side of the Federation
is indicated by the following extract from a letter written to the
twenty-first convention of that organization by a member in Jerome,
Ariz.
We are very sorry [he writes] that we are unable to send a
delegate to Denver, but we have the fight of our life here
with an I. W. W. bunch. They are coming here from all over;
already they have got in some dirty work by getting some of our
members to quit the W. F. M., ... there seems to be a concerted
movement on the part of the I. W. W. to get in where the W. F.
M. are doing good work and disrupt the union.[641]
It is not unnatural that there should be increasing friction between
the two organizations, inasmuch as the Western Federation has become on
the whole more conservative, while the I. W. W. has grown constantly
more revolutionary. In June, 1910, the W. F. M. voted for affiliation
with the American Federation of Labor and the alliance was finally
consummated in May, 1911. "What the mine owners failed to do by
force," declares the I. W. W., "they have accomplished through Civic
Federation methods. The process will doubtless continue, until the
W. F. of M, becomes as completely the football of metalliferous mine
owners as the United Mine Workers is of the coal barons."[642] At
its twentieth annual convention in 1912, the W. F. M. now not only
divorced from the I. W. W., but wedded to the A. F. of L., reversed its
traditional embargo on agreements and accepted the policy of entering
into contracts with the operators.[643]
Article V, section 4. of the Federation's _Constitution_ (1910 edition)
stipulated that "no local union or unions of the W. F. M. shall enter
into any signed contract or verbal agreement for any specified length
of time with their employers." This clause was stricken out in 1912.
The revised edition of the _Constitution_ for that year expressed the
new policy of the Federation (now the International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers) in these terms: "Local unions or groups of local
unions may enter into wage agreements for a specified time, providing
such agreements have the approval of the Executive Board...."[644]
The bitterness between the two organizations was most acute in the
Butte (Mont.) mining fields. The situation reached a dramatic climax in
the summer of 1914 when, on June 13, the Union Hall of Butte Miners'
Union No. 1 (W. F. M.) was dynamited. The writer is not sufficiently
familiar with the facts to tell this story in detail, or to express an
opinion as to whether or to what extent the I. W, W. element in Butte
was responsible for the dynamiting.
The friction between I. W. W. sympathizers and the management of the
local W. F. M. union--Butte Miners' Union No. 1--was unquestionably a
factor in the quarrel which culminated in the dynamiting outrage. There
were certainly other factors. The local organization had been gradually
dividing into two factors--the "Reds" and the "Yellows." Among the
"Reds," I. W. W. members and sympathizers predominated. The "Yellows"
comprised the local officials of the union and their followers, and
they were in a majority. It was alleged by the "Reds" that at the
union meetings the administration element deliberately packed the
hall with the "reactionaries" before the hour of opening, so that the
"Reds" could not even voice their grievances. Then the hall was blown
up. The administration accused the I. W. W. and pointed out that such
a deed was to be expected of a group which avowed its belief in the
doctrine of "direct action by the militant minority." The _Miners'
Magazine_ declares that "the 'Red' faction composed of I. W. W. members
dynamited the Union Hall."[645] At the last W. F. M. convention (1916),
President Moyer said that the real cause of the Butte tragedy was the
"poison the I. W. W. promoters were scattering" in the minds of the
Butte miners.[646] A large portion of the two weeks' session of the
twenty-first W. F. M. convention (Denver, 1914) was taken up with a
discussion of the Butte dynamiting and the alleged complicity of the
I. W. W. therein. One of the delegates related the following incident,
which he said took place in front of the Union Hall in Butte a short
time before the dynamiting:
Three of the mob ... presented I. W. W. cards ... at the door
and asked to be admitted to the meeting, and on being refused,
one of them laid his I. W. W. card on the sidewalk, stooped
down and patted it with his hand and said, "We will make you
fellows eat that card before long."[647]
Lewis J. Duncan, the Socialist mayor of Butte, declared that the I. W.
W.s did not take part in the dynamiting. In a letter dated June 29,
1914, and addressed to the _United Labor Bulletin_ (Denver), he asserts
that
the responsibility for Tuesday's disturbance cannot truthfully
be placed on the I. W. W. The "600 itinerant I. W. W.
trouble-makers" on whom your report lays the blame for the June
13th trouble, are non-existent.... The men in revolt against
the local officers of the miners [union] and against the W.
F. of M. officials are a majority of the miners of Butte, and
only a small minority of them are connected with the Propaganda
League of the I. W. W. here, or are even sympathetic with the
I. W. W.s. We have no economic organization of the I. W. W. in
this city. It is untrue that even all those in the lead of the
local revolt are connected with the I. W. W....[648]
But scarcely more than a week after the dynamiting it was announced in
the newspapers that
plans for forming an independent union of miners were made
today at a meeting ... attended by 5000 miners.... The seceders
[the dispatch continued] have an executive committee of twenty,
a majority of whom are known to be members of the Industrial
Workers of the World....[649]
Apparently nothing came of this in the way of an I. W. W.
organization, for there was no I. W. W. local in Butte in 1914. At the
present time, however, there is an active local there.
Entirely apart from the Butte controversy there has been a marked
feeling among the officials of the Western Federation that the I. W.
W. had deliberately attempted to disrupt the Federation. President
Moyer thought the I. W. W.s had tried by crooked methods to get control
of, or disrupt the W. F. M.[650] He alleged that "there had been a
conspiracy entered into both in and out of the Western Federation of
Miners ... to secure control of this organization for the purpose of
getting it back into the I. W. W.,"[651] and that "publications edited
by this direct-action, sabotage-howling coterie have lent their aid to
this campaign...."[652] Mr. J. M. O'Neill, the editor of the _Miners'
Magazine_, a man who has since 1907 been particularly lavish of
epithets on I. W. W.-ism, complained that
Since the Western Federation of Miners repudiated by referendum
vote the aggregation of characterless fanatics, who make up
the official coterie of the International Workless Wonders,
the officials of the Western Federation of Miners have
been assailed by every disreputable hoodlum in the I. W.
W....[653] The time has come [he went on] when the labor and
socialist press of America must hold up to the arc-light these
professional degenerates who create riots, and then, in the
name of _free speech_, solicit revenue to feed the prostituted
parasites who yell "_scab_" and "_fakiration_" at every
labor body whose members refuse to gulp down the lunacy of a
"bummery" that would disgrace the lower confines of Hades.[654]
Each faction of the I. W. W., according to O'Neill, claims to
be "the genuine brand of unionism that is ultimately destined to
shatter empires, scatter kingdoms and strangle economic slavery to
death...."[655] Another editorial in the same journal declares that the
Federation is
unalterably opposed to their tactics and methods.... Industrial
unionism will not come through soup houses, spectacular
free-speech fights, sabotage or insults to the flags of
nations.... Men will not be organized or educated by means of
violence, for violence is but the weapon of ignorance, blind to
the cause that subjugates humanity and sightless to the remedy
that will break the fetters of wage slavery.
There has been less trouble between the coal miners' union and the
I. W. W. because the United Mine Workers have always been much less
radical than the Western Federation and the I. W. W. has really never
succeeded in making inroads of any consequence among the United Mine
Workers. Max Hayes, International Vice President of the U. M. W., told
the United States Commission on Industrial Relations that the I. W.
W. was "rather an unknown quantity among the coal miners. In fact,"
he said, "we do not let them propagate their doctrines; at least, we
try to prevent their ideas from becoming accepted by our people....
There is nothing constructive about their philosophy: it is all
destructive."[656]
The Mine Workers' Union is perhaps the most constructively
business-like, and certainly one of the most successful, unions in the
world. Their hard-headed constructive work is most of all evidences
in the business agreements which they negotiate with the operators at
regular intervals.
To the I. W. W., agreements--particularly all _time_ agreements--are
in themselves evil. Consequently the friction between the world's
smallest and most revolutionary industrial union and its largest
and most conservative industrial union was experienced primarily in
connection with these agreements. "Wherever the _bona fide_ labor
unions have succeeded in effecting a satisfactory agreement with the
employers," declares the _Miners' Magazine_, "... there will be found
the I. W. W. organizer, attempting to create dissension."[657]
The Wobblies justified their attacks upon the Mine Workers
[said President John Mitchell at the U. M. W. convention in
1906] by saying that we make trade agreements which so tie the
hands of our members as to render us unable to strike at any
time during the year when conditions would seem propitious.
They lost sight of the fact that if we ... were ... at liberty
to strike at our own sweet will, the operators would have
precisely the same right and could lock us out whenever trade
was dull....[658]
The most recent conflict between the I. W. W. and the Mine Workers was
in the anthracite region around Scranton, Pennsylvania. In April, 1916,
entirely against the will of the United Mine Workers, according to a
conservative writer,
the I. W. W. leaders decided to close down certain of the
collieries about Scranton. The method ... was to picket the
collieries in the early morning hours, from four o'clock
until seven, to urge the men not to go to work, and then, if
unsuccessful by that means, to drive them off by force.[659]
At about this time (1914) Eugene Debs, one of the founders of the
I. W. W., was again urging the formation of a great revolutionary
industrial union. He proposed to begin with the two big miners'
unions--the Western Federation and the United Mine Workers--which
organizations were to form the head and center of the new union.
It is vain to talk about the I. W. W. [he said]; the Chicago
faction, it now seems plain, stands for anarchy. So be it. Let
all who oppose political action and favor sabotage and the
program of anarchism join that faction. The Detroit faction,
for reasons not necessary to discuss here, will never amount to
more than it does today. A new organization must be built with
the miners, the leading industrial body, at the head of the
movement.[660]
"The consolidated miners and the reunited I. W. W.," he said, "would
draw to themselves all the trade unions with industrial tendencies,
and thus would the reactionary federation of craft unions [A. F. of
L.] be transformed from both within and without, into a revolutionary
industrial organization."[661] In the same article Debs advocated a
reunion of the Socialist and Socialist Labor parties, and William
English Walling in commenting on Debs' proposal for uniting the W.
F. M. and the U. M. W. says that such an outcome "if not immediately
probable, is decidedly possible."[662]
The ninth I. W. W. convention, which met in Chicago, Sept. 21, 1914,
as not an important one. It was in session less than a week and
there were not more than twenty-five delegates present.[663] The
writer attended the sessions of September 22, 23 and 24. On the
22nd he counted ten delegates actually present, and about the same
number of spectators. The next morning there were sixteen delegates
on hand, and on the 27th, seventeen. No stenographic report of the
proceedings--indeed, no complete report of any kind whatsoever--has
ever been issued. A very brief account was printed in _Solidarity_,
which emphasized the fact that all the delegates were "typical
specimens of the working class rank and file, with some contempt for
empty theorizing and a marked preference for action."[664] On the 23rd,
resolutions were presented asking for a reduction in the amount of
dues payable to the national office and proposing to limit convention
delegates to one vote each irrespective of the size of the locals which
they represented. Both were lost. The latter resolution was supported
by a militant minority which very naturally believed that the majority
is sluggish--always behind time--and therefore nearly always wrong.
They insisted that the new and fruitful ideas always come from the
minority and that it should, therefore, be given representation rather
according to its (assumed) revolutionary initiative than according to
its numerical strength. Their attitude was primarily the result of
the difficulty they experienced both in and out of the organization
in getting their militant ideas "across" to the large majority. In a
lesser degree they were stimulated by the example set them by their
fellow syndicalists in France where the "militant minorities" in the
small unions of the C. G. T. are given the same representation and
voting power as the large unions of that body. For this reason small
groups which make up the "extreme left" in the C. G. T. have more
influence than similar groups in this country.[665]
The unemployment situation had been particularly acute the preceding
winter and it was reported that the greater part of the membership of
the I. W. W. were out of employment at the time of the convention.
"... the I. W. W. has no apologies to offer," says _Solidarity_, "for
the smallness of its last convention ... most of our members are out
of work, and few, if any, Pacific Coast locals could have financed a
delegate for even four days in Chicago."[666]
According to the account appearing in the I. W. W. press, it was the
understanding of the convention
that [unemployed] parades to City Halls, Capitols, _etc._,
should be discouraged as nothing more substantial than hot air
is to be found in these political centers. The delegates agreed
with Haywood that the places for the unemployed to demonstrate
were the places where there was plenty of food and clothing so
that they could help themselves.[667]
At the same time the delegates decided to take definite steps toward
organizing the unemployed. According to the Chicago papers, Haywood had
said: "Millions have been appropriated for the militia; nothing for the
wealth producers who will be without work. Where warehouses are full of
food, go in and take it; where machinery is lying idle, use it for your
purposes; where houses are unoccupied, enter them and sleep."[668] At
a later session (on September 24) there was adopted unanimously and
without discussion a resolution which, in effect, stipulated that all
speakers be instructed to recommend to the workers the necessity of
curtailing production by "slowing down" and the use of sabotage. The
resolution also suggested the publication of an explanatory leaflet
on this subject.[669] The _Daily News_ dispatch, just quoted, reports
F. H. Little, an executive board member from California, as saying,
"Wherever I go, I inaugurate sabotage among the workers. Eventually the
bosses will learn why it is that their machinery is spoiled and their
workers slowing down."
At the same session it was proposed that a conference on harvest
organization be held, and from this time on the harvest and the other
agricultural workers attracted more and more of the organization's
attention.
There was some discussion of the methods used in conducting the
business of the local unions, especially in regard to the bookkeeping
system--or lack of system. No definite decision was reached, but the
remarks of the delegates show that they were beginning to realize that
financial and membership records cannot be kept by the futurist or
impressionistic methods which are so effective on the soap-box. It was
realized also that responsible persons must be selected for the work
of the local secretary-treasurer, and it was urged that some uniform
system of bookkeeping be adopted for the use of local secretaries.
Some I. W. W. officials, like some bank officials, no doubt abuse the
confidence placed in them, although the daily press probably heralds
to the world the I. W. W. defalcation with greater promptness and
enthusiasm than it does that of the banker. A dispatch in the _Omaha
Bee_ (Nov. 24, 1916) says that the local "secretary-treasurer of the
Industrial Workers of the World has been missing for the last four
days and so is $250 which was to be used for the relief of strikers
and their families in Duluth, Minn." In another instance, according to
Vincent St. John, "the National Secretary [of the 'National Industrial
Union of Forest and Lumber Workers' of the I. W. W.] left with all the
funds in his charge six or eight months ago and the organization had to
start all over again...."[670]
The European war had broken out less than two months before this
convention met and the delegates did not fail to adopt a resolution
against war. It was worded in part as follows:
... The ignorance of the working class is the reason for the
continuation of the war.... The [German] Social Democracy
was a movement that engendered a spirit of patriotism within
political boundary lines. The industrial movement will wipe out
all boundaries and will establish an international relationship
between all races engaged in industry.... We, as members of the
industrial army, will refuse to fight for any purpose except
for the realization of industrial freedom.[671]
Only two constitutional amendments of importance were passed at the
ninth convention. One was a further development of the machinery of the
referendum and constituted a victory for the decentralist boosters of
the "rank and file." The first three clauses read as follows:
(a) Any local union in good standing with the General Office
may institute or initiate a call for a referendum to be
submitted to the General Office at once, with reasons and
arguments for same.
(b) Upon receipt of the initiative call for a referendum the
General Office shall publish same with arguments for and
against, and must submit it to all Local Unions, National
Industrial Unions and Industrial Departments for seconds within
30 days.
(c) Before any referendum shall be submitted, the call for the
same must be seconded by at least ten [local] unions in good
standing in at least three different industries.[672]
The other amendment expressed in more specific terms than ever before
the attitude of the organization toward agreements between employers
and employees. It replaced the former blanket prohibition with a clause
which specifically defines the kinds of agreements which _must_ be
avoided, and, inferentially, permits the making of agreements which are
free from the objectionable features specified. The amendment is to
Article III., and is as follows:
No Local Union affiliated with the General Organization,
Industrial department, or National Industrial Union of the I.
W. W. shall enter into any contract with an individual, or
corporation of employers, binding the members to any of the
following conditions:
1. Any agreement wherein any specified length of time is
mentioned for the continuance of the said agreement.
2. Any agreement wherein the membership is bound to give notice
before making demands affecting hours, wages or shop conditions.
3. Any agreement wherein it is specified that the members will
work only for employers who belong to an Association of the
employers.
4. Any agreement that proposes to regulate the selling price of
the product they are employed in making.[673]
These two years of unprecedented field activity were naturally years
of growth in membership. This is more especially true of 1912 than of
1913, during the latter part of which a decline set in. The membership
was at its high tide in 1912 after the Lawrence strike. The I. W. W.
then boasted more than 18,000 members.[674]
Never since that time has it reached that point nor had it previously,
unless we include the W. F. M. in the membership for 1905. There was
also during both years a net increase in the number of locals in the
organization. During the year ending August 31, 1913, two hundred
and thirty-six new locals were organized, and during the same period
one hundred were disbanded. The new locals were organized in largest
numbers in the lumber, textile, and metal and machinery industries.
Thirty were "mixed" locals.[675]
In the following table is a complete list of these new and defunct
locals classified to show the number gained and lost in each industry:
TABLE 4
Number of local unions organized and disbanded during the year ending
August 31, 1913, classified by industries as reported.[676]
_Industry_ _Organized_ _Disbanded_
Agricultural 1 2
Amusement 1 ..
Automobile 1 1
Bakery 4 1
Brass 1 ..
Brewery and distillery 1 ..
Brick, tile and terra cotta 1 2
Building construction 13 2
Building employees 1 2
Button 2 2
Clerks, butchers and delivery 2 1
Confectionery and fruits 2 1
Car .. 1
Coal miners 3 2
Construction (general) 4 2
Corn products .. 1
Department store 1 1
Domestic service 1 1
Electrical 1 1
Fishermen .. 1
Furniture 2 ..
Glass 1 1
Hotel and restaurant 2 3
Laborers, general 2 3
Leather 2 2
Light and power plant 1 ..
Lumber 41 ..
Marine transport 3 ..
Match 1 1
Metal and machinery 18 10
Miners 1 ..
Mixed locals 30 19
Musical and theatrical 1 ..
Oilcloth .. 1
Oil workers 3 1
Packing house 1 3
Paper mills .. 1
Piano and instruments 4 ..
Plaster composition 1 ..
Pottery 1 1
Printing plant 1 1
Propaganda League 1 2
Public service 10 2
Railroad construction 5 4
Railroad employees 5 5
Reed, willow, and rattan 4 1
Rubber 3 3
Ship construction 1 ..
Steel 5 4
Street car 2 ..
Sugar plant 2 2
Textile 32 ..
Tobacco 6 3
Transport 1 2
Watch and clock .. 1
Wood 3 ..
---- ----
236 100
The membership declined considerably in 1913 and 1914, since which
time it appears to have increased slightly. Conservative estimates fix
it at about 15,000 in 1913, 11,000 in 1914, and 15,000 in 1915.[677]
The author has not yet been able to get a reliable estimate of the
membership for 1916. The reports of the tenth convention (November,
1916) as published in _Solidarity_ give no clue. A dispatch to the
_Weekly People_ (December 9, 1916, p. 1) reports that the delegates
claimed to represent a constituency of 35,000 to 40,000. As to 1912,
Professor Hoxie said the average paid-up membership was 14,300 and that
"local and national bodies have an additional dues-paying membership
of 25,000 on which no _per-capita_ tax has been paid to the General
Organization," and credits the organization (for 1913) with a "nominal
non-dues-paying _enrolment_ of from 50,000 to 60,000." He came to the
conclusion "that 100,000 or more men _have had_ I. W. W. dues cards
in their possession during the past five years."[678] The figures in
Appendix IV indicate that more than 191,000 persons have at one time
or another during the last ten years been members of the I. W. W.
This table also shows that the I. W. W. often gives very exaggerated
membership estimates. This was true in 1913 when unofficial I. W.
W. estimates ran into the hundreds of thousands. At this time, it
is reported that, "Hoxie walked into the office of St. John, the
General Secretary, and said, 'Look here, St. John, I've got the
goods on you. You have only 14,300 members.' 'You're a liar, Hoxie,'
replied St. John, 'we have 14,310.'"[679] Levine gives an estimate
(doubtless furnished by the general office of the I. W. W.) which
is unquestionably much too high. He puts the membership for August,
1913, at 70,000, distributed as follows: textile industry, 40,000;
lumber industry, 15,000; railroad construction, 10,000; metal and
machinery industry, 1,000; and miscellaneous, 4,000.[680] The numerical
insignificance of the I. W. W. as compared to the American Federation
of Labor was strikingly indicated by Professor Hoxie in the course of
his remarks before the American Economic Association in December, 1913.
He said that in 1913 the I. W. W. had paid-up membership amounting to
(1) Less than one-hundredth of the membership of the American
Federation of Labor;
(2) Less than one-sixtieth of the voters of the Socialist
ticket in 1912;
(3) Less than one-twentieth of the membership of a single
industrial union in the A. F. of L.;
(4) Less than six one-thousandths of the general body of
organized workmen;
(5) Less than one in 2,000 of American wage-workers.[681]
The years 1914 and 1915 were marked by a definite slump in the
fortunes of the I. W. W. followed in 1916 by a noticeable increase of
activity. St. John says that the decrease in membership during these
years was most marked in the following industries: "lumber, railroad
construction, building, packing house, amusement workers and the
public service industries."[682] A possible exception to this general
inactivity is the National Industrial Union of Marine Transport
Workers of the I. W. W., which affiliated with the I. W. W. in April,
1913, and has since made some progress.[683] St. John informed the
United States Commission on Industrial Relations that the cause of this
falling-off was the industrial depression. He said that "the membership
on the Pacific Coast from one end of it to the other, seventy-five per
cent of them, have been out of work in the last year and have not paid
any dues."[684] Leonard Abbott thought that the reaction or slump of
1914-15 in the I. W. W. was "due perhaps to the great emotional strain
of revolutionary activity...."
There is something almost pathologic [he said] in the present
reaction of the I. W. W. It has stressed too much the
destructive side--sabotage, violence. Acts of violence have a
very violent rebound--the boomerang effect. Violence should not
be made a tactic. You can see the apotheosis of violence in
Europe today. The I. W. W. has too much gloried in it.[685]
In the latter part of 1915 and in 1916 came a revival of I. W. W.
activity. The most energetic group of all has been the Agricultural
Workers' Organization or the "A. W. O." (organized April, 1915),
which has taken great strides in pushing the propaganda of industrial
unionism among the farm laborers and harvest hands and organizing these
hitherto unorganized workers. At the tenth convention "the A. W. O.
held the center of the stage, being represented by seven delegates
with 36 votes each."[686] The "A. W. O." has its headquarters in
Minneapolis and is strongest in the Middle West and Northwest. The
following extracts from a daily press dispatch will give an idea of the
stir which is being made by the "A. W. O." of the I. W. W. The accuracy
of the report is questionable but it is presented for what it is worth.
State and city officials of the states comprising the great
American grain belt are considering holding a conference in the
near future to devise methods of coping with the Industrial
Workers of the World. Thousands of these migratory mendicants
have thronged the Middle West this year creating a reign of
terror throughout the rural communities and intimidating all
who do not join their organization....
Coming with the slogan "Six Dollars a Day or No Work,"
thousands of I. W. W. members and organizers have spread over
the agricultural district of the Middle West, attempting to
organize harvest hands into a semblance of a union and compel
the farmers to grant their demands....
I. W. W. gangs have taken possession of trains, clubbing off
all who could not show a membership card in their organization.
In most cases they have even driven trainmen from their
trains.... Often they travel in mobs of 300 or 400....
Great camps are established, not only by the I. W. W. but
by those who are not members of that organization. The
men congregate at these "jungles," cook their food, often
pilfered from nearby farms, wash their clothes, bathe, and not
infrequently stage drunken orgies. This year the I. W. W.s have
posted signs at their "jungles" reading, "For I. W. W.s only,"
and any man who dares wander into their camp without proper
credentials is due for a beating.... This year they have been
more numerous than ever....
All methods of handling the situation have proven
unavailing.... One method suggested is for each state to employ
forces of mounted police similar to the famous Northwest
Mounted Police of Canada to keep the bands from congregating,
break up their "jungles" and otherwise deal with them. Power
seems the only force they recognize, and they laugh at the
county sheriffs and town constables.[687]
The year 1916 saw a recrudescence of both free-speech and strike
activities. The most important were the Everett Free Speech fight
culminating in the tragedy of November 6 and the miners' strike on the
Mesaba range during the spring and summer. The scope of the present
study does not permit of a detailed account of either of these highly
important labor struggles. Indeed, this is hardly possible now, since
in neither case is the story complete.
Many signs suggest the possibility of a split in the I. W. W. before
many months. The growing strength of the A. W. O. and its natural
yearning to be a big independent organization as well as the failure of
the Pacific Coast to send more than one solitary delegate to the tenth
convention, both indicate a possible development of internal discord
sufficient to divide the I. W. W. into eastern and western wings.
Mr. Roger W. Babson in one of his recent confidential labor reports
suggests another way in which a shifting of power may come. "A very
large labor organization ... has taken steps," he says, "to leave the
Federation of Labor and form an industrial union.... A convention for
this purpose is planned for Chicago in the near future. _The Industrial
Workers of the World plan to gain control of this convention and may
succeed._"[688]
A correspondent in the _Weekly People_ says that one delegate at
the tenth I. W. W. convention declared that there was very likely to
be a split in the organization and intimated that, in such an event,
the Agricultural Workers' Organization would be the chief factor in
bringing it about.[689] The same writer continues:
The A. W. O.... has a membership of from 18,000 to 20,000. This
seems to be a lot, but last night one who just arrived from the
harvest fields told me that workers traveling through the West
on box cars were thrown off if they had no red card of the I.
W. W., and many were beaten up.... He told me that eight or
more go in groups with revolvers and board trains going out
from the limits of a town and go through the train kicking and
beating-up anyone who has no red card.[690]
No convention was held in 1915. The tenth convention met at Chicago
in the latter part of November, 1916. Fairly complete reports have
been published in the columns of _Solidarity_.[691] There were in
attendance about 25 delegates, including three members of the General
Executive Board and the General Secretary. The delegates were almost
entirely from the East and Middle West, only one coming from the
Pacific Coast.[692] The editor of _Solidarity_, commenting upon
the charter of the convention, says that "the tenth convention is
remarkable as denoting the decline of the 'soap-boxers' as the dominant
element." "The dominant tone," he says, "was constructive rather than
controversial and the general demand was for such constitutional and
other changes as would make for greater efficiency in the work of the
organization," and he approvingly quotes one delegate as exclaiming,
"The I. W. W. is passing out of the purely propaganda stage and is
entering the stage of constructive organization."[693]
The most recent official report says that the organization now (January
1, 1917) "consists of six industrial unions: Marine Transport Workers,
Metal and Machinery Workers, Agricultural Workers (A. W. O.), Iron
Miners, Lumber Workers, and Railway Workers, having fifty branches
and 200 unions in other industries, together with 100 recruiting
unions directly united with the general organization."[694] The
paid-up membership is put at 60,000 on January 1st, 1917, up to which
date it is claimed that an aggregate of 300,000 membership cards had
been issued since 1905.[695] The bulk of the present membership is
distributed among the following industries: textile, steel, lumber,
mining, farming, railroad construction, and marine transportation.
Except in the textile industries, the majority of these workers are
migratory unskilled laborers.[696]
The activities of the I. W. W. are by no means confined to the United
States and Canada. The organization has been gradually extending its
propaganda in most English-speaking countries. This study is primarily
concerned with the I. W. W. in the United States. But in any case it
would be impossible to present any adequate record of its work in
other countries because of the difficulty of getting at the facts
of the situation. The announcements from the Chicago headquarters
make reference to four foreign jurisdictions, viz.: its British, New
Zealand, Australian and South African "administrations." It is unlikely
that the "British Administration" amounts to anything. The writer has
happened upon vague references to an "I. W. W. local" in London, but
has not been able to either disprove or verify them. It is in the
British colonies of South Africa[697] and Australia that the I. W.
W. has made headway with its propaganda and organizing work. After
the outbreak of the European War the I. W. W. in Australia became the
object of no little attention on the part of the government because of
their anti-militarist agitation. Finally in Australia several of the
Wobblies were arrested, tried and convicted on charges of high treason.
All the machinery of the capitalist state has been turned
loose against us [says an I. W. W. paper published in
Sydney]. Our hall has been raided periodically as a matter of
principle, our literature, our papers, pictures, and press
have all been confiscated; our members and speakers have been
arrested and charged with almost every crime on the calendar;
the authorities are making unscrupulous, bitter and frantic
attempts to stifle the propaganda of the I. W. W.[698]
Some idea of the nature and seriousness of that propaganda may be had
from the meagre reports which have reached this country. A writer in
the _Sunset Magazine_[699] says that the striking coal miners
had Australia at their mercy.... In vain did the government
plead with the strikers for coal to start troop and wheat
ships.... As a last resort, the leaders ... were arrested....
The Industrial Workers of the World, the militant aggressive
organization whose doctrine of a general rebellion is rapidly
spreading through the "paradise of labor," demanded the release
of the miners [and] threatened to burn down Sydney if their
demands were not complied with. They made good. Night after
night the incendiary work went on in Sydney.... Terrorized by
the handful of industrial rebels, the commonwealth was forced
to yield. The strike leaders were finally released [and] the
demands of the strikers were granted.
A month later the _New York Times_ published some special
correspondence on the subject. It appears that in October, 1916,
charges were preferred against 15 I. W. W.s in New South Wales.[700]
These charges involved, in Sydney, according to this report, treason,
and wholesale arson amounting to $1,250,000. The chief issue involved
was the conscription policy of the government, to which the I. W. W.
was opposed. They were brought to trial on October 10th. The warrant
against them charged that they were preaching sabotage by means of
surreptitious pamphlets and openly upon the streets. Further, the
warrant alleged, says the _Times_ correspondent, "that they plotted
rebellion against the King; that they conspired to burn down buildings
in Sydney ... endeavored to put force or restraint upon the Parliament
of New South Wales, [and that] they endeavored to intimidate and
overawe Parliament."[701]
Their anti-war campaign at last became so obnoxious to the government
that the House of Representatives, in December, 1916, passed a statute,
called "The Unlawful Associations Act," which practically made it a
criminal offense to be a member of the I. W. W.; the apparent intention
of the authorities being to arrest all prominent I. W. W. speakers and
hold them for the duration of the war.[702]
The Australian _Unlawful Associations Act_[703] is to "continue in
force for the duration of the present war and a period of six months
thereafter, but no longer." Section 3 runs in part as follows: "The
following are hereby declared to be unlawful associations, namely: (a)
the association known as the Industrial Workers of the World; and (b)
any association which, by its constitution or propaganda, advocates
or encourages, or incites or instigates to, the taking or endangering
of human life, or the destruction or injury of property...." The act
imposes the penalty of imprisonment for six months upon any person who
"continues to be a member of an unlawful association," who "advocates
or encourages [or who "prints or publishes any writing advocating or
encouraging"] ... the taking or endangering of human life, or the
destruction or injury of property," who "advocates or encourages ...
any action intended or calculated to prevent or hinder the production,
manufacture or transport ... of troops, arms, munitions or war-like
material," or who "knowingly gives or contributes money or goods to an
unlawful association."
In Australia as in the United States there were prior to the war
two I. W. W. organizations in existence: a political I. W. W. and a
non-political I. W. W. In that country, however, the political group
(counterpart of the Detroit wing in the United States) has been by
all odds the more influential. Although both these groups were pretty
well smothered by the war and the _Unlawful Associations Act_, the I.
W. W. industrial union idea made its appearance in another form in the
summer of 1918. In July of that year representatives of some of the
most powerful unions of New South Wales held a conference in Sydney.
This so-called "Industrial Conference Board" drew up a constitution for
an organization on the I. W. W. model, adopted the I. W. W. preamble
almost word for word, and launched "The Workers Industrial Union of
Australia."[704] Four of the six clauses of the preamble are almost
identical in phrasing with that of the American I. W. W. The other two
clauses are worded as follows:
Between these two classes [proletarian and capitalist] the
struggle must continue until capitalism is abolished ...
by the workers uniting in one class-conscious economic
organization to take and hold the means of production by
revolutionary industrial and political action. "Revolutionary
action" means to secure a complete change, namely the
abolition of capitalistic class ownership of the means of
production--whether privately or through the state--and the
establishment in its place of social ownership by the whole
community.... We hold that, as the working class creates and
operates the socially operated machinery of production, it
should direct production and determine working conditions.[705]
In the United States the Federal government has enacted no law
analogous to the Australian _Unlawful Associations Act_. Several
of the individual States, however, have passed so-called "criminal
syndicalism" laws and the United States Senate on May 6, 1918, passed
a so-called anti-sabotage bill[706] which the newspapers declared was
aimed at the I. W. W. The State laws referred to are quite generally
understood to be directed against that organization. None of these
statutes, however, mentions the I. W. W. by name. The Senate bill
referred to declares to be unlawful any association
one of whose purposes or professed purposes is to bring about
any governmental, social, industrial or economic change within
the United States by the use, without authority of law, of
physical force, violence or physical injury to person or
property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches,
advocates, advises or defends the use ... of physical force,
violence or physical injury to person or property, or threats
of such injury, to accomplish such change or for any other
purpose, and which, during any war in which the United States
is engaged, shall by any such means prosecute or pursue such
purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate,
advise or defend....[707]
The penalties proposed in the bill are more severe than in the
Australian law. It would punish by imprisonment for not more than ten
years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, anyone who, while the United States is at war, (a) acts
as an officer, or speaks as the representative, of such an association,
(b) becomes or continues to be a member of, or contributes anything to,
such an organization, or (c) publishes or distributes any publication
whatever which defends the use of "physical force, violence of physical
injury to person or property ... as a means of accomplishing any
governmental, social, industrial or economic change." The last section
of the bill would impose a fine of not more than $500 and imprisonment
for not more than one year, or both, upon any landlord who permits on
his premises, while the United States is at war, any meeting of such an
association or any assemblage of persons who teach or advocate the use
of physical force or violence, etc.[708]
So-called "criminal syndicalism" or _sabotage_ laws have been
enacted by the States of California,[709] Idaho,[710] Michigan,[711]
Minnesota,[712] North Dakota,[713] Montana,[714] South Dakota,[715] and
Nebraska.[716] In the State of Washington a "syndicalism bill," and
in Arizona a "_sabotage_" law, were passed by the State legislatures
in 1918 but were vetoed by the governor in each case.[717] The
"criminal syndicalism" laws of Minnesota, Idaho and Montana are
reprinted in Appendix X. The South Dakota statute is very similar to
that of Minnesota. It defines criminal syndicalism "as any doctrine
which teaches or advocates crime, sabotage (sabotage as used in this
act means wilful and malicious damage or injury to the property of
another), violence or other methods of terrorism, or the destruction
of life or property, for the accomplishment of social, economic,
industrial or political ends." It declares such advocacy to be a
felony and punishes "by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for
not less than one nor more than twenty-five years, or by a fine of
not less than $1000 nor more than $10,000, or by both such fine
and imprisonment ..." anyone who (1) advocates or "suggests" such
doctrines, (2) publishes, circulates or has in his (or her) possession
printed matter which advocates or "suggests" any doctrine that economic
or political ends should be brought about by "crime, sabotage," etc.,
(3) belongs to or assembles with any group or organization which
advocates or suggests such a doctrine, or (4) permits in any room or
building owned or controlled by him (or her) any assemblage of this
character. This statute is not limited to the duration of the war,
which, indeed, is not mentioned. The North Dakota and Nebraska laws are
less comprehensive and less drastic than the law of Minnesota. They are
anti-_sabotage_ laws within the scope of the definition of _sabotage_
given above in the South Dakota act. Of all the "criminal syndicalism"
statutes referred to in these pages that of South Dakota inflicts
the heaviest penalties. The Minnesota law has recently come into the
courts[718] and the State Supreme Court, in a decision rendered April
19, 1918, held it to be constitutional.[719]
The I. W. W. does not lack constructive ideas. The trouble has been
always that those ideas have not been applied very extensively.
They have remained merely a part of the Wobblies' varied collection
of slogans and doctrines. As the delegates at the tenth convention
realized, the first decade of I. W. W.-ism in America has been marked
by excessive propaganda activity--critical and non-constructive,
if not destructive ... and very little constructive activity.[720]
This fact is strikingly illustrated by the very transient character
of its membership. The "turnover" for the decade 1905-1915 has been
exceedingly heavy--not only as measured by individual members but also
by local unions. The most favorable report of the present strength of
the I. W. W. is given in the _World Almanac_ for 1917, where it is
stated that the I. W. W. is composed of five hundred and thirty-five
recruiting and industrial unions (not including five [foreign]
"national administrations") and has a membership of 85,000.[721] This
latter figure probably included delinquent members, and in any case
is almost certainly much exaggerated. The same statement applies
to the figure given for local unions. But even on such a generous
assumption, the figures in columns 7 and 11 of Table A (Appendix IV)
show, first, that there have been more than five times as many local
unions chartered by the I. W. W. as are now in the organization, and
second, that there have been _at least_ twice and probably ten times
as many membership cards issued during the past ten years as there
are members in the organization today. But the real situation is much
worse. Conservative estimates of the active membership in 1915 put it
at 15,000, distributed among 150 local unions.[722] Not less than 2,000
locals were chartered and approximately 200,000 membership cards issued
in the ten-year period 1905-1916. This indicates that only 7.5 per
cent of the locals chartered and of the individuals enrolled in the I.
W. W. have remained in the organization. This means an average annual
turnover (of individual members and locals) for the past ten years of
133 per cent. As the table shows, the numerical strength of the I. W.
W. in comparison with the whole number in labor organizations and the
whole number gainfully employed is very insignificant. Its membership
in 1910 was four-tenths of one per cent of all trade-unionists and
two-hundredths of one per cent of all gainfully employed. In the
textile industry where the I. W. W. is numerically strongest, the
Detroit I. W. W. had enrolled in 1910 one per cent and the Chicago I.
W. W. fourteen per cent of all trade-unionists.
It is not easy to say to what extent the I. W. W. is likely to develop
its constructive features. In so far as more and more stress is placed
on job organization, the I. W. W. is and will continue to become a more
constructive organization. But it is not easy to credit the statement
made at the tenth convention that the I. W. W. has "passed out of the
propaganda stage." It will become more actively constructive, probably,
but only its complete annihilation can put a period to its propaganda
work.
FOOTNOTES:
[641] T. P. Esmond, letter dated July 17, 1914, _Proceedings, 21st
Convention, W. F. M._ (1914), p. 26.
[642] Editorial, _Solidarity_, July 9, 1910, p. 2, col. 4.
[643] _Proceedings, 20th W. F. M. Convention_, p. 426.
[644] _Constitution and By-Laws of the W. F. M._ (1912), art. viii,
sec. 4. President Moyer discusses this change of policy on trade
agreements in his report to the 22nd (1914) convention (_Proceedings_,
pp. 37, 40). For constitutional provisions of the I. W. W. on
contracts, _cf. infra_, p. 332.
[645] July 2, 1914, p. 5.
[646] Report of Proceedings, 22nd W. F. M. Convention, _Miners'
Magazine_, Aug. 17, 1916, p. 2.
[647] Delegate Murray, _Proceedings, 21st Convention W. F. M._ (1914),
p. 146.
[648] _Miners' Magazine_, July 16, 1914, p. 7. Mayor Duncan's
statements were denied by the editor, _ibid._, pp. 8-10.
[649] _The New York Times_, June 22, 1914, p. 18, col. 3. Butte
dispatch, dated June 21.
[650] Report to the 20th Convention, W. F. M., _Proceedings_ (1912) p.
14.
[651] _Proceedings_, 20th Convention, W. F. M., p. 283.
[652] _Ibid._, p. 24.
[653] Editorial, Aug. 1, 1912, p. 6, col. 1.
[654] _Ibid._, p. 7, col. 2.
[655] _Miners' Magazine_, June 20, 1912, p. 9.
[656] Hearings, Washington, D. C., Apr. 6, 1914. _Final report and
testimony_, vol. i. p. 453.
[657] Editorial, _United Mine Workers' Journal_, reprinted in _Miners'
Magazine_, July 2, 1914, p. 9.
[658] Report to 17th Annual Convention (1906), _Minutes_, pp. 53-4.
[659] Katherine Mayo, _Justice to All: The Story of the Pennsylvania
State Police_ (Putnams, 1917), p. 225.
[660] "Industrial Organization," _Miners' Magazine_, May 7, 1914, p. 6,
col. 2.
[661] "A plea for solidarity," _International Socialist Review_, March,
1914, p. 538.
[662] "Debs, revolutionary unionist," _New Review_, vol. ii, p. 426,
July, 1914.
[663] _Solidarity_ (Oct. 3, 1914, p. 1).
[664] _Ibid._, Oct. 3, 1914, pp. 1, 4.
[665] _Cf._ Louis Levine, _Revolutionary Syndicalism in France_, ch.
viii, for a more adequate description of the "one union, one vote" plan
of representation.
[666] Editorial, Oct. 24, 1914, p. 2, col. 2.
[667] _Solidarity_, Oct. 3, 1914, p. 1, col. 4.
[668] _Chicago Daily News_, September 22, 1914. This same dispatch
stated that there were fifty delegates present--twice as many as the
"Wobblies" themselves claimed.
[669] See the report in _Solidarity_, Oct. 3, 1914, p. 4, col. 4.
[670] Letter dated July 16, 1913, to W. Beech, _Proceedings, 8th
Convention, I. W. W._, p. 24, col. 1.
[671] _Solidarity_, Oct. 3, 1914, p. 4, col. 4.
[672] _Preamble and Constitution of the I. W. W._, 1916, art. vii, sec.
5.
[673] _Ibid._, art. iii, pp. 11-12.
[674] _Cf._ Appendix iv.
[675] _Proceedings, Eighth I. W. W. Convention_, p. 30.
[676] Adapted from data in _Proceedings, Eighth I. W. W. Convention_,
p. 30.
[677] _Cf._ appendix iv, table A. For the status of the I. W. W. in
California in 1914, see the writer's report to the U. S. Commission on
Industrial Relations on "The I. W. W. in California."
[678] "The Truth about the I. W. W.," _Journal of Political Economy_,
Nov., 1913, vol. xxi, p. 786.
[679] "The Development of Hoxie's Economics," _Journal of Political
Economy_, vol. xxiv, p. 875, note (Nov., 1916).
[680] "The Development of Syndicalism in America," _Political Science
Quarterly_, Sept., 1913, vol. xxviii, p. 478.
[681] Proceedings of the 26th meeting, _American Economic Review_, vol.
iv, no. 1, supplement, pp. 140-141 (March, 1914).
[682] Letter to the author, Feb. 1, 1915.
[683] _Proceedings, Eighth I. W. W. Convention_, p. 5, col. 2, p. 6,
col. 1. In this branch of the I. W. W. in New York City there were in
1917 about 5000 members (mostly Spaniards) of whom not less than half
were in good standing.
[684] _Industrial Relations (Hearings)_, vol. ii, p. 1462.
[685] Speech at the I. W. W. Hall in 81st Street, New York City,
January 31, 1915.
[686] _Solidarity_, Dec. 2, 1916, p. 1. General Secretary Haywood
reported to the convention that the A. W. O. had enrolled at that time
18,000 members. _Proceedings_, p. 36.
[687] The New York _World_, Aug. 13, 1916, p. 11, col. 1 (dated Sioux
City, Ia., Aug. 12).
[688] R. W. Babson, _Reports on Labor_, "The I. W. W.'s latest move,"
_Confidential Bulletin of the Co-operation Service_, no. L-59, Aug.,
1916.
[689] Dec. 9, 1916, p. 1, col. 3. Dispatch signed "R. E. P."
[690] _Ibid._
[691] Issues of December 2, 9, and 16, 1916. The _Proceedings_ were
published in full in 1917.
[692] _Solidarity_, Dec. 2, 1916, p. 1, col. 1.
[693] _Solidarity_, Dec. 2, 1916, p. 1.
[694] St. John, _The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods_ (1917
edition), p. 23.
[695] _Ibid._, p. 24. Charters were issued to 116 locals (in 27 States
and 2 Canadian provinces) during the two years ending Sept. 1, 1916.
These included 8 recruiting unions and 9 Propaganda Leagues. (_Vide_
Report of General Secretary, _Proceedings, Tenth Convention_ [1916],
pp. 33-36, where there is a list of these new locals.)
[696] St. John, _op. cit._, p. 23.
[697] In the summer of 1918 it was reported in a press dispatch from
Johannesburg that a branch of the I. W. W. had been established among
the natives at Durban (_New York Times_, July 19, 1918, p. 15, col. 5).
[698] _Direct Action_ (Sydney), reprinted in _Solidarity_, Mar. 17,
1917, p. 4.
[699] March, 1917, p. 11, col. 1, "The Raised Fist of Labor."
[700] One of them was the editor of _Direct Action_, an I. W. W. paper
published in Sydney.
[701] _New York Times_, April 14, 1917, p. 6.
[702] _Cf._ letter from the General Secretary of the Australian
Administration, in _Report of General-Secretary-Treasurer_ to the Tenth
I. W. W. Convention (1916), _Proceedings_, pp. 42-43. _Vide_, also,
_New York Times_, Dec. 20, 1916, p. 5, col. 2.
[703] The _Unlawful Associations Act_ (No. 41 of 1916), assented to
Dec. 21, 1916, and amended by the _Unlawful Associations Act_ (No. 14
of 1917), assented to July 27, 1917.
[704] _Christian Science Monitor_, October 4, 1918.
[705] The preamble is printed in full in _The World_ (Oakland,
Cal.), October 18, 1918, p. 3. (Reprinted from the _British Columbia
Federationist_, Sept. 27, 1918, article by W. Francis Ahern, Australian
correspondent.) Mr. Ahern gives a detailed description of the structure
of the new union and shows that in this respect, also, it follows the
American I. W. W. very closely. Other meetings in furtherance of this
project are reported to have been held in the fall of 1918 in Brisbane
and Melbourne. (_Ibid._) This recrudescence of militant industrialism
in Australia appears to be an indirect outcome of the defeat of the
Labor party in the federal election of 1917.
[706] 65th Cong., 2nd sess., S. 4471.
[707] _Ibid._ The bill was amended by the Judiciary committee and
favorably reported to the House.
[708] 65th Cong., 2nd sess., S. 4471. The one hundred odd members
of the I. W. W., who were indicted in 1917, were indicted, tried
and convicted, not under any specific anti-_sabotage_, "criminal
syndicalism" or unlawful associations statute, but under section 4 of
the "Espionage Act" of June 15, 1917, and sections 6, 19 and 37 of the
Criminal Code of the United States. (_The United States of America vs.
William D. Haywood et al._, no. 6125 in the District Court of the U.
S., Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.)
[709] Acts of 1919, ch. 188. Approved May 5, 1919.
[710] Acts of 1917, ch. 145. Approved Mar. 14, 1917.
[711] Act no. 139.
[712] Acts of 1917, ch. 215. Approved Apr. 13, 1917.
[713] Approved Jan. 30, 1918.
[714] Acts of 1918, ch. 7. Approved Feb. 21, 1918.
[715] Special Session, 15th legislative assembly (1918), Senate bill
no. 12. Approved Mar. 23, 1918.
[716] Laws and resolutions passed at the 36th (extraordinary) session
of the legislature (1918), ch. 9. Approved Apr. 9, 1918.
[717] On January 14, 1919, the Washington Syndicalism bill was passed
over the Governor's veto. Session laws of 1919, ch. 3. [S. B. 264,
Session of 1917].
[718] In the case of State _vs._ Moilen, 167 N. W. 345.
[719] A digest of the court's opinion is given in the _Monthly Labor
Review_ (U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), vol. vii, pp. 177-179
(July, 1918).
[720] _Cf._ Caroline Nelson on "The Constructive Side of the New
Unionism," in her pamphlet, _Aggressive Unionism_, pp. 20-24.
[721] P. 125. The five "national administrations" reported are:
Australia, Great Britain, Hawaii, New Zealand, and South Africa. _The
World Almanac_ for 1916 reported 300 local unions.
[722] In the case of the United States of America _vs._ William
D. Haywood _et al._, now (June, 1918) being tried in Chicago, the
Government indictment credits the I. W. W. with a membership of
200,000. The author believes this is much too high, although the
organization has unquestionably grown. It is probably based on gross
accumulated memberships and would give a fair indication of the number
of persons who have, at one time or another, been members of the I. W.
W. (Indictment in U. S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, no. 6125, p. 7).
APPENDIX I
[Illustration: FIRST I. W. W. CLASSIFICATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL
POPULATION[723]
("FATHER HAGGERTY'S WHEEL OF FORTUNE")]
FOOTNOTES:
[723] Reproduced from _The Miners Magazine_, vol. vi, p. 15 (April 20,
1905). _Cf. supra_, p. 79.
APPENDIX II
THE I. W. W. PREAMBLE[724]
A. CHICAGO
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There
can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of
working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all
the good things of life.
[Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers
come together on the political, as well as on the industrial field,
and take hold of that which they produce by their labor through an
economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with
any political party.]
_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._
We find that the centering of management of industries into fewer and
fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing
power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of
affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another
set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another
in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to
mislead the workers into the belief that the workers have interest in
common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class
upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its
members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease
work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus
making an injury to one an injury to all.
_Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's
work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword,
"Abolition of the wage system." It is the historic mission of the
working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must
be organized, not only for the every-day struggle with capitalists, but
to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By
organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society
within the shell of the old. [Therefore we, the working class, unite
under the following constitution.]_
_[Therefore without endorsing or desiring the endorsement of any
political party, we unite under the following constitution.]_
_Knowing, therefore, that such an organization is absolutely necessary
for our emancipation, we unite under the following constitution_:
B. DETROIT[725]
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There
can be no peace as long as hunger and want are found among millions of
working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all
the good things of life.
[Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers
come together on the political, as well as the industrial field,
and take and hold that which they produce by their labor through an
economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with
any political party.]
_Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the toilers
come together on the political field under the banner of a distinct
revolutionary political party governed by the workers' class interest,
and on the industrial field under the banner of One Great Industrial
Union to take and hold all means of production and distribution, and
to run them for the benefit of all wealth producers._
The rapid gathering of wealth and the centering of the management of
industries into fewer and fewer hands make the trade unions unable to
cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class, because the
trade unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers
to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry,
thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. The trade unions aid
the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the
working class have interests in common with their employers.
These said conditions must be changed, the interests of the working
class upheld _and while the capitalist rule still prevails all possible
relief for the workers must be secured_. _That can only be done by
an organization aiming steadily at the complete overthrow of the
capitalist wage system_ and formed in such a way that all its members
in any one industry or in all industries, if necessary, cease work
whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus
making an injury to one an injury to all.
[_Therefore, without endorsing any political party, we unite under the
following constitution._]
_Therefore we unite under the following constitution._
FOOTNOTES:
[724] Additions to the original preamble are printed in italics.
Clauses dropped from it are enclosed in square brackets.
[725] Additions to the original preamble are printed in italics.
Clauses dropped from it are enclosed in square brackets.
APPENDIX III
STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE I. W. W.[726] (1917)
[Illustration:
Chicago, _e. g._ Seattle, _e. g._]
FOOTNOTES:
[726] For chart showing structure of the I. W. W. in 1912 _vide_ St.
John, _The I. W. W.--its history, structure and methods_, (1st ed.) p.
2, St. John's chart is reproduced in the author's _Launching of the I.
W. W._
APPENDIX IV. MEMBERSHIP STATISTICS.
TABLE A.--MEMBERSHIP FIGURES--DETROIT AND CHICAGO FACTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------
| Total Membership. |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| Secretary- | Barnett.[G] | Miscel- |
| Treasurer. | | laneous.[H] |
----+-------------------+-------------+-----------------|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
----+-------------------+-------------+-----------------|
1905| _14,000_ | 14,300 | --- |
1906| _23,219_[A] | 10,400 | 60,000 |
| | | |
| | | |
1907| _5,931_ | 6,700 | 28,000 |
|-------------------+-------------+-----------------|
| Chicago.| Detroit.| C. | D. | C. | D. |
1908| _5,397_ | ---- |13,200| ---- | ---- | ---- |
1909| _3,719_ | ---- |10,700| ---- | ---- | ---- |
| | | | | | |
1910| _4,617_ | ---- | 9,100| ---- |9,137[I]|3,475[I]|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
1911| _4,330_ |10,000 |12,800| 3,500| ---- | ---- |
1912|_18,387_ |20,000 |18,300|10,700| ---- |9,765 |
1913|_14,851_ |11,000[C]|14,300| 5,000|{23,061 | ---- |
| | | | |{70,000 | |
1914|_11,365_ | ---- |12,000| 2,000|{14,310 | ---- |
| | | | |{23,840 | |
1915|15,000[B]| 5,000[D]| ---- | ---- | 70,000 | ---- |
|-------------------+-------------+-----------------|
1916| | | { 35,000 |
| 60,000 | [E] | { 85,000 |
1917| 60,000[F] | ---- | 200,000 |
---------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|Membership|Number of |Number of |Number of|Cumulative|Number of |Cumulative
| cards | National | Local |Charters |number of | locals |number of
| issued. |Industrial|Unions.[O]|issued to|charters |disbanded.| locals
| |Unions.[N]| |Local |issued.[S]| |disbanded.
| | | |Unions[P]| | |
----+----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------
1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
----+----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------
1905| [E] | 2 | [E] | [E] | [E] | [E] | [E]
1906| [E] | 2 | { 394 | 466[Q]| 466 | 185[T] | 185
| | | { | 113 | 579 | |
| | | { 200 | 281 | 860 | |
1907| [E] | [E] | 362 | 118 | 928 | |
|----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+---------
| C. | C. | C. | D. | C. | D. | C. | D. | C. | D. | C. | D.
1908| [E] | [E] | 322 | 164 | 1102 | 63[U] | 248
1909| [E] | [E] | 100 |_23_|_90_| _1_| 1192| 1 | _33_| | 281 |[E]
| | {| 97 | | | | | | | | |
1910| | 1 {| _98_|_14_|_160| 7_| 1352| 8 | _54_|_16_| 335 | 16
| | {| 115 | | | | | | | | |
| | {| 115 | | | | | | | | |
1911| 60,000[J]| [E] {|_105_|_26_|_150| 18_| 1502| 26 | _69_| _6_| 404 | 22
| | {| 107 | | | | | | | | |
1912| 9,000[K]| [E] | 210 |_34_|_190| 32_| 1692| 58 | _53_|_24_| 457 | 46
1913| [E] | 3 | 236 | 58 |_236| 22_| 1928| 80 | _99_|_17_| 556 | 63
| | | |_39_| | | | | | | |
| | {| 150 | 50 |_78_|_14_| 2006| 94 |_125_| _4_| 681 | 67
1914| | 3 {|_128_|_49_| | | | | | | |
| | {| 222 | | | | | | | | |
1915|191,293[L]| [E] | 300 |_51_| [E]| _2_| [E]| 96 | [E] | [E]| [E] |[E]
| 15,000[M]| | 150 | 25 | | | | | | | |
|----------+----------+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+----
1916|{ 35,000 | | 4 | 535 | 33[R] | [E] | [E] |[E]
|{ 85,000 | | | | | | |
|{ |300,000[L]| | 350 | | | |
1917| 200,000 | [E] | 6 | [E] | [E] | [E] | [E] |[E]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES TO TABLE A.
Here are assembled most of the available figures relating to I. W. W.
membership and fluctuations in membership during the period 1905-1917.
The figures are fragmentary and, for the most part, approximations;
those in columns 1, 6, 7 and 11 being especially rough and fragmentary.
For example, it will be observed, in comparing columns 7 and 9 with
column 11 for the year 1914, that there must have been at least 1784
defunct locals at that time instead of 681 as the record shows.
The figures in italics were furnished by the secretary-treasurers,
Vincent St. John for the Chicago I. W. W., and Hermann Richter for the
Detroit I. W. W.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Average membership 1905-1906. Computed from record of receipts for
the General Defense Fund (_Proceedings Second Convention_, p. 586.)
[B] Approximate. W. D. Haywood before U. S. Commission on Industrial
Relations, Washington, D. C., May 12, 1915. (_Final Report and
Testimony_, vol. xi, p. 10581.)
[C] _Weekly People_, Sept. 27, 1913; also testimony of Rudolph Katz
before U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations (_Final Report and
Testimony_, vol. iii, 2485).
[D] Only 2000 were "in good standing."
[E] No data available.
[F] St. John, _The I. W. W.--Its History, Structure and Methods_ (1917
ed.), p. 23.
[G] The figures in column 3 are from Professor Geo. E. Barnett,
"Membership of American Trade Unions," _Quarterly Journal of
Economics_, vol. xxx, p. 846 (August, 1916). His figures come,
apparently, from I. W. W. headquarters in Chicago, but they do not
agree entirely with those furnished the author by Secretary St. John.
[H] In this and some of the following columns more than one figure
has been included in years for which varying estimates were found.
The sources for column 4 are as follows: _Proceedings 2nd I. W.
W. Convention_, p. 60; Report of the I. W. W. to the Stuttgart
International Socialist Congress, _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Aug.
10, 1907, p. 4; _Bulletin New York State Department of Labor_, no. 67
("International trade union statistics"), p. 3; Louis Levine, "The
development of syndicalism in America," _Political Science Quarterly_,
vol. xxviii, p. 478 (Sept., 1913); Vincent St. John's testimony before
U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations (_Final Report and Testimony_,
vol. ii, p. 1456; _Weekly People_, Dec. 9. 1916, p. 1, col. 3).
[I] Leo Wolman, "Extent of labor organization," _Quarterly Journal of
Economics_, vol. xxx, p. 603 (May, 1916). Wolman shows sex distribution
as follows:
Chicago I. W. W.: males 7137, females 2000.
Detroit I. W. W.: males 3130, females 345.
[J] Number issued between February 1910, and October, 1911.
[K] For the Detroit I. W. W. Approximate number issued during the
textile workers strikes.
[L] Accumulated number from 1905.
[M] For the Detroit I. W. W. Approximate. October 1, 1908, to February
1, 1915.
[N] Sources: _Industrial Worker_ (I), August, 1906; _Miners Magazine_,
Sept. 7, 1905, p. 15; Marot, _American Labor Unions_, p. 59; St. John,
_op. cit._, p. 23.
[O] Sources: _Proceedings 2nd I. W. W. Convention_, p. 43; _Third I.
W. W. Convention, Official Report No. 1_, p. 2; Report of the I. W. W.
to the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress, _Industrial Union
Bulletin_, August 10, 1907, p. 3, col. 3; Massachusetts Bureau of Labor
and Industry, _Annual Report on Labor Organizations_, 2nd to 7th,
inclusive (1909-1914); _The Industrial Worker_, May 14, 1910, p. 2, and
Jan. 5, 1911, p. 2; Marot, _op. cit._, Appendix.
[P] Sources: _Miners Magazine_, issues from Oct. 1, 1906, to Feb. 1,
1907; Report of the secretary-treasurer to 3rd I. W. W. Convention,
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Sept. 14, 1907, p. 7, col. 1.
[Q] Number issued up to Feb. 1, 1906, including 185 charters issued to
the Mining Department (W. F. of M.) (_Miners Magazine_, Feb. 22, 1906,
p. 14).
[R] _Solidarity_, May 27, 1916, p. 3, col. 1. This figure is for the
first five months of 1916.
[S] Figures in the Detroit column are from Oct. 1, 1908.
[T] W. F. M. (Mining Department) locals. _Miners Magazine_, Sept. 7,
1905, p. 15.
[U] Oct. 1, 1907, to Oct. 1, 1908 (_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct.
10, 1908, p. 2, col. 3).
TABLE B.--COMPARATIVE MEMBERSHIP FIGURES, 1910[727]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | Members of the I. W. W.
| | |----------------------------
| | | | Per | Per
| | | | cent. | cent.
|Total | Members of | | of all |of total
|number of | Labor | | trade | in
|persons |Organizations | Number. | union- | ind-
Industry. |in the | | | ists. | ustry.
|industry. |--------------+-----------+--------+-------
| | |Per |Chi- |Det- | | | |
| | Number. |cent|cago.|roit.| C.| D.| C.| D.
-------------------------+----------+---------+----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---
Mining[728] | 834,456| 254,779|30.5| 200| .. | 0.1| ..|0.0| ..
Clothing industries[729] | 608,892| 102,972|16.9| .. | 300 | ..|0.3| ..|0.0
Quarrying | 85,919| 6,309| 7.3| | | | | |
Production of salt, oil | | | | | | | | |
and natural gas | 37,476| | | | | | | |
Chemical and allied | | | | | | | | |
industries | 73,585| 268| 0.4| | | | | |
Clay, glass and stone | | | | | | | | |
industries | 309,341| 63,416|20.5| | | | | |
Food and kindred | | | | | | | | |
products[730] | 299,176| 22,744| 7.6| 100| .. | 0.4| ..|0.0| ..
Iron and steel products | 1,746,387| 173,169| 9.9| 300| 600 | 0.2|0.4|0.0|0.0
Leather industries | 293,035| 42,644|14.5| | | | | |
Liquor and beverage | | | | | | | | |
industries | 73,475| 49,665|67.6| | | | | |
Lumber and furniture | 597,174| 63,934|10.7| 1300| 200 | 2.0|0.3|0.2|0.0
Metal industries (except | | | | | | | | |
iron and steel) | 320,041| 15,013| 4.7| | | | | |
Paper and pulp industries| 101,797| 2,683| 2.6| | | | | |
Printing and bookbinding | 249,456| 85,479|34.3| | | | | |
Textile industries | 800,251| 29,862| 3.7| 4300| 300 |14.4|1.0|0.5|0.0
Miscellaneous industries:| | | | | | | | |
Button factories | 12,879| 32| 0.2| | | | | |
Broom & brush factories| 12,922| 897| 6.9| | | | | |
Charcoal and coke works| 23,294| 500| 2.1| | | | | |
Cigar and tobacco | | | | | | | | |
factories | 170,904| 46,742|27.3| 100| 200| 0.2|0.4|0.0|0.1
Electric light & power | | | | | | | | |
plants, electric supply| | | | | | | | |
factories, etc. | 252,883| 36,092|14.3| | | | | |
Gas works | 22,783| 605| 2.6| | | | | |
Oil refineries and tur-| | | | | | | | |
pentine distilleries | 22,551| | | | | | | |
Rubber factories | 45,864| 50| 0.1| | | | | |
Straw factories | 6,458| 684|10.6| | | | | |
Other miscellaneous and| | | | | | | | |
not specified industries| 323,534| | | | | | | |
Transportation[731] | 2,862,260| 494,662|17.3| 1000| .. | 0.2| ..|0.0|
Hand trades | 713,659| 4,346| 0.6| | | | | |
Building trades | 2,444,395| 396,674|16.2| 150| 400 | 0.0|0.1|0.0|0.0
Stationary engineers | 215,053| 9,990| 4.6| | | | | |
Stationary firemen | 84,685| 8,100| 9.5| | | | | |
Trade | 3,411,677| 17,676| 0.5| | | | | |
Public service (not | | | | | | | | |
elsewhere classified) | 441,180| 11,843| 2.6| | | | | |
Professional service | 1,628,970| 77,976| 4.8| | | | | |
Domestic and personal | | | | | | | | |
service | 3,691,493| 65,579| 1.8| 150| .. | 0.2| ..|0.0|
Agriculture, forestry and| | | | | | | | |
animal husbandry |12,640,734| 2,262| 0.0| | | | | |
Proprietary, official and| | | | | | | | |
supervisory groups | 980,012| | | | | | | |
Clerical groups | 1,696,061| 28,853| 1.7| | | | | |
I. W. W. mixed locals | .. .. | .. .. | .. | 1437| 1475| | | |
Total |38,134,712|2,116,500| 5.5| 9037| 3475| 0.4|0.2|0.0|0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE C.--MEMBERSHIP OF CERTAIN UNIONS AND GROUPS OF UNIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES, 1897-1914[732] (00's omitted.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of union and | 97. | 98. | 99. | 00. | 01. | 02. | 03. |
industrial group | | | | | | | |
--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
Mining and Quarrying| | | | | | | |
(8 organizations).| | | | | | | |
W. F. M. | 80| 100| 120| 140| 177| 196| 283|
U. M. W. | 97| 329| 618| 1155| 1980| 1753| 2472|
Total in group | 209| 442| 749| 1307| 2171| 1964| 2795|
| | | | | | | |
United Metal Workers| ..| ..| ..| 10| 21| 43| 87|
Textile group | | | | | | | |
(9 organizations) | | | | | | | |
Textile Workers | 27| 25| 22| 34| 27| 106| 150|
Total in group | 81| 85| 69| 80| 70| 147| 195|
| | | | | | | |
Lumber and Wood | | | | | | | |
Working group (8 | | | | | | | |
organizations) | 55| 117| 159| 256| 318| 341| 479|
Bakery Workers | 20| 21| 31| 45| 64| 102| 154|
Brewery Workers | 100| 100| 107| 183| 235| 291| 300|
Restaurant and Trade| | | | | | | |
group (6 | | | | | | | |
organizations) | 64| 92| 121| 280| 408| 575| 1144|
I. W. W. (Chicago) | ..| ..| ..| ..| ..| ..| ..|
I. W. W. (Detroit) | ..| ..| ..| ..| ..| ..| ..|
--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
Total in all groups | 4445| 4971| 6041| 8654|11,236|13,743|19,129|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of union and | 04. | 05. | 06. | 07. | 08. | 09. | 10. |
industrial group | | | | | | | |
--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
Mining and Quarrying| | | | | | | |
(8 organizations).| | | | | | | |
W. F. M. | 241| 263| 286| 442| 305| 353| 371||
U. M. W. | 2510| 2650| 2307| 2607| 2520| 2652| 2314|
Total in group | 2789| 2962| 2653| 3120| 2897| 3071| 2749|
| | | | | | | |
United Metal Workers| 96| [733]| | | | | |
Textile group | | | | | | | |
(9 organizations) | | | | | | | |
Textile Workers | 105| 100| 100| 114| 129| 100| 100|
Total in group | 151| 145| 147| 161| 176| 148| 214|
| | | | | | | |
Lumber and Wood | | | | | | | |
Working group (8 | | | | | | | |
organizations) | 516| 419| 359| 270| 198| 190| 280|
Bakery Workers | 162| 120| 106| 110| 105| 107| 127|
Brewery Workers | 305| 340| 360| 400| 425| 452| 454|
Restaurant and Trade| | | | | | | |
group (6 | | | | | | | |
organizations) | 1338| 949| 895| 916| 949| 581| 594|
I. W. W. (Chicago) | | 143| 104| 67| 132| 107| 91|
I. W. W. (Detroit) | | ..| ..| ..| ..| ..| ..|
--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
Total in all groups |20,726|19,450|19,063|20,776|20,904|20,031|21,380|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Name of union and | 11. | 12. | 13. | 14. |
industrial group | | | | |
--------------------+------+------+------+------|
Mining and Quarrying| | | | |
(8 organizations). | | | | |
W. F. M. | 502| 492| 495| 369|
U. M. W. | 2563| 2893| 3777| 3390|
Total in group | 3107| 3429| 4315| 3802|
| | | | |
United Metal Workers| | | | |
Textile group | | | | |
(9 organizations) | | | | |
Textile Workers | 100| 109| 162| 180|
Total in group | 217| 230| 295| 303|
| | | | |
Lumber and Wood | | | | |
Working group (8 | | | | |
organizations) | 290| 255| 251| 248|
Bakery Workers | 138| 146| 151| 157|
Brewery Workers | 533| 625| 650| 676|
Restaurant and Trade| | | | |
group (6 | | | | |
organizations) | 631| 686| 913| 948|
I. W. W. (Chicago) | 138| 183| 143| 120|
I. W. W. (Detroit) | 35| 107| 50| 20|
--------------------+------+------+------+-------
Total in all groups |23,365|24,408|27,010|26,744|
-------------------------------------------------
TABLE D.--MEMBERSHIP OF THE I. W. W. (CHICAGO AND DETROIT) AND OF ALL
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN THE U. S., 1905-1917[734]
--------------------------------------------------------------
|Members of labor| Members of the I. W. W.
| organizations |---------------------------------------
| in the U. S. | Chicago. | Detroit.
| |(St. John)[735] (Barnett)| (Barnett)
-----+----------------+--------------+-----------+------------
1905 | 1,945,000 | 23,219 | 14,300 |
1906 | 1,906,300 | .. | 10,400 |
1907 | 2,077,600 | 5,931 | 6,700 |
1908 | 2,090,400 | 5,397 | 13,200 |
1909 | 2,003,100 | 3,719 | 10,700 |
1910 | 2,138,000 | 4,617 | 9,100 | 3,475[739]
1911 | 2,336,000 | 4,330 | 13,800 | 3,500
1912 | 2,440,800 | 18,387 | 18,300 | 10,700
1913 | 2,701,000 | 14,851 | 14,300 | 5,000
1914 | 2,674,400 | 11,365 | 12,000 | 2,000
1915 | .. | 15,000[736]| .. | 2,000
1916 | .. | 60,000[737]| |
1917 | .. | 200,000[738]| |
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
[727] Adapted by permission from Wolman, Leo, "Extent of Labor
Organization," _Quar. Jour. Econ._ (May, 1916), 30: 606-13.
[728] All I. W. W. membership in coal mines.
[729] All I. W. W. membership in clothing, shirt, collar and cuff
factories.
[730] All I. W. W. membership in slaughter and packing houses.
[731] All I. W. W. membership on steam railroads.
[732] Adapted by permission from Geo. E. Barnett, _Quar. Jour. Econ._
(Aug., 1916, Appendix), vol. 30: pp. 838-46.
[733] Merged in the I. W. W. in 1905.
[734] Adapted from Barnett, _op. cit._ (_Quar. Jour. Econ._, Aug.,
1916.)
[735] Private correspondence. (1905-1914.)
[736] Haywood, W. D. Testimony Industrial Relations Commission,
Washington, May 12, 1915 (_Final report and testimony_, vol. xi, p.
10581).
[737] St. John, V. _The I. W. W. History, Structure and Methods._ (1917
Ed. p. 23.)
[738] Credited in the government indictment in the case of The United
States of America _v._ William D. Haywood, _et al._, no. 6125, p. 7.
[739] Wolman, _op. cit._
APPENDIX V. LOCAL UNIONS OF THE I. W. W.--CHICAGO AND DETROIT, 1914[740]
-------------+----------------+------------------------+------------------------
| | Chicago. | Detroit.
State. | City. +------------+-----------+------------+-----------
| |Local unions|Industrial |Local unions|Industrial
| |numbered-- |character. |numbered-- |character.
-------------+----------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------
California |Brawley | 439 | Mixed | |
|Eureka | 431 | Lumber | |
|Fresno | 66 | Mixed | |
|Los Angeles | Propaganda | Mixed | 103 | Mixed
| | league | | |
|Oakland | 174 | Mixed | |
|Redding | 88, 313 | Mixed | |
|Sacramento |71, 334, 489| Mixed | |
|San Francisco | 9 | Marine | 3 | Garment
| | | transport | |
| | 147, 173 | Mixed | 8 | Musicians
| |173 Branch 2| Mixed | 107 | Mixed
|Stockton | 5 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
| | 73 | Mixed | |
|Taft | 453 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Canada |Amherst, N. S. | | | 122 | Mixed
|Edmonton, Alta. | 339 | Mixed | |
|Vancouver, B. C.| 332 | | |
| | | | |
Colorado |Denver | 26 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Connecticut |Bridgeport | | | 112 | Mixed
|Hartford | | | 69 |Machinists
|Moosup | 303 | Textile | |
|Mystic | | | 35 | Textile
|Norwalk | 535 | Textile | |
| | | | |
Florida |Tampa | 102 | Mixed | |
|Key West | 108 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Idaho |Wallace | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
| | | | |
Illinois |Chicago |3, Br 2; 85;| Mixed | 52 |Machinists
| |85, Br 2; | Mixed | 431 |Foodstuffs
| |85, Br 3; | Mixed | 102 | Mixed
| |85, Br 5; | Mixed | 102 Br 2| Mixed
| |85, Br 6; | Mixed | |
| |144; | Mixed | |
| |144, Br 3; | Mixed | |
| |341; | Mixed | |
| | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league |(Hungarian)| |
|Rockford | 480 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Indiana |Indianapolis | 52 | Mixed | 105 | Mixed
| | | | |
Iowa |Sioux City | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
|Valley Junction | 577 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Kansas |Kansas City | 146 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Louisiana |Alexandria | 282 | Lumber | |
|New Orleans | 7 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
| | | | |
Massachusetts|Boston | 2 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
|Brookline | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
|Fall River | 204 | Textile | |
|Holyoke | 205 | Textile | |
|Lawrence | 20 | Textile | |
|Lowell | 436 | Textile | |
|Lynn | | | 209 |Machinists
|Malden | 190 | Textile | |
|New Bedford | 157 | Textile | |
|Quincy | 34; | Mixed | |
| | 34, Br 3; | Mixed | |
|Quincy Point | 34, Br 2 | Mixed | |
|Roxbury | | | 121 | Mixed
| | | | |
Maryland |Baltimore | 192; | Textile | 275 | Tobacco
| | 192, Br 2; | Textile | |
| | 371 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Michigan |Detroit | 16; | Mixed | 603 | Building
| | 16, Br 1; | Mixed | 26; 551; |Automobile
| | 16, Br 2; | Mixed | 551, Br 1; |Automobile
| | 16, Br 3 | Mixed | 551, Br 2 |Automobile
| | 62 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Minnesota |Duluth | 136 | Mixed | |
|Minneapolis | 64; 221 | Mixed | 500 | Transport-
| | | | | ation
|St. Paul | | | 307 | Mixed
| | | | |
Missouri |Kansas City | 61 | Mixed | |
|St. Louis | 84 | Mixed | 101 | Mixed
| | | | |
Montana |Missoula | 40 | Lumber | |
|Butte | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
|Great Falls | 571 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Nebraska |Omaha | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
| | | | |
Nevada |Goldfield | 353 | Mixed | |
|Reno | 588 | Mixed | |
|Tonopah | Propaganda | Mixed | |
| | league | | |
| | | | |
New Jersey |Hoboken | | | 504 | Transport-
| | | | | ation
|West Hoboken | 514 | Textile | |
|Newark | 90 | Mixed | 123 | Mixed
|Paterson | 152 | Textile | 25 | Textile
|Summit | 212 | Textile | |
| | | | |
New York |Buffalo | 5 | Mixed | 317 | Mixed
|Jamestown | | | 114 | Mixed
| | | | 214 |Machinists
|Little Falls | 207 | Textile | |
|Rochester | 191 | Textile | |
| | 76 | Mixed | |
|Utica | | | 113 | Mixed
|New York City | 527 | Textile | 277 | Tobacco
| | 1 | Marine | 100 | Mixed
| | | transport | |
| | 9, 46, 179;| Mixed | |
| | 179, Br 3 | Mixed | |
|Brooklyn | 179, Br 1, | Mixed | 213 |Machinists
| | 466 | Mixed | 701 | Printing
| | | | |
North Dakota |Minot | 585 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Ohio |Cincinnati | | | 107 | Mixed
|Cleveland |33; 33, Br 3| Mixed | 104 | Mixed
|Columbus | | | 450 | Furniture
|Dillonvale | 240 | Mixed | |
|Rayland | 236 | Mixed | |
|Toledo | 86 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Oregon |Portland | 93 | Lumber | 600 | Building
| | | | |
Panama |Cristobal, C. Z.| | | 505 | Transport-
| | | | | ation
| | | | |
Pennsylvania |Erie | | | 210 |Machinists
|Homestead (West)| | | 205 |Machinists
|Old Forge | 97 | Mixed | |
|Philadelphia | 425; | Textile | 404 | Musicians
| | 425, Br 1; | Textile | 451 | Furniture
| | 533 | Textile | 218 | Textile
| | 8 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
| | 57; | Mixed | |
| | 57, Br 2; | Mixed | |
| | 405; | Mixed | |
| | 405, Br 1; | Mixed | |
|Pittsburgh | 215 | Mixed | |
|Shelly | | | 276 | Tobacco
| | | | |
Rhode Island | Olneyville | 530 | Textile | |
| Woonsocket | 513 | Textile | |
| | | | |
South | Easley | 537 | Textile | |
Carolina | Greenville | 512 | Textile | |
| | | | |
Texas | Galveston | 3 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
Utah | Salt Lake City | 69 | Mixed | |
| | | | |
Virginia | Norfolk | 4 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
Washington | Bellingham | 337 | Lumber | |
| Seattle | 317; 432| Lumber | 400 | Public
| | | | | service
| | 252 | Marine | 427 | Foodstuffs
| | | transport | |
| | 178; 178, | Mixed | 675 | Lumber
| | Br 2 | Mixed | |
| | 382 | Mixed | |
| Spokane | 315 | Lumber | |
| Tacoma | 338 | Lumber | 169 | Mixed
| | 380 | Marine | |
| | | transport | |
Wisconsin | Milwaukee | | | 118 | Mixed
==============================================================================
RECAPITULATION.
Chicago.
Totals: Mixed locals 74
National industrial unions: Textile 22 locals.
Lumber 9 locals.
Marine transport 10 locals.
Agricultural Workers Organization (L. U. no. 400) --
Propaganda leagues 8
---
Total 123
Detroit.
Mixed locals 20
Textile locals 2
Lumber 1
Transportation 3
Musicians 2
Garment workers 1
Machinists 5
Foodstuffs 2
Tobacco 3
Automobile 4
Building 2
Printing 1
Furniture 2
Public service 1
--
Total 49
FOOTNOTES:
[740] Based on mailing lists furnished by Secretary-Treasurers St.
John and Richter of the Chicago and Detroit factions of the I. W. W.,
respectively. _Cf._ Helen Marot, _American Labor Unions_, Appendix.
APPENDIX VI
REASONS FOR LOCALS DISBANDING[741]
(Aug. 31, 1910 to Sept. 1, 1911)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location. | Industry. | Reasons for Disbanding.
--------------------+----------------------+----------------------------------
Muncie, Ind. | Metal workers | Strike.
Jackson, Mich. | Metal workers | Lack of interest.
Reading, Pa. | Metal workers | Strike.
Dunkirk, N. Y. | Metal workers | Members left town.
W. Pullman, Ill. | Metal workers | Shop closed.
Missoula, Mont. | Lumber | Lack of interest.
Olean, N. Y. | Mixed | Strike.
Negaunee, Mich. | Mixed | Lack of interest.
National, Nev. | Mixed | W. F. M. and Business Men's Asso'n.
Lorain, Ohio | Mixed | Lack of interest.
New York. | Building workers | Members left town.
Woonsocket, R. I. | Mixed | Lack of interest. (?)
Anaconda, Mont. | Mixed | Disrupted by A. F. of L. & W. F. M.
Providence, R. I. | Mixed | Lack of interest. (?)
Seattle | Hotel | Lack of interest.
Honolulu | Building constructors| Lack of interest.
Roundup, Mont. | Building constructors| Members blacklisted out of town.
Sioux City, Ia. | Building constructors| No record.
Pittsburgh | Packing house | Internal wrangles.
Chicago | Show workers | Lack of interest.
New York | Public service | Lack of interest.
St. Louis | Clothing | Joined A. F. of L.
New York | Clothing | Disrupted by A. F. of L.
Chicago | Clothing | Lack of work.
Anderson, Ind. | Metal workers | No record.
Pittsburgh | Mixed | Lack of interest.
New Haven | R. R. workers | Lack of interest.
Portland, Ore. | R. R. workers | Lack of interest.
Providence | Metal workers | Lack of interest.
Pittsburgh | Steel workers | Shut down.
Woods Run, Pa. | Car builders | Shut down.
McKees Rocks | Steel workers | Shut down.
Massillon, Ohio | Tin plate | Strike.
New Castle, Pa. | Tin plate | Strike.
Lyndora (?), Pa. | Car builders | "Bum" [defaulting?] secretary.
Hammond, Ind. | Car builders | "Bum" [defaulting?] secretary.
Hegewisch (?), Ill. | Car builders | Lack of interest.
South Chicago, Ill. | Steel workers | Lack of interest.
East Chicago, Ind. | Steel workers | Lack of interest.
Fostoria, Ohio | Metal workers | Strike.
Anacortes, Wash. | Lumber | Lack of interest (?)
San Diego, Cal. | Public service | Mexican Revolution.
Vancouver, B. C. | Public service | Lack of interest.
Butte, Mont. | Bakery | Joined A. F. of L.
Redlands, Cal. | Agricultural | No record.
Kalispell, Mont. | Lumber | Lack of interest.
Deer River, Minn. | Lumber | Lack of interest.
Honolulu | Agricultural | Lack of interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
[741] Adapted from _Report of Secretary-Treasurer to the 6th I. W. W.
Convention; Appendix to Minutes_.
APPENDIX VII
FREE SPEECH FIGHTS OF THE I. W. W.
(Partial list.)
------------------------------------------------
Date. | Begun. | Place.
-------+---------------+------------------------
1906. | April | San Francisco, Cal.
| |
1909. | October | Missoula, Mont.
| November | Spokane, Wash.
| December | New Castle, Pa.
| |
1910. | May | Wenatchee, Wash.
| June | Walla Walla, Wash.
| October | Fresno, Cal.
| |
1911. | July | Duluth, Minn.
| | Victoria, B. C.
| August | Denver, Colo.
| | Superior, Wis.
| September | Kansas City, Mo.
| November | Aberdeen, Wash.
| |
1912. | February | San Diego, Cal.
| | Aberdeen, S. D.
| June | New Bedford, Mass.
| September | Minneapolis, Minn.
| |
1913. | February | Denver, Colo.
| April | Grand Junction, Colo.
| July | Minot, N. D.
| | Seattle, Wash.
| December | Kansas City, Mo.
| |
1914. | July | Aberdeen, S. Dak.
| |
1915. | November | Paterson, N. J.
| |
1916. | September | Old Forge, Pa.
| November | Everett, Wash.
-------+---------------+------------------------
APPENDIX VIII
PARTIAL LIST OF STRIKES MANAGED OR PARTICIPATED IN BY THE I. W. W.
----+---------------------+---------------------+------------------------
Year and| | |
month| Place. | Class of workers | Issue.
called.| | affected. |
----+---------------------+---------------------+-----------------------
1906|New Haven, Ct. |Paper makers. |Account of discharge
| | |of
Aug | | |
| | |
Dec |West New Brighton, |Silk workers. |
|Ct. | |
| | |
? |Skowhegan, Me. | |I. W. W.
| | |
? |Goldfield, Nev. |Miners and others. |
| | |
1907| | |
| | |
Feb |Somers, Mont. |Lumbermen |Recognition of I. W.
| | |W.; company store;
| | |hospital.
Apr |Portland, Ore. |Saw-mill workers. |
| | |
May |Missoula, Mont. |Lumbermen |Higher wages.
| | |
Oct |Vancouver, B. C. |Lumbermen |Against cut in wages
| | |and longer hours.
| | |
Nov |Yonkers, N. Y. |Street car men. |
| | |
Nov |Lancaster, Pa. |Silk workers. |
| | |
1908| | |
| | |
Apr |Marble, Colo |Quarry workers. |
| | |
Aug |Lawrence, Mass. |Textile |Against wage cuts.
| | |
1909| | |
| | |
May |Somers, Mont. |Lumbermen. |
| | |
May |Kalispell, Mont. |Lumbermen. |
| | |
May |Prince Rupert, B. C. |Lumbermen. |
| | |
July|New Castle, Pa. |Sheet and tin plate. |For open shop.
| | |
Aug |Shenango, Pa. |Sheet and tin plate. |
| | |
? |McKees Rocks, Pa. |Pressed Steel Car Co.|Wages, hours and
| | |general conditions.
| | |
? |Waterville, Wash. |Farm laborers |For $3.00 a day.
| | |
1910| | |
| | |
Mar |Muncie, Ind. |Glass workers |Higher wages.
| | |
Apr |North Yamhill, Ore. |Farm hands. |Against discharge of
| | |I. W. W.'s.
| | |
May |New Bedford, Mass. |Textile |Against cut in wages.
| | |
June|St. Louis, Mo. |Garment workers. |
| | |
July|Reading, Pa. |Auto. workers. |
| | |
Aug |San Diego, Cal. |Gas works laborers |Wages (Mexicans).
| | |
Oct |Providence, R. I. |Window cleaners. |Closed shop; wages.
| | |
Nov |Pittsburgh, Pa |Meat packers. |
| | |
Nov |Brooklyn, N. Y. |Shoe workers |Wages.
| | |
1911| | |
| | |
Jan |La Grande, Wash. |Miners |Against cut in wages.
| | |
Jan |New York, N. Y. |Boot and shoe. |
| | |
1912| | |
| | |
Jan |Lawrence, Mass |Textile workers |Against cut in wages.
| | |
Apr |Willimantic, Ct. |Textile workers |Wages.
| | |
Apr |Kansas City, Mo. |Street railroad |
| |construction. |
| | |
Apr |New York |Piano and organ. |
| | |
Mar |Hoquiam, Wash. |Lumbermen |Wages.
| | |
Mar |Aberdeen, Wash. |Lumbermen. |
| | |
May |Portland, Ore |Street car workers |Wages.
| | |
June|White Salmon, Wash. |Construction workers.|Wages; conditions.
| | |
June|Clinton, Mass |Textile. |
| | |
July|New Bedford, Mass |Textile. |
| | |
July|San Pedro, Cal |Dock workers. |
| | |
Oct |Little Falls, N.Y. |Textile. |Against cut in wages.
| | |
Nov |Cleveland, Ohio |Cyclone wire fence |Laborers (Slavonian
| |works. |I. W. W.'s).
| | |
Dec |Portland, Ore |Construction |Against cut in wages
| |laborers. |(to camps on the
| | |Portland, Eugene and
| | |Eastern, between
| | |Portland and Eugene,
| | |300 out).
| | |
Dec |Merryville, La |Lumbermen. |
| | |
? |Grays Harbor | |
| | |
? |British Columbia |Construction camps |
| |on the Canadian |
| |Northern. |
| | |
? |North Yamhill, Ore |Farm Laborers |30 cents per hour
| | |and decent quarters.
| | |
1913| | |
| | |
Jan |Big Creek, Cal. |Construction work |Wages, hours,
| |(Stone and Webster) |conditions.
| | |
Feb |Akron, Ohio |Rubber workers. |
| | |
Feb |Paterson, N.J. |Silk workers. |
| | |
Feb |Hazelton, N.J. |Silk workers. |Wage increase.
| | |
Jan |San Francisco, Cal. |Cannery workers. |Against cut in wages.
| | |
Mar |Esmond, R.I. |Textile. |
| | |
Mar |Cleveland, Ohio |Rubber workers. |
| | |
Mar |Seattle, Wash |Tailors. |
| | |
Apr |Stockton, Cal |Electrical workers. |
| | |
Apr |Rock Island, Ill. |Sash and door. |
| | |
May |Marshfield, Ore. |Lumbermen. |
| | |
June|Ipswich, Mass |Textile. |
| | |
Aug |Wheatland, Cal. |Hop pickers. |General conditions.
| | |
Sept|Pittsburgh, Pa. |Tobacco workers. |
| | |
Nov |Shelton, Conn |Textile. |
| | |
? |Duluth, Minn |Dock laborers. |
| | |
? |New York, N.Y. |Barbers. |
| | |
1916| | |
| | |
June|Mesaba Range, Minn |Iron miners. |
| | |
June|Red Granite, Wis |Quarry workers. |Discharge of I. W.
| | |W.'s.
Aug |Scranton, Pa |Miners. |
| | |
Oct |Old Forge, Pa |Miners. |
| | |
1917| | |
| | |
Feb |Philadelphia, Pa |Sugar workers. |Wages, hours,
| | |conditions.
| | |
Feb |Philadelphia, Pa |Longshoremen. |In sympathy with
| | |sugar workers.
| | |
Apr |Exeter, Cal |Irrigation |Wages and hours.
| |construction. |
| | |
----+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------
APPENDIX IX
SELECTIONS FROM THE I. W. W. SONG BOOK[742]
ARE YOU A WOBBLY?
BY JOE FOLEY
(Tune: "Are You from Dixie?")
Hello, there, worker, how do you do?
You're up against it; broke, hungry, too.
Don't be surprised, you're recognized,
I know a slave by the look in his eyes.
You want what I want--well, that's liberty,
Your frowning face seems to tell it to me.
Where there's a will, Bill, there's a way, Bill,
So listen to what I say.
CHORUS
Are you a wobbly? then listen, Buddy,
For the One Big Union beckons to you--
The Workers' Union, the Industrial Union;
Tell every slave you see along the line:
It makes no difference what your color,
Creed or sex or kind,
If you are a worker, then it's kick right in and join.
Become a wobbly and then we'll probably
Free ourselves from slavery.
You like the idea, but then you say,
"How can we do it--when is the day?"
When all the ladies and all the babies
And every man who works for a wage
Gets in the Union--One Union Grand--
All hands together we'll make our demand;
When you and I, Bill, lay down our tools, Bill,
Fold up our arms, Bill, and walk off the job.
DUMP THE BOSSES OFF YOUR BACK
BY JOHN BRILL
(Tune: "Take it to the Lord in Prayer")
Are you poor, forlorn and hungry?
Are there lots of things you lack?
Is you life made up of misery?
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are your clothes all patched and tattered?
Are you living in a shack?
Would you have your troubles scattered?
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are you almost split asunder?
Loaded like a long-eared jack?
Boob--why don't you buck like thunder?
And dump the bosses off your back.
All the agonies you suffer,
You can end with one good whack--
Stiffen up, you orn'ry duffer--
And dump the bosses off your back.
HALLELUJAH! I'M A BUM![743]
O! I like my boss,
He's a good friend of mine.
And that's why I'm starving
Out on the picket-line!
Hallelujah! I'm a bum!
Hallelujah! Bum again!
Hallelujah! Give us a hand-out
To revive us again!
MR. BLOCK
BY JOE HILL
(Air: "It Looks to Me like a Big Time Tonight")
Please give me your attention, I'll introduce to you
A man that is a credit to "Our Red, White and Blue";
His head is made of lumber, and solid as a rock;
He is a common worker and his name is Mr. Block.
And Block he thinks he may
Be President some day.
CHORUS
Oh, Mr. Block, you were born by mistake,
You take the cake,
You make me ache.
Tie on a rock to your block and then jump in the lake,
Kindly do that for Liberty's sake.
Yes, Mr. Block is lucky; he found a job, by gee!
The sharks got seven dollars, for job and fare and fee.
They shipped him to a desert and dumped him with his truck,
But when he tried to find his job, he sure was out of luck.
He shouted, "That's too raw,
I'll fix them with the law."
Block hiked back to the city, but wasn't doing well.
He said, "I'll join the union--the great A. F. of L."
He got a job next morning, got fired in the night,
He said, "I'll see Sam Gompers and he'll fix that foreman right."
Sam Gompers said, "You see
You've got our sympathy."
Election day he shouted, "A Socialist for Mayor!"
The "comrade" got elected, he happy was for fair,
But after the election he got an awful shock.
A great big Socialist Bull did rap him on the block.
And Comrade Block did sob,
"I helped him to his job."
* * * * *
TIE 'EM UP!
(Words and music by G. G. Allen)
We have no fight with brothers of the old A. F. of L.
But we ask you use your reason with the facts we have to tell.
Your craft is but protection for a form of property,
The skill that you are losing, don't you see.
Improvements on machinery take your tool and skill away,
And you'll be among the common slaves upon some fateful day.
Now the things of which we're talking we are mighty sure about.--
So what's the use to strike the way you can't win out?
CHORUS
Tie 'em up! tie 'em up; that's the way to win.
Don't notify the bosses till hostilities begin.
Don't furnish chance for gunmen, scabs and all their like;
What you need is One Big Union and the One Big Strike.
Why do you make agreements that divide you when you fight
And let the bosses bluff you with the contract's "sacred right"?
Why stay at work when other crafts are battling with the foe?
You all must stick together, don't you know?
The day when you begin to see the classes waging war
You can join the biggest tie-up that was ever known before.
When the strikes all o'er the country are united into one
Then the workers' One Big Union all the wheels shall run.
A. F. OF L. SYMPATHY
BY B. L. WEBER
(Tune: "All I Got was Sympathy")
Bill Brown was a worker in a great big shop,
Where there worked two thousand others;
They all belonged to the A. F. of L.,
And they called each other "brothers."
One day Bill Brown's union went out on strike,
And they went out for higher pay;
All the other crafts remained on the job,
And Bill Brown did sadly say:
CHORUS
All we got was sympathy;
So we were bound to lose, you see;
All the others had craft autonomy,
Or else they would have struck with glee,
But I got good and hungry,
And no craft unions go for me.
Gee! Ain't it hell, in the A. F. of L.
All you get is sympathy.
Bill Brown was a thinker, and he was not a fool,
And fools there are many, we know.
So he decided the A. F. of L.
And its craft divisions must go.
Industrial Unions are just the thing,
Where the workers can all join the fight;
So now on the soap box boldly he stands,
A-singing with all of his might:
CHORUS
* * * * *
THE MESSAGE FROM O'ER THE SEA
(Tune: "Don't Bite the Hand that's Feeding You")
One day as I sat pining
A message of cheer came to me,
A light of revolt was shining
On a country far over the sea,
The forces of rulers to sever
And the flag of the earth to unfold
To secure our freedom forever
And a world of beauty untold.
CHORUS
All hail to the Bolsheviki!
We will fight for our Class and be free,
A Kaiser, King or Czar, no matter which you are
You're nothing of interest to me;
If you don't like the red flag of Russia,
If you don't like the spirit so true,
Then just be like the cur in the story
And lick the hand that's robbing you.
We have lived in meek submission
Thru ages of toil and despair,
To comply with the plutes' ambition
With never a thought nor a care.
An echo from Russia is sounding
'Tis the chimes of a True Liberty,
It's a message for millions resounding
To throw off your chains and be free.
SCISSOR BILL
BY JOE HILL
(Tune: "Steamboat Bill")
You may ramble 'round the country anywhere you will,
You'll always run across the same old Scissor Bill.
He's found upon the desert, he is on the hill,
He's found in every mining camp and lumber mill.
He looks just like a human, he can eat and walk,
But you will find he isn't when he starts to talk.
He'll say, "This is my country," with an honest face,
While all the cops they chase him out of every place.
CHORUS
Scissor Bill, he is a little dippy,
Scissor Bill, he has a funny face.
Scissor Bill should drown in Mississippi,
He is the missing link that Darwin tried to trace.
* * * * *
PAINT 'ER RED
BY RALPH CHAPLIN
(Tune: "Marching through Georgia")
Come with us, you workingmen, and join the rebel band;
Come, you discontented ones, and give a helping hand,
We march against the parasite to drive him from the land.
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
CHORUS
Hurrah! hurrah! we're going to paint 'er red!
Hurrah! hurrah! the way is clear ahead--
We're gaining shop democracy and liberty and bread
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
* * * * *
"Slaves" they call us, "working plugs," inferior by birth,
But when we hit their pocketbooks we'll spoil their smiles or mirth--
We'll stop their dirty dividends and drive them from the earth
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
We hate their rotten system more than any mortals do,
Our aim is not to patch it up, but build it all anew,
And what we'll have for government, when finally we're through,
Is ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
CASEY JONES--THE UNION SCAB
BY JOE HILL
The Workers on the S. P. line to strike sent out a call;
But Casey Jones, the engineer, he wouldn't strike at all;
His boiler it was leaking, and its drivers on the bum,
And his engine and its bearings, they were all out of plumb.
CHORUS
Casey Jones kept his junk pile running;
Casey Jones was working double time;
Casey Jones got a wooden medal,
For being good and faithful on the S. P. line.
The Workers said to Casey: "Won't you help us win this strike?"
But Casey said: "Let me alone, you'd better take a hike."
Then some one put a bunch of railroad ties across the track,
And Casey hit the river with an awful crack.
Casey Jones hit the river bottom;
Casey Jones broke his blooming spine,
Casey Jones was an Angeleno,
He took a trip to heaven on the S. P. line.
When Casey Jones got up to heaven to the Pearly Gate
He said: "I'm Casey Jones, the guy that pulled the S. P. freight."
"You're just the man," said Peter; "our musicians went on strike;
You can get a job a-scabbing any time you like."
Casey Jones got a job in heaven;
Casey Jones was doing mighty fine;
Casey Jones went scabbing on the angels,
Just like he did to workers on the S. P. line.
The angels got together, and they said it wasn't fair,
For Casey Jones to go around a-scabbing everywhere.
The Angels' Union No. 23, they sure were there,
And they promptly fired Casey down the Golden Stair.
Casey Jones went to Hell a-flying.
"Casey Jones," the Devil said, "Oh, fine;
Casey Jones, get busy shoveling sulphur;
That's what you get for scabbing on the S. P. line."
THE PREACHER AND THE SLAVE
BY JOE HILL
(Tune: "Sweet Bye and Bye")
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
CHORUS
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
And the Starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray.
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:
CHORUS
Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout.
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."
If you fight hard for children and wife--
Try to get something good in this life--
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to Hell.
Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight:
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:
LAST CHORUS
You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.
THE RED FLAG
BY JAMES CONNELL
The workers' flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead;
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their life-blood dyed its every fold.
CHORUS
Then raise the scarlet standard high;
Beneath its folds we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
Look 'round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,
The sturdy German chants its praise;
In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung,
Chicago swells its surging song.
It waved above our infant might
When all ahead seemed dark as night;
It witnessed many a deed and vow,
We will not change its color now.
It suits today the meek and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place,
To cringe beneath the rich man's frown,
And haul that sacred emblem down.
With heads uncovered, swear we all,
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark, or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn!
WHAT WE WANT
BY JOE HILL
(Tune: "Rainbow")
We want all the workers in the world to organize
Into a great big union grand
And when we all united stand
The world for workers we'll demand.
If the working class could only see and realize
What mighty power labor has
Then the exploiting master class
It would soon fade away.
CHORUS
Come all ye toilers that work for wages,
Come from every land,
Join the fighting band,
In one union grand.
Then for the workers we'll make upon this earth a paradise
When the slaves get wise and organize.
We want the sailor and the tailor and the lumberjacks,
And all the cooks and laundry girls;
We want the guy that dives for pearls,
The pretty maid that's making curls,
And the baker and staker and the chimneysweep;
We want the man that's slinging hash,
The child that works for little cash
In one union grand.
We want the tinner and the skinner and the chambermaid,
We want the man that spikes on soles,
We want the man that's digging holes,
We want the man that's climbing poles.
And the trucker and the mucker and the hired man,
And all the factory girls and clerks--
Yes, we want every one that works,
In one union grand.
FOOTNOTES:
[742] _I. W. W. songs to fan the flames of discontent_, 14th [General
Defense] Edition, Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, April, 1918.
[743] Not published in the 14th edition. (Quoted only in part.)
APPENDIX X
COPIES OF STATE "CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM" STATUTES
MINNESOTA
CHAPTER 215--S. F. NO. 942[744]
_An act defining criminal syndicalism, prohibiting the advocacy
thereof and the advocacy of crime, sabotage, violence, or other
unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial
or political ends, and assemblage for the purpose of such advocacy;
declaring it unlawful to permit the use of any place, building or rooms
for such assemblage in certain cases; and providing penalties for
violations of the provisions thereof._
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
SECTION 1. _Criminal syndicalism defined._--Criminal syndicalism is
hereby defined as the doctrine which advocates crime, sabotage (_this
word as used in this bill meaning malicious damage or injury to the
property of an employer by an employee_), violence or other unlawful
methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or
political ends. The advocacy of such doctrine, whether by word of mouth
or writing is a felony punishable as in this act otherwise provided.
SEC. 2. _Teaching or advocating syndicalism declared a felony._--Any
person who by word of mouth or writing, advocates or teaches the
duty, necessity or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or other
unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial
or political ends, or prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly
circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any book, paper,
document or written matter in any form, containing or advocating,
advising or teaching the doctrine that industrial or political ends
should be brought about by crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful
methods of terrorism; or openly, wilfully and deliberately justifies
by word of mouth or writing, the commission or the attempt to commit
crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism with
intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines
of criminal syndicalism, or organizes or helps to organize or becomes a
member or voluntarily assembles with any society, group or assemblage
of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrine of criminal
syndicalism, is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more
than one thousand dollars or both.
SEC. 3. _Assembling for purpose declared a felony._--Wherever two
or more persons assemble for the purpose of advocating or teaching
the doctrines of criminal syndicalism defined in this act, such an
assemblage is unlawful and every person voluntarily participating
therein by his presence, aid or instigation is guilty of a felony and
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10
years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or both.
SEC. 4. _Owner or lessor of buildings for assemblage liable for gross
misdemeanor._--The owner, agent, superintendent, or occupant of any
place, building or rooms who wilfully and knowingly permits therein
any assemblage of persons prohibited by the provisions of section 3 of
this act, or who, after notification that the premises are so used,
permits such use to be continued, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one
year or by a fine of not more than $500.00 or both.
SEC. 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after the
date of its passage.
Approved April 13, 1917.
IDAHO
CHAPTER 145--S. B. NO. 183
_An act defining the crime of criminal syndicalism and prescribing
punishment therefor._
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. Criminal syndicalism is the doctrine which advocates crime,
sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of
accomplishing industrial or political reform. The advocacy of such
doctrine, whether by word of mouth or writing, is a felony punishable
as in this Act otherwise provided.
SEC. 2. Any person who:
(1) By word, of mouth or writing, advocates or teaches the duty,
necessity or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful
methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or
political reform; or
(2) Prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells,
distributes or publicly displays any book, paper, document or written
matter in any form, containing or advocating, advising or teaching the
doctrine that industrial or political reform should be brought about by
crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism; or
(3) Openly, wilfully and deliberately justifies, by word of mouth or
writing, the commission or the attempt to commit crime, sabotage,
violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism with intent to
exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of
criminal syndicalism; or
(4) Organizes or helps to organize or becomes a member of, or
voluntarily assembles with any society, group or assemblage of persons
formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism;
Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment in the State
Prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five
thousand dollars, or both.
SEC. 3. Whenever two or more persons assemble for the purpose of
advocating or teaching the doctrines of criminal syndicalism as
defined in this Act, such an assemblage is unlawful, and every person
voluntarily participating therein by his presence, aid or instigation
is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment in the State
Prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five
thousand dollars, or both.
SEC. 4. The owner, agent, superintendent, janitor, caretaker, or
occupant of any place, building or room, who wilfully and knowingly
permits therein any assemblage of persons prohibited by the provisions
of Section 3 of this Act, or who, after notification that the premises
are so used, permits such use to be continued, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars,
or both.
Approved March 14, 1917.
MONTANA
_An act defining criminal syndicalism, and the word sabotage;
prohibiting the advocacy, teaching or suggestion thereof; and
prohibiting the advocacy, teaching or suggestion of crime, violence, or
the commission of any unlawful act or thing as a means to accomplish
industrial or political ends, change or revolution; and prohibiting
assemblages for the purpose of such advocacy, teachings or suggestions:
declaring it unlawful to permit the use of any place, building, rooms
or premises for such assemblages in certain cases; and providing
penalties for the violation thereof._[745]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA:
SECTION 1. Criminal syndicalism is hereby defined to be the doctrine
which advocates crime, violence, force, arson, destruction of property,
sabotage, or other unlawful acts or methods, or any such acts, as a
means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political ends, or as
a means of effecting industrial or political revolution.
SECTION 2. Sabotage is hereby defined to be malicious, felonious,
intentional or unlawful damage, injury or destruction of real or
personal property, of any form whatsoever, of any employer, or owner,
by his or her employee or employees, or any employer or employers or
by any person or persons, at their own instance, or at the instance,
request or instigation of such employees, employers, or any other
person.
SECTION 3. Any person who, by word of mouth or writing, advocates,
suggests or teaches the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of
crime, criminal syndicalism, or sabotage, or who shall advocate,
suggest or teach the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of doing
any act of violence, the destruction of or damage to any property,
the bodily injury to any person or persons, or the commission of any
crime or unlawful act as a means of accomplishing or effecting any
industrial or political ends, change or revolution, or who prints,
publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells, distributes,
or publicly displays any books, pamphlets, paper, hand-bill, poster,
document, or written or printed matter in any form whatsoever,
containing, advocating, advising, suggesting or teaching crime,
criminal syndicalism, sabotage, the doing of any act of violence,
the destruction of or damage to any property, the injury to any
person, or the commission of any crime or unlawful act as a means
of accomplishing, effecting or bringing about any industrial or
political ends, or change, or as a means of accomplishing, effecting
or bringing about any industrial or political revolution, or who shall
openly, or at all attempt to justify, by word of mouth or writing, the
commission or the attempt to commit sabotage, any act of violence, the
destruction of or damage to any property, the injury of any person
or the commission of any crime or unlawful act, with the intent to
exemplify, spread, or teach or suggest criminal syndicalism, or
organizes, or helps to organize or becomes a member of, or voluntarily
assembles with any society or assemblage or persons formed to teach
or advocate, or which teaches, advocates, or suggests the doctrine
of criminal syndicalism, sabotage, or the necessity, propriety or
expediency of doing any act of violence or the commission of any crime
or unlawful act as a means of accomplishing or effecting any industrial
or political ends, change or revolution is guilty of a felony, and
upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the State
Penitentiary for a term of not less than one year or more than five
years, or by a fine of not less than $200.00 or not more than one
thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
SECTION 4. Wherever two or more persons assemble or consort for the
purpose of advocating, teaching or suggesting the doctrine of criminal
syndicalism, as defined in this act, or to advocate, teach, suggest or
encourage sabotage, as defined in this act, or the duty, necessity,
propriety, or expediency of doing any act of violence, the destruction
of or damage to any property, the bodily injury to any person or
persons, or the commission of any crime or unlawful act as a means of
accomplishing or effecting any industrial or political ends, change or
revolution, it is hereby declared unlawful and every person voluntarily
participating therein, by his presence aids or instigates, is guilty of
a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment
in the State prison for not less than one year or more than five years,
or by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars, or more than one
thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
SECTION 5. The owner, lessee, agent, superintendent, or person in
charge or occupation of any place, building, room or rooms, or
structure, who knowingly permits therein any assembly or consort of
persons prohibited by the provisions of Section 4 of this act, or who
after notification that the place or premises, or any part thereof,
is or are so used, permits such use to be continued, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and punishable upon conviction thereof by imprisonment in
the county jail for not less than sixty days or for not more than one
year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, or more than
five hundred dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
SECTION 6. This act shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and approval.
Approved February 21, 1918.
FOOTNOTES:
[744] _Session Laws of Minnesota for 1917_, pp. 311-312.
[745] Laws of the State of Montana passed by the Extraordinary Session
of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly, Helena, February, 1918. (Chap.
7, S. B. No. 2).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography makes no pretense of being exhaustive. The writer
has endeavored, however, to list all the source material he has been
able to lay hands on. But source material is very fugitive and no doubt
there are numerous omissions, especially of leaflets and pamphlets. In
general, secondary material has not been included unless it (1) deals
directly with the I. W. W. as an organization, (2) is published by the
I. W. W. or under its label, (3) is written by a person who has, at one
time or another, been a member of the I. W. W. or unless (4) it has
been cited in the foregoing pages.
There is a vast amount of periodical material dealing with the real
or alleged activities and escapades of the I. W. W.: its strikes,
free-speech fights, etc. There is also an extensive literature (in
English, French, Italian and other languages) devoted to special
aspects of syndicalism or I. W. W.-ism. Among the important topics
covered are the following: industrial _versus_ craft unionism;
parliamentarianism and political action; war and militarism; I. W.
W.-ism and (state) socialism; I. W. W.-ism and anarchism; syndicalist
tactics; direct action, _sabotage_, the General Strike, job control,
etc.; unskilled and migratory labor, etc., etc. A few items of this
vast secondary reference material have for obvious reasons been
included in this bibliography but the bulk of it has been omitted.
_Vide_ note to sec. 5, _infra_, p. 403.
1. OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD
_Constitution and By-Laws of Industrial Workers of the World_
(adopted at Chicago, 1905), (at head of title "Labor is
Entitled to all it Produces"), Chicago, I. W. W. Pub.
Bureau, n. d., 32 pp. Original constitution of the I. W. W.
_Constitution of the Transportation Department of the I. W. W.,
and By-Laws of the Steam Railway Sub-Division._ 1905.
_Die Industriellen Arbeiterverbänder der Welt_, Vorwort u.
Konstitution, Chicago, 1906, 24 pp.
_Industrial Workers of the World, Industrial Council of New
York City and Vicinity, Constitution and By-Laws_, adopted
at New York, 1905, 16 pp., n. d.
_Industrial Workers of the World, founded at Chicago, June
27-July 8, 1905_, "Preamble and Constitution, amended 1906,
1907 and 1908, ratified by referendum vote" (at head of
title "Labor is Entitled to all it Produces"), Detroit,
General (I. W. W.) Headquarters, n. d., 32 pp.
_Industrial Workers of the World, Report to the International
Socialist and Labor Conference at Stuttgart, Germany,
August 18 to 24, 1907._ [Chicago, I. W. W. Press, 1907.] 16
p.
Lumber Workers' Industrial Union of the I. W. W. _Fifth
semi-annual convention of L. W. I. U. 500, Seattle
District, Saturday, August 23, 1919._ 8 p.
_L'Union industrielle du monde_, Avant-propos et constitution,
amendés, 1906, Chicago, I. W. W., 1906, 31 pp.
_Preamble and constitution of the Industrial Workers of the
World, Organized July 7, 1905_ (at head of title "Labor is
Entitled to all it Produces"), Chicago, General (I. W. W.)
Headquarters, no date, 32 p., pamphlet (as adopted 1905
and amended by conventions and ratified by referendum vote
1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914).
Translations of the constitution printed in German, French,
Italian, Polish, Finnish and Lithuanian.
_Preamble and Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the
World, Amended to 1908_, Chicago, General Headquarters, no
date, 32 pp.
_Preambolo e Costituzione de la Industrial Workers of the
World_ (Lavoratori Industriali del Mondo), Chicago, I. W.
W., 1906, 35 pp.
_Proceedings of the First Convention of the I. W. W._, New
York Labor News Company, New York, 1905. Reported by W. E.
McDermutt and revised by Wm. E. Trautmann, Secretary of the
Convention, 616 pp.
"Proceedings of a Conference of Delegates from Local Unions
of the Industrial Workers of the World, held in Chicago,
August 14, 1906" (signed by the Committee), _Miners'
Magazine_, September 6, 1906, vol. viii, no. 167, pp. 12,
13.
The pre-convention conference of 1906.
_Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the I. W. W._,
Chicago, 1906. Published by I. W. W., Chicago, 1906, 619 pp.
"Proceedings of the So-called Second Convention of the
Industrial Workers of the World," _Industrial Worker_, vol.
ii, no. 1, January, 1907, pp. 4-9, continued in February,
March, April and May, 1907.
(Sherman's version; not stenographic.)
"Proceedings of the 'Rump' Convention of Socialist Labor Party
(or Detroit) faction, Paterson, N. J., November 1, 1908,"
published serially in the _Weekly People_, during months
immediately following the convention.
_Proceedings of the Third I. W. W. Convention_, called to order
by Wm. E. Trautmann, Monday, September 16, 1907, at Chicago
adjourned September 24 (stenographically reported by W. E,
McDermutt) "official report" published by authority of the
Convention, printed on unbound sheets, 54 pages, Chicago,
no date.
Proceedings of Fourth I. W. W. Convention, 1908, 5th-10th days
sessions in _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 24, Nov. 7,
Dec. 12, 1908, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, 1909.
(The writer is unable to find anywhere the proceedings of the
first days of the convention.)
"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Convention of the I. W. W.,"
Chicago, 1910. Published in _Industrial Worker_, vol. ii,
nos. 8-10, 12-14, May 14, 21, 28; June 11, 18, 25, 1910.
"Proceedings of the Sixth Convention of the I. W. W."
(Detroit), _Industrial Union News_, October, 1913, pp. 1,
3-4, Detroit, September 15-17, 1913.
Minutes of Sixth I. W. W. Convention. 55 typewritten sheets
(September 18th to September 28th, 1911), Chicago, 1911.
In U. S. Department of Labor Library.
_Report of the Seventh I. W. W. Convention_, Chicago, Ill.,
September 16-26, 1912, 40 unbound printed pages (I. W. W.
label), no date.
_Proceedings of the Eighth I. W. W. Convention_, September 15
to 29, 1913, stenographic report, Cleveland, I. W. W. Pub.
Bureau, no date, 164 pp.
"Proceedings Tenth I. W. W. Convention (1916)," _Solidarity_,
December 2, 9, 16, 1916.
_Proceedings Tenth Convention of the Industrial Workers of the
World_, Chicago, Nov. 20-Dec. 1, 1916, Chicago, I. W. W.
Publishing Bureau, 1917, 155 pp.
"President Sherman's Report to 1906 Convention," _Miners'
Magazine_, October 11, 1906, pp. 8-10, vol. viii, no. 172.
"Report of the General Secretary-Treasurer, I. W. W., Second
Annual Convention, Chicago, Ill., September, 1906, Chicago,
_International Press_, no date, 42 pp.
"Report of the General Executive Board of the I. W. W. to
Seventh I. W. W. Convention, Chicago, September 17-27,
1912." Printed in full in _Industrial Worker_, October 24,
1912, pp. 4, 5, 6. Extracts in pamphlet, _On the Firing
Line_, Spokane, 1912.
_On the Firing Line._ Extracts from the report of the General
Executive Board to the Seventh Annual Convention of the
Industrial Workers of the World, Chicago, September 17 to
27, 1912, Spokane, Wash., 46 p. (This report published in
full in _Industrial Worker_, October 24, 1912.) Contains
also Smith, Walker C., "What is the I. W. W.?" pp. 42-46.
Report of General Executive Board to Eighth I. W. W.
Convention, _Proceedings_, pp. 33-37.
Report of General Secretary-Treasurer St. John to Eighth I. W.
W. Convention, _Proceedings_, pp. 29-31.
Report of the General Secretary-Treasurer Industrial Workers
of the World, Tenth Convention. Held at Chicago,
November-December, 1916. Signed by Wm. D. Haywood, Chicago,
I. W. W. Press, 1917, 30 pp.
[Extracts from] Report of the Provisional General Executive
Board to the Eleventh Annual Convention, I. W. W. _One Big
Union Monthly_, June, 1919, pp. 48-49.
2. PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS AND MISCELLANEOUS OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
(a) CHICAGO I. W. W. LEAFLETS
_Address to Railroad Workers._ Chicago, I. W. W., n. d.
"Address to Street Car Workers," _Industrial Union Leaflet No.
19_, Chicago, I. W. W., no date.
"Address to Wage Workers by the Industrial Workers of the
World." _Industrial Union Leaflet No. 18_, Chicago, I. W.
W., no date.
_Agricultural Workers Attention_. Chicago, I. W. W. [1918].
Ameringer, Oscar, _Union Scabs and Others_, New Castle, Pa.: I.
W. W. Publicity Bureau, n. d.
Doran, J. T. ("Red"), _Big Business and Direct Action_. Leaflet
pub. by Lumber Workers Industrial Union No. 500, I. W. W.
N. p., n. d.
----, _Law and the I. W. W._, Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing
Bureau, n. d.
Dougherty, T. F. G., _How to overcome the High Cost of Living_.
Cleveland, I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, no date, 15 pp.,
booklet, 2c.
It is to be done by organizing industrially.
_Do you want Mob Rule?_ [1918]. A general defence of the I. W.
W. on the five counts made in the Federal indictment of
1917.
Ebert, Justus, _Is the I. W. W. Anti-Political?_ Cleveland: I.
W. W. Publicity Bureau, 1913.
_Everett's Bloody Sunday, the Tragedy that horrified the World,
a Story of Outraged Toilers._ Seattle: 1916.
_Facts for Marine Transport Workers._ N. p., n. d., 7 p.
Fraina, L. C., _The I. W. W. trial. A Socialist Viewpoint._
Chicago, I. W. W. Publ. Bureau, 1917.
Hammond, Edward, _Two Kinds of Unionism_. New Castle, Pa.: I.
W. W. Publicity Bureau, n. d.
Hardy, George. _American workmen._ N. p., n. d.
_Helen Keller scores I. W. W. Prosecutions_, Chicago, I. W. W.
Pub. Bur., 1918. Reprinted from the _New York Call_.
_The I. W. W._ [Chicago, I. W. W. Pub. Bureau, 1917?].
"Industrial Unionism in the Textile Industries," _Industrial
Union Leaflet No. 10_.
_Is Justice Dead in Tonopah? The true Pacts of the Pancner
Case_, Tonopah-Pancner Defence Committee, Publicity Bureau,
no date.
_Lake Marine Workers on Ships and Docks. A few words to you_,
Cleveland, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, n. d.
Lewis, Austin, _A War Measure_, Chicago, I. W. W., n. d.
Melis, Louis, _Hotel and Restaurant Workers_, Chicago, I. W. W.
Publicity Bureau, no date, I. W. W., leaflet.
_Metal and Machinery Workers organize_ (4-page folder). Chicago
[?], n. d.
_Metal Workers and Industrial Unionism_ ("To all Workers
Employed in the Metal and Machinery Industry...."),
_Industrial Union Leaflet No. 17_, Chicago, I. W. W., no
date.
_Misconceptions of the I. W. W._, N. Y. I. W. W. Defense
Committee. 1918, 4 p. Reprinted from _The Labor Defender_,
Dec. 1, 1918, pp. 4-5.
Mitchell, "Rusty," _Address to Railroad Graders_, I. W. W.
leaflet, New Castle, Pa., I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, n. d.
Nelson, E. S., _Appeal to Wage Workers, Men and Women_, New
Castle, Pa., I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, no date.
_Russia in America. Bloody Sunday in Everett, Washington_,
Seattle, 1916.
St. John, _Industrial Unionism and the I. W. W._, New Castle,
Pa,. I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, n. d., 15 pp. booklet.
St. John, Vincent, _Is the I. W. W. all-sufficient for the
Workers' needs_? Leaflet (1917?). Originally printed in
Solidarity, July, 1915.
St. John, Vincent, _Political Parties and the Industrial
Workers of the World_. Cleveland: I. W. W. Publicity
Bureau; n. d.
St. John, Vincent, _Why the American Federation of Labor cannot
become an Industrial Union_. New Castle, Pa.: Solidarity
Literary Bureau, n. d.
_Smash the I. W. W.!_ N. d. [On the Federal conspiracy
prosecutions of 1917-1918.]
Smith, Walker C., _War and the Workers_, New Castle, Pa., I. W.
W. Publishing Bur., n. d.
_Some Tips for Railroad Workers_, Chicago (?), n. d. (4-page
folder).
Stirton, A. M., _Getting Recognition_, Cleveland, Ohio, I. W.
W. Publicity Bureau, no date.
_To Colored Workingmen and Women_, Chicago, n. d.
_To the Lumberjacks of Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and
Michigan_ (copies in Finnish, Swedish and Polish),
Cleveland, Solidarity Publicity Bureau, no date.
_Unions Fight for the Right to Strike_, Chicago, I. W. W. Pub.
Bureau, n. d.
_Unskilled Labor Problem_ [Chicago, I. W. W. Pub. Bureau,
1917]. Reprinted from _The Public_.
Varney, H. L., _The Truth about the I. W. W._, Chicago, I. W.
W. Publishing Bur., n. d.
Walquist, August, _Eight Hour Work Day, What it will Mean,
and How to get it_, I. W. W. leaflet. Cleveland, I. W. W.
Publicity Bureau, 1913.
_Warning. The Deadly Parallel._ Comparison of I. W. W. and A.
F. of L. statements on the war. (I. W. W. label.) N. p., n,
d.
_What do you think of this?_ Chicago, General Defense
Committee, 1917. On the Tulsa, Okla., affair.
_Who are the Conspirators_, Chicago, I. W. W., Feb. 21, 1918.
(Issued by the General Defense Committee.)
_Why? How? When?_ leaflet, New Castle, Pa., I. W. W. Publicity
Bureau, no date.
_Why You should Join the I. W. W._ With cartoons under title
"Don't be a Mr. Block ... Be an I. W. W.!" Minneapolis,
Minn., Agricultural Workers' Organization, I. W. W., no
date.
(b) DETROIT I. W. W. LEAFLETS
_Constructive Industrialism--The Structure of Industrial
Unionism_, leaflet, Detroit Branch, Los Angeles, no date.
_Industrial Unionism_, Detroit leaflet. Same as, _The
Industrial Workers of the World; One Union for all Wage
Workers_, no date.
_Industrial Unionism versus Anarchy and Reform_, leaflet,
Detroit Branch, Detroit, Mich., no date.
_The Industrial Workers of the World: One Union for all Wage
Workers_, leaflet, Detroit Branch, Detroit, no date.
_Manifesto of Socialist Industrial Unionism_, Principles of the
Workers' International Industrial Union, Leaflet No. 1,
issued by the General Executive Board, Detroit, 1916.
Trainor, C. E., Richter, H., and McClure, Robt. (General
Executive Board of the [Detroit] Industrial Workers of the
World). _A Message to the Membership of the Industrial
Workers of the World and the Working Class in General_,
leaflet, Detroit Branch, Detroit, no date.
_The Two I. W. W.s._, leaflet, Detroit Branch, Detroit, no date.
(c) MISCELLANEOUS SEMI-OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE I. W. W.
Edwards, A. S., "Analysis of the Preamble of the Industrial
Workers of the World." (Insert in Trautmann, Wm. E.,
_Handbook of Industrial Unionism_. Large folding sheet on
which the principles of industrial unionism are analyzed
and expanded in successive tabular columns.)
"The Industrial Organization of the Workers" (Chart of
Industrial Divisions), _Voice of Labor_, June, 1905.
Industrial Union Manifesto--in St. John, _The I. W. W., its
History, Structure and Methods_ (1917 edition), pp. 25-9.
_I. W. W. Songs_: to fan the flames of discontent, general
defense (14th) edition, Chicago: I. W. W. Publishing
Bureau, April, 1918. 57 pages.
Riebe, Ernest, _Twenty-four Cartoons of Mr. Block_,
Minneapolis, Minn., Block Supply Company (1912?) [27 pp.],
("Most of the cartoons ... were originally published in the
_Industrial Worker_ of Spokane, Wash."--Introd.)
_Scandinavisk I. W. W. Sangbok_, Minneapolis, Scandinavian
Propaganda League, n. d.
Trautmann, Wm. E., _Industrial Unionism: Handbook No. 2, Means
and Methods_, Chicago, I. W. W.: no date, 32 pp.
----, _Handbook of Industrial Unionism: 3rd edition, revised_.
Explanation of the principles of the I. W. W., 34 pp.,
pamphlet (Chicago): _I. W. W._, no date; contains also (in
form of insert sheet) Edwards, A. S., "Analysis of the
Preamble, Industrial Workers of the World" (published also
in Italian and Polish).
----, _One Big Union._ An outline of a possible industrial
organization of the working class. C. H. Kerr Company,
Chicago, 1911, 31 pages and chart (Fifth revised edition
called "One Great Union," Detroit).
----, _One Great Union_ (fifth revised edition). "A complete
portrait of industrial organizations; with a map outlining
the inter-relationship of the industrial enterprise
the world over, compiled from statistical tabulations
of Bureaus of France, Germany, Denmark and the United
States of America...." Previously published by C. H, Kerr
under title: "One Big Union." On inside front cover the
author states that the Hungarian, Polish and Bohemian
"translations now in the book market have not been
authorized ... and the revenues derived [therefrom] ... are
_not_ being used for the propaganda of industrial unionism
but to support a band of irresponsible scavengers on the
labor movement." At head of title: "An Injury to One is an
Injury to All--One Union, One Emblem, One Enemy." (Detroit:
I. W. W. Literary Bureau, no date), 31 pp., 10c.
(d) CERTAIN OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
_American Labor Union, Preamble, Constitution and Laws._
Adopted at Salt Lake City, Utah, May, 1898. Revised to
June, 1902, Denver, Scollin and Baker, no date, 26 pp.
Duncan, Jas., _Report of James Duncan, delegate of the American
Federation of Labor to the Budapest Labor and Socialist
Conference, August, 1911_, pamphlet, Quincy, Mass., Nov.,
1911, 34 pp. Reprinted in _International Molders' Journal_,
March and April, 1912, 48: 172; 255-63.
_International Musical Union, Constitution, By-Laws and General
Laws_ (affiliated with the American Labor Union). In
effect September 1, 1903, Cleveland, International Musical
Union, 1903, 36 pp.
_L'Internationale Ouvrière et Socialiste_ (International
Socialist Congress, 7th, Stuttgart, 1907). Édition
française publiée par le Secrétariat du Bureau Socialiste
Internationale, 2 vols., Brussels, International Socialist
Bureau, Maison du Peuple, 1907, 422 pp., 584 pp.
_Knights of Labor, Constitution of the General Assembly and for
State, National, Trade, District and Local Assemblies of
the Order._ Revised to 1892, Philadelphia, published by the
General Assembly, 1893, 92 pp.
_Socialist Labor Party of the United States of America,
Constitution_ (Adopted at the Tenth National Convention
held in New York City, June 2 to 8, 1900), 16 pp.
_Socialist Labor Party, Constitution as amended to 1908_, New
York, N. Y., Labor News Co., 1908, pamphlet.
_Socialist Labor Party, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual
Convention_, Grand Central Palace, New York, July 4-10,
1896, New York, Goldman, 1896.
_Socialist Labor Party, Proceedings of the Tenth Convention_,
New York, June, 1900. Stenographic report by B. F.
Keinard (with an appendix containing the constitution and
platform of the party and numerous historical and official
documents). New York, New York Labor News Company, 1901,
325 p.
_Socialist Labor Party, Programma e Statuto e Manifesto della
S. T. and L. A._ (Libreria del Proletario, serie ii, vol.
iv), New York, Tipografia del "Proletario," pamphlet.
"Socialist Labor Party. Report to the International Socialist
Congress at Amsterdam, August, 1904," pamphlet. Published
also in _Report of the Socialist Labor Party of the United
States of America to the International Congress held in
Stuttgart, August 18-25, 1907_, signed by DeLeon and Henri
Kuhn (Stuttgart Reports, _édition française_, vol. i, pp,
44-56).
Socialist Labor Party--"Report of Socialist Labor Party to
Stuttgart (1907) International Socialist Congress," by
Daniel DeLeon (contains report on I. W. W., Socialist
Unity Conference, and relations between Socialist Labor
party, Socialist party and I. W. W.) (in _L'Internationale
Ouvrière et Socialiste_, Stuttgart, 1907, _édition
française_, vol. i, pp. 43-72).
_Socialist Labor Party of the United Slates of America,
Report to the International (Socialist) Congress_ held in
Stuttgart, August 18-25, 1907, signed by Daniel DeLeon and
F. Bohn, 20 pages (New York: New York Labor News Company,
1907). (Includes, pp. 4-9, Socialist Labor Party Report to
Amsterdam Congress, 1904).
----, _As to Socialist Unity in America_. Memorial of the
National Executive Committee of the Socialist Labor Party
of the United States to the International Socialist Bureau,
Brussels (Belgium). In Bulletin périodique du bureau
socialiste international, 2 année, no. 7 (Brussels, 1911),
pp. 28-35. In French, German and English.
_Socialist party, National Constitution Amended to August 3,
1915_, pamphlet, Chicago, issued by the National Office of
the Socialist party, no date, 20 pp.
_Socialist party, National Convention, Indianapolis, May 12-18,
1912_, Proceedings. Stenographic report by W. E. McDermutt.
Edited by Jno. Spargo, Chicago, National Socialist Press,
1912, 248 pp.
_Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance of the United States and
Canada, Constitution._ Adopted at its First Convention,
New York, June, 1896. Revised at its Sixth Convention,
Providence, R. I., 1901. Issued by the General Executive
Board, New York, 1902, 30 pp.
_Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance of the United States and
Canada: Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention,
Roxbury, Boston, Mass., July, 1897._ New York: Published by
the General Executive Board, no date, 20 pp.
_Socialist Unity Conference, Proceedings of the New Jersey_,
Newark, March 4, 1906, Jersey City, J. M. Reilly and Jno.
Hossack, 1906, 80 pp.
Socialist Unity Conference, 1917, New York City, January 6 and
7. Proceedings reported in the _Weekly People_, January,
1917.
_Western Federation of Miners: Constitution and By-Laws_
(Amended to July, 1910). Denver: Pearl Print Shop, no date,
32 pp.
Western Federation of Miners, Official Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Annual Convention, Salt Lake City, May 22-June
9, 1905. Denver: Reed Publishing Company, 1905.
"Father" T. J. Hagerty's "Wheel of fortune," reproduced on p.
220, with reprint of the January [1905]., Manifesto.
Western Federation of Miners [Proceedings] Fourteenth Annual
Convention, Denver, May 28-June 13, 1906. Denver: Reed
Publishing Company, 1906.
(Bears I. W. W. label.)
_The Workers' International Industrial Union._ "Founded at
Chicago, June 27-July 8, 1905. New name adopted 1915."
_Preamble and Constitution_ amended 1906, 1907, 1908, 1913,
1914 and 1915. Ratified by referendum vote. New name of
the Detroit I. W. W. Detroit, Mich.: General Headquarters
[1916], 32 pp.
3. OFFICIAL AND SEMI-OFFICIAL PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE I. W. W.
_Alarm._ Swedish-Norwegian-Danish, Minneapolis, Minn., monthly,
50 cents.
_A Bérmunkás_ (The wage worker), Hungarian, Cleveland, weekly,
$1.50. Published by the Hungarian-speaking locals of the I.
W. W.
_The Boomer._ Official Organ of Metal and Machinery Workers'
Industrial Union No. 300, Industrial Workers of the World.
Monthly. Chicago. (September, 1919-____.)
_Bulletin, Lumber Workers Industrial Union No. 500, I. W. W._
(Spokane district), Spokane, Wash. (small news sheet,
published irregularly).
_Buoreviestnik_, Bulgarian, Chicago; weekly, vol. i, no. 1,
April 15, 1917, $1.00.
_Cal[ifornia I. W. W.] Defense Bulletin_ (weekly), San
Francisco (Nov. 4, 1918-____).
_Darbininku Balsas_ (The Voice of the Workers), Lithuanian;
Baltimore, weekly, I. W. W. organ.
_The Defense News Bulletin_ (weekly), Chicago. Published by
the General Defense Committee of the I. W. W. (has no
mailing privileges), (1917-____). Name changed to _The New
Solidarity_, November 16, 1918.
_Direct Action_, "Australian administration," I. W. W. organ;
Sydney, N. S. W., Australia; weekly (Jan., 1914-____).
_L'Émancipation_, Olneyville, R. I., monthly.
_A Felszabadulás_ (Emancipation), Hungarian I. W. W. journal,
$2.00 (Dec., 1918-____), Chicago.
_Glas Radnika_ (The Worker's Voice), Croatian I. W. W. paper.
Twice a month, $2.00, Chicago (1919-____).
_Golos Truzenka_ (The voice of the laborer), Russian I. W. W.
paper (1918-____), $1.00, Chicago.
_La Huelga General_, "Organ de la union de los trabajadores
industriales del mundo"; I. W. W. organ; Los Angeles,
weekly, Año 1, Aug. 23, 1913; pub. by Spanish branch of the
I. W. W.
_The [I. W. W.] Defense Bulletin of the Seattle District_,
Seattle. "Published weekly by the Seattle District Defense
Committee."
_I. W. W. Trial Bulletin_, Chicago. Single-page news sheet
"issued by the Defense News Service," I. W. W. Publishing
Bureau. (For the first month published daily. Title: _Daily
Bulletin_.) Twice a week. No. 1, about Apr. 1, 1918.
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Official publication of the I. W.
W., Chicago; weekly, Mar. 2, 1907-Mar. 6, 1909; suspended
publication with Mar. 6, 1909; Aug. 8-Dec. 12, 1908 publ.
semi-monthly; (anti-Shermanite organ of the "proletarian
rabble").
_Industrial Union News_, organ of S. L. P. faction of I. W.
W., Detroit, Mich.; monthly, pub. by the General Executive
Board, vol. i, no. 1, January, 1912. (Now the organ of the
Workers International Industrial Union.)
_The Industrial Unionist_, Jewish, Brooklyn. Quarterly. (15c. a
year.)
_The Industrial Unionist_, Auckland, Australia, monthly.
Published by the Auckland I. W. W. local.
_The Industrial Unionist_, Seattle, Wash. Published irregularly
(1918-____). "Organ of the Western branches, Industrial
Workers of the World."
_The Industrial Worker_, I. W. W. organ, Joliet, Ill.; monthly,
vol. i. no. 1, Jan., 1906 (suspended publication).
_Industrial Worker (II)_, I. W. W. organ; weekly, Spokane,
Wash.; published by the General Executive Board of the I.
W. W.; Fred Heslewood, editor; (1909-1918).
_Industrial Worker (III)_, I. W. W, organ; Seattle, Wash.;
weekly, April 1, 1916-____, suspended publication.
_Industrial Worker (IV)_, weekly; Seattle, Wash. (1919-____).
"Organ of the Western Branches, Industrial Workers of the
World."
_Industrial Workers of the World_, Organ of the Trautmann-St.
John faction 1906-1907; No. 4, Chicago, Dec. 1, 1906;
No. 5, Chicago, Jan. 10, 1907; a series of irregularly
published bulletins.
_The Industrial Worker_, London. (Organ of the "British I. W.
W. Administration.")
_Der Industrialer Arbeiter_, Chicago, monthly (Feb.,
1919-____). "Issued by the Jewish Press Committee under the
direction of the G. E. B. of the I. W. W."
_Industrialist_ (The Industrialist), Finnish daily, Duluth,
Minn.
_Industrijalni Radnik_ (Industrial Worker), Slavonian; I.
W. W. organ; Duluth, Minn. ("can be read by Croatians,
Slovenians, Dalmatians, Servians and Montenegrins"). $1.50
per year.
_The Labor Bulletin_, published monthly by the Portland (Ore.)
locals of the I. W. W.; June, 1912-____.
_The Labor Defender_, New York [Feb. 16, 1918-____]. Published
semi-monthly by the Industrial Workers of the World Defense
Committee. (Affiliated with the General Defense Committee
of Chicago.) Name changed to _The Rebel Worker_, February,
1919.
_Het Licht_ (The Light) (Flemish), Lawrence, Mass. Monthly, 50
cents.
_Loukkataistelu_ (The Class Struggle), New York (January,
1919-____). Finnish.
_The Lumber Jack_, Alexandria, La.; weekly, vol. i, no. 1, Jan.
9, 1913-____; published by National Industrial Union of
Forest and Lumber Workers--Southern District (I. W. W.).
Later published as _The Voice of the People_ at Portland,
Ore. Publication suspended.
_A Luz_ (Light), (Portuguese), New Bedford, Mass.
Semi-monthly, 50 cents.
_The New Solidarity_, weekly (Nov. 16, 1918-____), Chicago.
Published by the General Executive Board of the I. W. W.
Official organ. (Successor to the _Defense News Bulletin_.)
_The New Unionist_, Seattle, Wash., vol. i, no. 1, July 6,
1918. Published weekly by the New Unionist Publishing Co.
Publication suspended.
_News Bulletin [of the] Lumber Workers Industrial Union_,
[Seattle district], Seattle. (Four-page news sheet.)
_La Nueva Solidaridad_ (Spanish), Dec., 1918-, Chicago, $1.50.
_Il Nuovo Proletario_, Italian I. W. W. paper (Dec., 1918),
Chicago, $1.50.
_Nya Världen_ (The New World), Chicago (February, 1919-), $2.00.
_The One Big Union Monthly_, Chicago (March, 1919-). Published
by the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of
the World.
_Probuda_ (Awakening), Bulgarian weekly, Chicago (1919-), $1.50.
_Il Proletario_ (The Proletariat), Italian, Boston. Weekly,
$1.00.
_Pråm ny Deník_ (Industrial Worker), Bohemian; semi-monthly,
Chicago.
_Rabochaya Rech_ (The Voice of Labor), Russian, Chicago.
Weekly, 50 cents.
_Ragione Nuova_, Italian I. W. W. organ; monthly, Providence,
R. I.; 25c. a year.
_The Rebel Worker_, New York (February, 1919-). New name of the
_Labor Defender_.
_El Rebelde_ (The Rebel), Spanish, Los Angeles. Semi-monthly,
$1.00. Published by I. W. W. local union, no. 602.
"_Organo de los Trabajadores Industriales del Mundo._"
_The Textile Worker_, Paterson, N. J. Published monthly by the
Paterson branch of Textile Workers' Industrial Union No.
1000 of the I. W. W. (August, 1919-).
_Tie Vapauteen_ (The Road to Freedom), monthly, New York City.
_Socialist Union World_, Detroit I. W. W. organ; monthly,
published by L. U.'s 400, 427, 675, Seattle; 50c. a year;
(August, 1914-).
_Solidaritet_ (Swedish monthly), Seattle, Wash.
_Solidarity_, official organ of I. W. W.; weekly, published
by I. W. W. Publ. Bureau, Chicago; Dec. 18, 1909-1917.
Suppressed by the Government.
_Solidarnosc_ (Solidarity), Polish, Chicago. Semi-monthly,
$1.00. Official Polish organ of the I. W. W.
_Teollisuustyo lainen_ (Industrial Worker), Finnish, I. W. W.
organ (daily?); Duluth: The Socialist Publishing Company;
formerly called _Socialisti_.
_Timber Worker_, Seattle, Wash.; weekly, suspended publication.
_La Union Industrial_, Spanish, Phoenix, Ariz.; published by
the Local Unions of the I. W. W. at Phoenix, Ariz.
_Voice of Labour_, Johannesburg, S. Africa, organ of "South
African administration I. W. W."
_Voice of Labor_, Chicago. Organ of the American Labor Union,
monthly from January, 1905. Suspended in 1905.
_Voice of the People_, weekly, published weekly by National
Industrial Union of Forest and Lumber Workers, Southern
District, New Orleans, La.; Jan. 9, 1913-, Covington Hall,
Editor; beginning with vol. iii, no. 29, July 30, 1914,
published in Portland, Ore.; published weekly by the City
Central Committee of the I. W. W. of Portland ("owned by
the Lumber Jacks"); originally published at Alexandria,
La., under title _The Lumber Jack_; $1.00, publication
suspended.
_Der Weckruf_, Chicago, weekly (1912-).
_Weekly Bulletin of Lumber Workers Industrial Union No. 500, I.
W. W., Main Office, Chicago._ (Two-page leaflet news sheet.)
_The Wooden Shoe_, published weekly by the I. W. W. locals of
Los Angeles; Bill C. Cook, James O'Neil, editors (Aug.,
1912-), suspended publication.
_Der Yacker_, Jewish, I. W. W. organ; Brooklyn; monthly, May 1,
1915.
* * * * *
The following journals though not organs of the I. W. W. contained
during the periods specified a vast amount of news and controversial
discussion of the I. W. W. and I. W. W.-ism:
_The Miners' Magazine_, 1905-1909. Official organ of the
Western Federation of Miners (now the International Union
of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers), Denver.
_The Weekly People_, 1905-1908. Official organ of the Socialist
Labor Party, New York.
_The New Review_, 1913-1916, New York. (Publication suspended.)
_The International Socialist Review_ (1905-1918), monthly,
Chicago. This magazine was for several years past virtually
an I. W. W. organ. Publication suspended.
4. OTHER SYNDICALIST AND REVOLUTIONARY LABOR PERIODICALS
_La Acción Obrera_ (Syndicalist), Buenos Ayres.
_L'Action Directe_, Syndicalist weekly, Paris, vol. i, no. 1,
January 15, 1908.
_Adelante_, Syndicalist, Punta Arenas, Chile.
_The Agitator_ (changed to _The Syndicalist_, January, 1913),
Lakebay, Wash.; semi-monthly, Jay Fox, editor. A workers'
semi-monthly advocate of the modern school, syndicalism and
individual freedom.
_American Labor Union Journal_, Butte, Mont.; published by the
American Labor Union, Jan., 1903-Dec., 1904 (vols. i-ii).
_The Anarchist_, London, weekly.
_De Arbeid_, Syndicalist, Holland, bi-weekly.
_L'Avvenire_ (The Future), Italian, advocates syndicalism, New
York; weekly, published by Carlo Tresca of the I. W. W.
_Il Avvenire Sociale_, Rome; fortnightly review.
_Bataille syndicaliste_, Paris; daily.
_The Blast_, San Francisco; weekly, Revolutionary Labor Weekly;
Alex. Berkman, formerly editor and publisher. Vol. i, no.
1, January 15, 1916.
_Brand_, weekly organ of the revolutionary syndicalist movement
of Sweden, Stockholm.
_Le bulletin international du mouvement syndicaliste_, Bourg
la Reine, France, weekly, Ch. Cornélissen, Aug., 1907-;
contents reproduced every week in English in _Solidarity_
and _The Industrial Worker_, various syndicalist papers in
Europe and _La Acción Obrera_ (Buenos Ayres).
_The Class Struggle_, New York (1917-), published every two
months by the Socialist Publication Society, devoted to
International Socialism.
_The Decentralizer_, socialist and industrialist,
Hallettsville, Texas; monthly, 25c. a year.
_Direkte Aktion_, Stockholm.
_Direkte Aktion_, Christiania, Norway, Dec. 1, 1910.
_Divenire Sociale_, Rome; published fortnightly; syndicalist,
1905, edited by É. Leone.
_Die Einigkeit_, syndicalist organ of the "Freie Vereinigung
Deutscher Gewerkschaften," Berlin; weekly, 1906-. Started
1896 but radically syndicalistic only since 1906;
represents revolutionary syndicalism in Germany.
_L'Émancipation_, Industrial unionist monthly, Lawrence, Mass.
_Freedom_, San Francisco, monthly (publication suspended).
_Der Freie Arbeiter_, Anarchist, Berlin; weekly.
_Golos Truda_ (Voice of Labor), Russian, advocates Syndicalism,
New York; weekly, published by the Russian Labor Group.
_La guerre sociale_, Paris.
_Herald of Revolt_, Anarchist, London; monthly, Jan., 1911-____.
_L'Humanité_, Socialist daily published since 1905, Paris.
Contains many articles by Revolutionary and Reformist
Syndicalists, strong syndicalist leanings.
_The Industrial Socialist_ (semi-syndicalist organ),
Bridgeport, Conn.
_The Industrial Syndicalist_, London, monthly. Edited by Tom
Mann, vol. i (1910-1911) issued monthly in pamphlet form, a
special article making up each number.
_The Industrial Unionist_, London; weekly.
_The Industrialist_, official organ "Industrialist League,"
London, monthly.
_The International._ "A journal devoted to the cause of
Syndicalism," San Diego, semi-monthly; Laura Payne
Emerson, editor and publisher, Aug. 17, 1914-.
_International Socialist Review_ (Industrial Socialism),
Chicago, monthly; C. H. Kerr, editor; C. H. Kerr & Co.,
publishers. Suspended.
_The Journal of the Knights of Labor_, Washington, D. C.
(1890-), early volumes published in Philadelphia; suspended
publication May, 1904 to July, 1905.
_Land and Liberty_, Anarchist monthly, Apr., 1914, Hayward,
Calif., Wm. C. Owen, editor. Suspended.
_The Liberator_, New York, monthly (Max Eastman, ed.), vol. i,
no. 1, March, 1918-. Successor to The Masses.
_The Masses_, New York, monthly, publication suspended.
_The Maoriland Worker_ (industrial unionism), weekly,
Wellington, New Zealand.
_Miners' Magazine, The_, weekly; published by the Western
Federation of Miners (International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers), Denver, Colo.
_Mother Earth_, Anarchist monthly, New York; Emma Goldman,
editor.
_Le mouvement socialiste_, Paris. Revue de critique sociale,
littéraire et artistique--bi-mensuelle internationale,
1899-; semi-monthly, Jan., 1903 to August, 1905; monthly,
September (1905-). Hubert Lagardelle, editor.
Neo-Marxian. Especially valuable for student of revolutionary
syndicalism. Was for a time the organ of the _intellectuels_ of
the French syndicalists.
_The Nevada Workman_, Goldfield. A weekly newspaper devoted to
the organization of the workers along industrial lines,
August, 1907.
_The New International_ (published monthly by the Socialist
Propaganda League) (1917-) "A journal of revolutionary
socialist reconstruction." New York.
_The New Review_. A critical review of international socialism,
New York, weekly to April, 1913, then monthly to April,
1915, then semi-monthly. Publication suspended.
_Pagine Libere_, Lugano.
_The People_, Sydney, N. S. W., So. Australia; weekly,
Industrial unionism.
_The People_ (continued as _The Weekly People_, q. v.), New
York, 1891-1908, vol. xi-vol. xvii has title "The Worker,"
vol. xviii title reads, "New York Socialist," ceased
publication with vol. xviii, 1908, daily.
_Pionier_, Unabhängiges sozialrevolutionäres Organ; Berlin,
weekly, Jan., 1911-. Represents the revolutionary
syndicalist movement in Germany.
_Pluma Roja_, Anarchist, Los Angeles, Calif., Oct., 1913.
_El Producidor_, Santiago, Chile, weekly, syndicalist paper.
_The Proletarian_. In Japanese, with some articles in English,
Chicago; a monthly advocate of Industrial unionism for
Japanese workers; 35c. a year.
_The Proletarian_ (monthly), Detroit, Proletarian Publishing
Co. (vol. i, May, 1918).
_The Proletariat._ Published every other month by the Jack
London Memorial Institute, vol. i, no. 1, May-June, 1918,
San Francisco.
_Pueblo Courier_ (Pueblo Labor Advocate, 1904-), Pueblo, Colo.;
official newspaper of the Western Labor Union.
_The Question_, official organ of the Unemployed Army; San
Francisco; Jan., 1914-; published irregularly, no. 5
appeared. Suspended publication.
_The Radical Review_ ("Devoted to the critical study of
scientific socialism"). Published monthly by the Radical
Review Publishing Association, New York, vol. i, no. 1,
July, 1917.
_The Referendum._ Exponent of Marxian socialism and industrial
unionism, weekly, Faribault, Minn.
_Regeneración_, Los Angeles, Calif.; syndicalist weekly.
Includes an English section.
_Revolt._ "The voice of the Militant Worker"; advocates
industrial socialism; weekly, San Francisco, July, 1910-.
suspended. Thos. J. Mooney, publisher.
_Social Justice_, Pittsburgh.
_The Social War_, anarchist, published every three weeks;
subscription voluntary, New York, 1913-.
_Solidarity_, monthly syndicalist magazine issued by the
Industrial Democracy League of New South Wales.
Solidarity, organ of the Industrial Democracy League (London,
England); monthly, "A journal of industrial unionism."
_The Syndicalist_ (formerly _The Agitator_), Chicago. Edited by
W. Z. Foster and J. A. Jones twice a month, published by
the Syndicalist Publ. Association, vol. iii, no. 1, Jan. 1,
1913.
_The Syndicalist_, London, monthly, 1912-(formerly the
_Syndicalist Railwayman_).
_The Syndicalist and Amalgamation News_, London, monthly,
edited under auspices of Industrial Syndicalist Education
League, February, 1914.
_Syndicalist Railwayman_, London, monthly.
_Syndikalisten_, Lund, Sweden, fortnightly, official organ of
Sveriges Arbetares Central Organisation.
_The Toiler._ A monthly review of international syndicalism,
May, 1912-, Kansas City, Mo.; published by the Toiler
Publishing Bureau; official organ of the Syndicalism League.
_El Trabajo._ Published by the Magellan Labor Federation
(Syndicalist) at Punta Arenas, Chile.
_La vie ouvrière_, Paris; Revue syndicaliste, bi-mensuelle.
_Voice of Labor_, organ of American Labor Union, Chicago;
monthly, January, 1905, combining American Labor Union
Journal and Railway Employees Journal; published by the
American Labor Union; vol. ii, nos. 30-41, title reads
"American Labor Union Journal."
_The Voice of Labor._ Published twice a month by the Labor
Committee of the National Left Wing. New York City. (August
15, 1919-.) "For Labor's organization by industries in the
One Big Union."
_La Voix du Peuple_, Paris: Confédération Générale du Travail;
weekly, Dec. 1, 1900-.
_Vorbote_, Unabhängiges Organ für die Intersessen des
Proletariats; Chicago, weekly.
_The Wage Worker._ "The only 3-color 'roughneck' revolutionary
monthly on earth;" Seattle, Wash.; Aug., 1910-, $1.00.
_Weekly People._ Organ of the Socialist Labor Party, New York,
1899-. Before vol. x, no. 13, title reads, _The People_,
edited by Daniel DeLeon to 1914.
_Why._ A semi-monthly Revolutionary Advocate of Anarchism.
Tacoma, Wash., $1.00.
5. PARTIAL LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON THE I. W. W.
In this section have been included references to matter, (1) dealing
directly with the I. W. W. as an organization, (2) on I. W. W.-ism,
syndicalism, socialism, anarchism, etc., as related to the I. W.
W., (3) written by or about persons who have been members of the
organization, (4) published by the I. W. W. or any of its publishing
agencies, and (5) to any other secondary material cited in the
foregoing pages.
Names of authors who have belonged to the I. W. W. at one time or
another are marked with an asterisk.
(a) BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
American Federation of Labor, Executive Council, _Industrial
unionism in its relation to trade unionism; being a
report of the Executive Council of the A. F. of L. to the
Rochester, N. Y., Convention, in which the subject is
fairly presented_, Washington, D. C., Amer. Fed. of Labor
[1912], 7 pp.
Babson, R. W., "American Federation of Labor or Industrial
Workers of the World, Which?" (in _Babson's Reports on
Economical Coöperative Movements_, Confidential Bulletin of
the Coöperative Service, No. L, 63, Wellesley Hills, Mass.,
October, 1916. Labor Forecast), 4 pp.
Batdorf, J. W., _The Menace of the I. W. W._, New York:
Anti-socialist Press, 1917 (32 pp., 10c.).
Bliss, W. D. P., "Industrial Workers of the World"--Article in
the _New Encyclopedia of Social Reform_. New edition, pp.
619-20. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908.
Brissenden, P. F., _Launching of the Industrial Workers of the
World_, University of California Publications in Economics,
vol. iv, no. 1, 82 pp., Berkeley, 1913.
Brooks, J. G., _American Syndicalism, The I. W. W._
(Bibliography), New York: MacMillan, 1913, 264 pp.
* Brown, William Thurston, _The Revolutionary Proletariat_,
Chicago, I. W. W. Press, n. d. Pamphlet.
----, _Will You Have War or Peace?_ Chicago, I. W. W. Press, n.
d. Pamphlet.
Bruère, Robert W., "Notes on the I. W. W. in Arizona and the
Northwest," in _Reconstruction after the War_. (_Journal of
the National Institute of Social Sciences_, vol. iv, April
1, 1918), pp. 99-108.
Bruette, Wm. A., _The Industrial Workers: A clear and forcible
exposé of the crimes and policies of the I. W. W._,
Chicago, Bureau American, no date. Quotes from Brooks,
"American Syndicalism" which the author does not mention.
Pamphlet.
Callender, Harold, _The truth about the I. W. W._ (illus.),
Chicago [I. W. W.], n. d., 14 pp. Reprinted from _The
Masses_.
----, "The war and the I. W. W." In the _Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work ..._, Forty-fifth annual
session ..., Kansas City, Mo., May 15-22, 1918. (Chicago,
1919), pp. 420-425.
* Chaplin, Ralph, _When the Leaves Come Out_, Chicago, I. W.
W. Publicity Bureau, 1917? (Revolutionary songs and poems).
* Chumley, L. S., _Hotel, Restaurant and Domestic Workers_,
Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, n. d., 38 pp.
_Chunks of I. W. W.-ism_, Auckland, N. Z., I. W. W., n. d.,
pamphlet, 16 pp.
* [Cole, James Kelly], _Revolutionary Writings of James Kelly
Cole_, Chicago, I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, n. d., 85 pp.,
25 cents.
Comstock, A. P., "_History of the Industrial Workers of the
World in the United States_" (Thesis for M. A. degree)
(Typewritten MSS. in Columbia University library), 54 pp.,
bibliography, 3 pp., 1913.
* Debs, E. V., _Class Unionism_, Chicago, C. H. Kerr & Co.,
1909, 32 p.
----, _Industrial Unionism_, New York, New York Labor News Co.,
1911, pamphlet, 25 pp. Address at Grand Central Palace, New
York, December 10, 1905. (Advocates formation of one union
for all wage-workers.)
----, _Revolutionary Unionism_, Chicago, C. H. Kerr & Co.,
1909. Speech delivered at Chicago, November 23, 1905, 27 p.
Debs, E. V., and others. _Unionism, Industrial and Political_,
Chicago, C. H. Kerr & Co., 1909. Pamphlet.
Debs, E. V., and Russell, C. E., _Danger Ahead for the
Socialist Party in Playing the Game of Politics_, Chicago,
C. H. Kerr, n. d., 32 pp., pamphlet, 5 cents. Also in
_International Socialist Review_, Jan., 1911.
* DeLeon, Daniel (editor), _As to Politics: a Discussion upon
the relative importance of Political Action and of Class
Conscious Economic Action, and the Urgent Necessity of
Both_, New York, Labor News Press, 1907, 78 pp. ("The
contents of this pamphlet is a discussion that took place
in the columns of _The People_, under the head 'As to
Politics' during the months of November and December, 1906,
and January and February, 1907."--Introduction.)
* DeLeon, Daniel, _The Burning Question of Trade Unionism_,
New York: New York Labor News Co., 1904, pamphlet, 27 pp.,
5 cents.
A lecture delivered at Newark, N. J., April 21, 1904.
----, _Flash-Lights on the Amsterdam [socialist] Congress_
(1904), New York: New York Labor News Co., pamphlet, 25
cents.
----, _Industrial Unionism_, New York, N. Y. Labor News Co.,
1918, 32 pp. Contains also an address on the same subject
by Eugene V. Debs (delivered at Grand Central Palace, New
York, December 10, 1905), pp. 11-32.
----, _Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World_, New
York: New York Labor News Co., 1905, 48 pp., pamphlet.
(Also reprinted in _Miners' Magazine_, 1905, Oct. 19, 26,
Nov. 2, Nov. 9). Address delivered in Minneapolis, July 10,
1905, 5 cents. German and Norwegian translations.
----, _Reform or Revolution_, New York: New York Labor News
Co., 1906, pamphlet, 32 pp., 5 cents. Address delivered at
Wells Memorial Hall, Boston, January 26, 1896.
----, _Socialism vs. Anarchism_, New York: New York Labor News
Co., n. d. "Buzz Saw" series, vol. i, no. 1. Pamphlet.
----, _Socialist Unity_, New York: New York Labor News Co., n.
d., pamphlet, 5 cents.
----, _Unity_, New York: New York Labor News Co., 1908,
24 pp. Address in New York City February 21, 1908.
Stenographically reported by Sidney Greenburg. (Resolutions
on Unity Question, pp. 25-27.)
----, _What Means this Strike?_ New York: New York Labor News
Co., 1903, 31 pp., 5 cents. (Address delivered by Daniel
DeLeon in the City Hall of New Bedford, Mass., February 11,
1898.)
_Daniel DeLeon, the Man and his Work: a Symposium._ 336 pp.,
illus. New York: Socialist Labor party, National Labor
Committee: 1919.
* DeLeon, D., and Harriman, Job, _The Socialist Trade and
Labor Alliance versus the "Pure and Simple Trade Union,"_
New York: New York Labor News Co., 1900, The People
Library, no. 19, December, 1900, 44 pp., 5c.
* Doran, J. T, ("Red"), _Evidence and cross-examination of
"Red" Doran in the case of the U. S. A. vs. Wm. D. Haywood
et al._ [Chicago, General (I. W. W.) Defense Committee,
1918], 151 pp.
* Ebert, Justus, _The A. B. C. of the I. W. W. What it is.
What it has done. What it aims to do._ Chicago: I. W. W.
Press: (In press).
----, _American Industrial Evolution--from the frontier to the
factory. Its social and political effects._ New York: New
York Labor News Co., 1907, pamphlet, 88 pp., 15 cents.
----, _Trades Unionism in the United States, 1742-1905--Bulwark
of Capitalism or framework of Socialism? An historical
glimpse._ New York: New York Labor News Co., n. d.,
pamphlet, 26 pp., 5c.
----, _The Trial of a New Society_, Cleveland, Ohio: I. W. W.
Publicity Bureau, 1913, 75 cents, 160 pp. (The Lawrence
strike).
_Ethics and Aims of the I. W. W._ [Chicago, I. W. W. Press,
1919]. Pamphlet. Translated into Yiddish.
* Ettor, J. J., _Industrial Unionism: The Way to Freedom_,
Chicago, I. W. W. Press, 1912, pamphlet, 22 pp.
----, Testimony before United States Commission on Industrial
Relations, New York City, May 22, 1914, _The American
Federation of Labor, the Socialist Party and the Industrial
Workers of the World, Final Report and Testimony_, vol. ii,
pp. 1549-57. (Also includes testimony of St. John, Gompers
and Hillquit.)
* _Ettor and Giovannitti before the Jury at Salem,
Massachusetts, November 23, 1912_--containing their
speeches before the jury and Giovannitti's poem "The
Walker," pp. 73-80, Chicago: Industrial Workers of the
World, no date, pamphlet, 80 pp., 25 cents.
* Flynn, E. G., _Sabotage: The Conscious Withdrawal of the
Workers' Industrial Efficiency_, Cleveland: I. W. W.
Publicity Bureau, April, 1915, pamphlet, 32 pp., 10 cents.
Ford, E. C., and * Foster, Wm. Z., _Syndicalism_, Chicago, W.
Z. Foster, 1912, pamphlet, 47 pp., 10 cents.
* Foster, Wm. Z., and Titus, H. F., _Insurgency: The Economic
Power of the Middle Class_, Seattle, Trustee Printing Co.,
1908, 14 pp., 10 cents. Reprinted from _Workingman's Paper_
of Seattle, September 10, 1910.
G. B., "The Last War" (in Haywood, _The General Strike_,
pp. 19-44), Chicago: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, n. d.,
pamphlet, 48 pp.
* George, Harrison, _History of the I. W. W. trial_, Chicago,
Industrial Workers of the World [1919], 208 pp.
----, _Is Freedom Dead?_ (Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau,
n. d., 22 pp., 10c.) "Sequel to the suppressed pamphlet,
_Shall freedom die?_" (illus.).
* George, Harrison, _The Red Dawn: The Bolsheviki and the I.
W. W._, 25 pp., Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau [1918].
* Giovannitti, Arturo, _Arrows in the Gale_ (poems),
Riverside, Conn., Hillacre Bookhouse, 1914, 108 pp.
----, "The Walker" (poem), (in _Ettor and Giovannitti
before the Jury at Salem, Mass._, pp. 73-80). (Also in
_International Socialist Review_, vol. xiii, p. 201,
September, 1912.)
Glynn, T., _Industrial Efficiency and its Antidote_, in Hanson,
N. H., _Onward Sweep of the Machine Process_, pp. 9-21.
Groat, Geo. G., "Revolutionary industrial unionism," chs.
xxvii and xxviii (pp. 426-452) in his _Organized Labor in
America_ (New York, 1916).
* Hagerty, Thomas J. ("Father" Hagerty), _Economic Discontent
and its Remedy_, Terre Haute. Ind.: Standard Publishing
Co., 1902, pamphlet, 47 pp., 10 cents.
* Hagerty, Thomas Joseph, A. M., S. T. B., _Why Physicians
Should be Socialists_, Terre Haute, Ind.: Standard
Publishing Co., 1902, pamphlet, 24 pp., 5 cents.
Hanson, Nils H., _The Onward Sweep of the Machine Process_,
Chicago: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau [1917?], 32 pp.
Harré, T. Everett, _The I. W. W. an Auxiliary of the German
Espionage System_. _History of I. W. W. anti-war
activities, showing how the I. W. W. program of sabotage
inspired the Kaiser's agents in America_, with introduction
by R. M. Easley, 64 pp. [1918], 25 cents.
* Haywood, William D., _Evidence and Cross-examination in the
case of the U. S. A. vs. Wm. D. Haywood et al._ [Chicago,
General (I. W. W.) Defense Committee, 1918], 312 pp.
* Haywood, Wm. D., _The Case of Ettor and Giovannitti_,
Lawrence, Mass., Ettor and Giovannitti Defence Committee,
1912. Pamphlet.
----, _The General Strike_, Chicago: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau,
n. d., pamphlet, 48 pp. (Address delivered in New York,
Mar. 16, 1911.) (New edition, containing also "The Last
War" by "G. B.," pp. 19-44.) Printed also in Polish.
----, _Letters relating to Free Speech Fights_. (Copies of
letters received from I. W. W.s on the firing line) and
extract from Grant S. Youman's book, _Legalized Bank
Robbery_, "The Labor Troubles," 10 pp., typewritten MS. (23
1.), United States Commission on Industrial Relations. U.
S. Department of Labor Library.
----, Testimony before United States Commission on Industrial
Relations, Washington, D. C., _Industrial Relations, Report
of Hearings_, vol. xi, pp. 10569-10599, "Labor and the
Law," Washington, D. C., May 11, 13, 1915.
Reprinted in pamphlet form by I. W. W. Publishing Bur.
(Chicago, n. d., 70 pp.)
* Haywood, Wm. D., and Bohn, Frank, _Industrial Socialism_,
Chicago: C. H. Kerr and Co., 1911, pamphlet, 64 pp., 10
cents.
Hervé, Gustave, _Patriotism and the Worker_, New Castle, Pa.:
I. W. W. Publicity Bureau [1912], 31 pp.
Hillquit, Morris [The I. W. W.], pp. 332-339 in his _History of
Socialism in the U. S._, 5th ed., New York, 1910.
Hoxie, Robt. F., "The Industrial Workers of the World and
revolutionary unionism," ch. vi (pp. 139-176) in his _Trade
Unionism in the United States_ (Bibliography on I. W. W.
and Syndicalism, pp. 175-6). Appleton, 1917.
[The I. W. W. and the Chicago conspiracy trial] in _The Labor
Scrap Book_, pp. 16-19 (Chicago, Kerr, 1918), (10c.,
pamphlet).
_I. W. W, One big Union of all the Workers._ _The greatest
thing on earth_, Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, n.
d., 32 pp.
[Industrial Workers of the World], in the _New International
Year_ Book, 1917, pp. 356-357.
Karsner, David, _The I. W. W. trial_ [Chicago, 1918]. New York:
Irving Kaye Davis: 1919.
_The "Knights of Liberty" Mob and the I. W. W. Prisoners at
Tulsa, Okla. (Nov. 9, 1917)_, New York: National Civil
Liberties Bureau, February, 1918, 16 pp. Reprinted in _The
Class Struggle_, vol. ii, pp. 371-375 (May-June, 1918).
* Koetgen, Ewald, _One Big Union in the Textile Industry_,
Cleveland, Ohio: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, 1914.
* Kurinsky, Philip, _The I. W. W., its Principles and
Methods_, Brooklyn, Yiddish I. W. W. Publicity Association
[1916], 63 pp., pamphlet, 10c. Text in Yiddish.
Legien, Carl, "Die Knights of Labor und die Industrial Workers
of the World" (in his _Aus Amerikas Arbeiterbewegung_,
Berlin, Verlag der Generalkommission der Gewerkschaften
Deutschlands, 1914, pp. 162-184).
Includes a reproduction of "Father" T. J. Hagerty's "Wheel
of Fortune" (p. 176) and a German translation of the January
Manifesto (of 1905).
Lewis, Austin, _Proletarian and Petit-Bourgeois_, Chicago, I.
W. W. Publishing Bureau [1914?], 47 pp.
Contains also: _What comes of playing the game_, by Chas. Edw.
Russell, and _Those who earn and those who work_, by Scott
Nearing.
* McDonald, Edward, _The Farm Laborer and the City Worker--A
Message to Both_, Newcastle, Pa.: Solidarity Literature
Bureau, n. d., pamphlet, 13 pp.
Macy, John, _Socialism in America_, "The American Books"
series, New York: Doubleday Page, 1916, ch. ix, "Industrial
Workers of the World," pp. 157-84 (Sympathetic and pro-I.
W. W.).
Marot, Helen, _American Labor Unions_, New York: Holt, 1914,
ch. iv, "Industrial Workers of the World," pp. 48-64.
"Les Mécontents de la Fédération [the I. W. W.s]"--in _Report
of the Socialist Party of America to the Stuttgart
International Socialist Congress_. _1907, L'Internationale
Ouvrière el Socialiste_, Stuttgart, 1907, édition
française, vol. i, pp. 23-32.
National Civil Liberties Bureau, _War-time Prosecutions and Mob
Violence, involving the rights of free speech, free press
and peaceful assemblage_. From April 1, 1917 to March 1,
1919. New York, 1919, 55 pp.
"Compiled from the correspondence and press clippings of the
National Civil liberties Bureau...." Cases "involving primarily
the I. W. W.," pp. 11-12; Prosecutions specifically involving
I. W. W. activity, pp. 34-37; I. W. W. cases of "search and
seizure," pp. 38-39; other I. W. W. cases, _passim_.
* Nilsson, B. E., _Political Socialism: Capturing the
Government_, Portland, Ore., n. d., pamphlet, 32 pp.
An "attempt to show that the working class have little or
nothing to gain through political action, and that the energy
expended in such action is worse than wasted."
_Ol' rags and bottles_, New York, National Civil Liberties
Bureau, 1919, 7 pp. Reprinted from the New York _Nation_,
Jan. 25, 1919.
An account of the I. W. W. trial at Sacramento, California, by
a special correspondent.
* Perry, Grover H., _The Revolutionary I. W. W._, Cleveland,
Ohio: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau: 1915, 24 pp., 5 cents.
Contains also _How scabs are bred_, by the same author, and
_The constructive program of the I. W. W._, by B. H. Williams.
_Plotting to convict Wheatland Hop Pickers_, Oakland, Cal.,
International Press, 1914, 28 pp.
_The Revolutionary I. W. W._, London: n.d., pamphlet.
Robertson, James, _Labor unionism based upon the American shop
steward system_ [Portland, Ore.], c1919, 16 pp.
Russell, Bertrand, _Democracy and direct action_, London,
Independent Labour Party, 1919. Reprinted from the _English
Review_, May, 1919.
----, _Roads to freedom: socialism, anarchism and syndicalism_.
London, Allen and Unwin, 1919, 210 pp.
* St. John, Vincent, _The I. W. W.: Its History, Structure
and Methods_, Chicago: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau (1917),
"Revised 1917" to Jan. 1, 1917, 32 pp., pamphlet, contains
also the "Industrial Union Manifesto" (of 1905), pp.
25-9, and "The trend toward industrial freedom," by B. H.
Williams (pp. 30-32). Reprinted from _American Journal of
Sociology_ symposium on "What is Americanism?" Finnish and
Russian translations.
----, _Industrial Unionism and the I. W. W._, Chicago: I. W. W.
Publicity Bureau, 1913, 16 pp., pamphlet.
----, _Testimony before United States Commission on Industrial
Relations_ (New York, May 21, 1914), "Final Report and
Testimony," vol. ii, pp. 1445-1462, 1571-2.
Schroeder, Theodore A., "The history of the San Diego free
speech fight," ch. x (pp. 116-190) in his _Free speech
for radicals_ (1916 enlarged ed.). New York: Free Speech
League, 1916. (This chapter originally appeared in the New
York _Call_, Sunday issues beginning Mar. 15, 1914.)
_Shall freedom die?_ Chicago, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau
[1917], 20 pp., 10c., "166 union men in jail for labor ...
by one of them."
* Smith, Walker C., _The Everett Massacre, A history of the
class struggle in the lumber industry_, 358 pp. (illus.),
Chicago: I. W. W. Publishing Bureau, 1918.
----, _Sabotage, its History, Philosophy and Function_,
Spokane, Wash.?; 1913, pamphlet, 32 pp.
----, _War and the Workers_, Cleveland: I. W. W. Publicity
Bureau, n. d., leaflet. Also under title, "War! United
States, Mexico, Japan." (Also in _Solidarity_, May 20,
1911.)
----, _What is the I. W. W.?_ pp. 42-46 of pamphlet: _On the
firing line_.
* Speed, Geo., Testimony before United States Commission on
Industrial Relations, San Francisco, August 27, 1914, in
_Industrial Relations, Hearings_, vol. 5: 4936-49.
Spielman, Jean E., _The Tramp as a Home Guard_, New Castle,
Pa.: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, I. W. W. leaflet, n. d.
* Steiger, J. H., _The Memoirs of a Silk Striker; an Exposure
of the Principles and Tactics of the I. W. W._ (Paterson,
N. J.?), privately printed, 1914.
* Thompson, Jas. P., Testimony before United States
Commission on Industrial Relations, Seattle, Wash., August
10-12, 1914--in _Industrial Relations_, vol. v, pp. 4233-42.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., _Direct Action and Sabotage_,
Pittsburgh; Socialist News Company, 1912, 43 pp.,
illustrated, 10 cents.
----, _Industrial union methods_, Chicago, C. H. Kerr [1912],
29 pp.
----, _Industrial Unionism_, Chicago: C. H. Kerr & Co., 1909,
pamphlet, 29 pp., 5 cents. Same as "Industrial Union
Methods."
----, _Industrial Unionism: The Hope of the Workers_,
Pittsburgh: Socialist News Co., 1912, pamphlet.
----, _Vom Niederlagen zum Sieg_, Chicago: I. W. W., 1911,
pamphlet, 5 cents.
----, _Why Strikes are Lost: How to Win_, 23 pp., Newcastle,
Pa.: Solidarity Literature Bureau, n. d.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., and Rovin, A. M., _War against war_, Los
Angeles, Cal. [1915], price 15 cents, 46 pp.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., and Schlecweis, A., _Industrial
Combinations_, New York: Industrial Literature Bureau,
1909, pamphlet, 32 pp. Chart insert "showing arrangement
of industrial enterprises." Text is largely a running
analysis of the chart. ("Printed by members of the I. W.
W.")
* Tridon, André, _The New Unionism_, New York: B. W. Huebsch,
1917, 198 pp.
_The truth about the I. W. W._, New York: National Civil
Liberties Bureau, Apr., 1918, 55 pp., 5 cents.
"Facts in relation to the trial at Chicago by competent
industrial investigators and noted economists." Symposium of
opinions expressed by various writers.
Turner, Jno. Kenneth, _Story of a New Labor Union_--(reprinted
from _Oregon Sunday Journal_), written during the strike of
the Portland Mill Workers, _Industrial Union Leaflet No.
16_--also in _Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 13, 1907.
_Two Enemies of Labor._ The complaints of the Anarchists
[Chicago I. W. W.], Socialist Labor Party leaflet, n. d.
United Cloth Hat and Cap Makers of North America, General
Executive Board, _The Deceit of the I. W. W.: A year's
record of the activity of the Industrial Workers of the
World in the cloth, hat and cap trade_, New York, 1906, 31
pp.
_The United Stales of America vs. William D. Haywood et al.
(No. 6125). In the District Court of the United States,
northern district of Illinois, eastern division._
_Indictment on sections 6, 19 and 37 of the criminal code
of the United States, and section 4 of the "Espionage Act"
of June 15, 1917_ (32-page pamphlet). Chicago: I. W. W.
Publishing Bureau [1918].
United States Commission on Industrial Relations, _The American
Federation of Labor, the Socialist Party and the Industrial
Workers of the World_. Testimony of representatives
(Gompers, Hillquit, St. John and Ettor) before United
States Commission on Industrial Relations (New York: May
21-23, 1914), "Final Report and Testimony," vol. ii, pp.
1443-1579.
----, _Industrial Conditions and Relations in Paterson, N.
J.--Industrial Relations_ 3:2413-2645 (I. W. W. strikes in
the silk mills and the relations between the two factions
of the I. W. W.).
----, _Report on I. W. W. Activities; especially its Strikes
and Free Speech Fights--Lawrence, Paterson; Free speech at
Denver, Spokane, Fresno, San Diego, Aberdeen, and Minot,
S. D._ (by Daniel O'Regan?), 106 pp., typ. MS. U. S.
Department of Labor Library.
United States Congress, House of Representatives, _Papers
relative to Labor Troubles at Goldfield, Nev._ _Message
from the President of the United States transmitting Report
of Special Commission on Labor Troubles at Goldfield, Nev.,
and papers relating thereto_--House Doc. No. 607, 60th
Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1908, 30 pp.)
United States Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Hearings before a subcommittee on Bolshevik Propaganda.
(65th Cong., 3rd Sess. and thereafter; February 11 to March
10, 1919) 1265 pp. Washington: Govt. Printing Office, 1919.
Extracts from I. W. W. papers, pamphlets, etc., pp. 1034-1135.
Untermann, Ernest, _No compromise with the I. W. W._, typed
MSS., 4 pp., published in 1913 in New York _Call_ and the
_National Socialist_.
Vanderveer, Geo. F., _Opening Statement [to the jury] in the
case of the U. S. A. vs. Wm. D. Haywood, et al._, Chicago:
I. W. W. Publishing Bureau [1918], pamphlet, 25 cents, 102
pp.
Varney, Harold L., _Industrial communism--the I. W. W._, Butte,
Mont., _The Bulletin Print_ [1919], 16 pp.
----, _Revolt_, New York: Irving Kaye Davis, 1919, 416 pp.,
illus.
An I. W. W. novel by an I. W. W.
Veblen, Thorstein, _On the nature and uses of sabotage_. New
York, Dial Publishing Co. [1919], 21 pp., _Dial Reprints,
No. 2_.
Warbasse, James Peter, _The ethics of sabotage_, New York,
1913, 12 pp. Reprinted from the _New York Call_, June 29,
1913.
Weinstock, Harris, _Report to the Governor of California on the
disturbance in the city and county of San Diego in 1912_,
Sacramento, State Printing Office, 1912, 22 pp.
* Williams, B. H., _Eleven Blind Leaders_, New Castle, Pa.:
Solidarity Literature Bureau, n. d., 32 pp., 10 cents.
Contains also "Syndicalism and Socialism" by B. H.
W(illiams), (editorial reprinted from _Solidarity_, April
27, 1912, pp. 30-31).
Woehlke, W. V., _The I. W. W._ [Cleveland, O., Nat'l. Metal
Trades Assn., 1912], 16 p. A sketch of the I. W. W.
Reprinted from the _Outlook_, July 6, 1912.
----, "The problem of the I. W. W.," ch. xiii (pp. 125-133) in
his _Union labor in peace and war_ (San Francisco, Sunset
Publishing House, 1918).
* Woodruff, Abner E., _The Advancing Proletariat: A Study of
the Movement of the Working Class from Wage Slavery to
Freedom_, Cleveland: I. W. W. Publicity Bureau, Aug., 1914,
pamphlet, 32 pp., 10 cents.
* Woodruff, Abner E., _The Evolution of Industrial
Democracy_, Chicago: I. W. W. Publishing Bureau [1917],
40 pp. (Originally published in _Solidarity_, issues of
November and December, 1916).
(b) MAGAZINE ARTICLES
1903 * Trautmann, Wm. E., "The United Brewery Workers and
Industrial Organization," _American Labor Union
Journal_, Sept. 3, 1903.
1904 * Debs, E. V., "Unionism and Socialism." _Wayland's
Monthly_, Girard, Kans., August, 1904, no. 52, pp.
2-44, pamphlet.
1905 * Debs, E. V., "The industrial convention,"
_International Socialist Rev._, vol. v, pp. 85-6,
August, 1905.
* DeLeon, Daniel, "The preamble of the Industrial Workers
of the World." _Miners' Magazine_, vol. vii, nos.
121-124, Oct. 19. 26; Nov. 2, 9, 1905.
Address delivered in Minneapolis, July 10, 1905. Published
also in pamphlet form.
* Hagerty, "Father" Thomas J., "Reasons for Industrial
Unionism," _Voice of Labor_, March, 1905.
Hamilton, Grant, "A story of 'funny' unionism," _American
Federationist_, vol. xii, p. 137 (March, 1905). The
American Labor Union from the A. F. of L. standpoint.
* Haywood, Wm. D., "Industrial Unionism," _Voice of
Labor_, June, 1905.
* Simons, A. M., "Industrial Workers of the World,"
_International Socialist Review_, vol. vi, pp. 65-77,
August, 1905.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., "The Smashing Process Against
Industrial Unionism and Socialism." Letter (dated at
Cincinnati, June 17, 1905) in _Weekly People_, June 17,
1905, pp. 1, 2, 3. Open letter to the Brewery Workers
and the working class.
1906 Conlon, P. J., "Went up like a rocket; came down like a
stick," _Machinists' Monthly Journal_, vol. xviii, pp.
1108-1111 (December, 1906).
A trade-union obituary of the I. W. W. after its second
convention.
"The [1906] Convention of the Industrial Workers at
Chicago." Editorial, _Miners' Magazine_, Oct. 4, 1906,
vol. viii, no. 171, pp. 6-7.
* Debs, E. V., "Industrial Unionism," _Miners' Magazine_,
Jan. 25, 1906, pp. 8-12, vol. vii, no. 135. Reprinted
from the _Daily People_. Also in _International
Socialist Review_, August, 1910, vol. xi, p. 90.
O'Neill, Jno. M., "Our comment on the various reports of
the [second] I. W. W. convention," _Miners' Magazine_,
Nov. 8, 1906, pp. 6-9.
* St. John, V., "Vincent St. John on the [1906] I. W. W.
Convention." (Letter to Editor), _Miners' Magazine_,
Nov. 8, 1906, pp. 4-6, vol. viii, no. 176.
1906 * Simons, A. M., "Die Lage in den Vereinigten Staaten,"
_Neue Zeit._ 24 Jahrg. Bd. 1, Feb. 3, 1906, pp. 622-27.
1907 Currie, B. W., "How the West Dealt with the Industrial
Workmen [sic] of the West," _Harpers Weekly_ 51:908-10,
June 22, 1907.
* Foote, E. J., "The Positive [Value] of Industrialism,"
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, May 4, 1907.
* Heslewood, F. W., "Relations of Trade-Unions and the
Political Party," _Industrial Union Bulletin_,
September 14, 1907.
Spielman, Jean E., "Are the I. W. W. still Revolutionary?"
_Mother Earth_, Dec., 1907, vol. ii, pp. 457-460.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., "A brief history of the industrial
union manifesto," _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Dec. 14,
21, 1907, Aug. 22, 1908.
----, "The Question of Might," _Industrial Union Bulletin_,
Dec. 7, 1907.
Turner, Jno. Kenneth, "Story of a new labor union,"
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, April 13, 1907. Reprinted
as Industrial Union Leaflet, no. 16.
1908 Bohn, Frank, "Mission and Functions of Industrial
Unionism," _Industrial Union Bulletin_, May 2, 1908.
* DeLeon, Daniel, "The Intellectual Against the Worker"
(being extracts from DeLeon's protest against his own
disbarment from a seat in the Fourth Convention),
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 10, 1908, pp. 1-2.
* St. John, V., "The Worker Against the Intellectual"
(extracts from St. John's reply to DeLeon and his
argument for refusing DeLeon a seat), (Fourth
Convention), _Industrial Union Bulletin_, Oct. 10,
1908, pp. 1-2.
1909 * Foote, E. J., "The Ethics of Industrial Unionism,"
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, Feb. 20, 1909.
* Flynn, E. G., "The Free Speech Fight at Spokane,"
_International Socialist Review_ 10: 483, December,
1909.
* Trautmann, Wm. E., "German Syndicalism," _Industrial
Union Bulletin_, March 6, 1909.
* Williams, B. H., "The Physical Force Fallacy,"
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, February 20, 1909.
1910 * Flynn, E. G., "Latest News from Spokane,"
_International Socialist Review_, March, 1910, vol. x,
pp. 828-34.
----, "The Shame of Spokane," _International Socialist
Review_, January, 1910, vol. x, p. 610-619.
* Heslewood, F. W., "Barbarous Spokane," _International
Socialist Review_, February, 1910, 10: 705-713.
Parks, Wade R., "Spokane Analyzed by the Light of Lester F.
Ward's 'Dynamic Sociology'", _Weekly People_, January
15, 1910, pp. 1-2. The author was Secretary of the
Spokane local of the I. W. W. before 1908. He charges
"wholesale graft, boodle," etc., in the I. W. W. in the
Northwest.
1910 * St. John, Vincent. "The Brotherhood of Capital and
Labor: its Effect on Labor," _International Socialist
Review_, Jan., 1910, vol. x, pp. 587-593.
1911 Bohn, Frank, "Is the I. W. W. to Grow?" _International
Socialist Review_ 12: 42-44, July, 1911.
* Ebert, Justus, "Modern Industrialism," series of
articles running in _Solidarity_, August 12, 1911--Nov.
4, 1911.
* Foster, W. Z., "Syndicalism in Germany," _Industrial
Worker_, September 14, 1911.
----, "Un grand effort des industrialistes. La lutte pour
la liberté de parole à Spokane" (États-Unis). _Vie
Ouvrière_, January, 1911, pp. 91-100.
* St. John, Vincent, "Fake industrial union _versus_ real
industrial union," Industrial Worker, Apr. 6, 1911.
* Williams, B. H., "Sixth I. W. W. Convention,"
_International Socialist Review_ 12: 300-2, Nov., 1911.
1912 Bohn, W. E., "Development of the Industrial Workers of
the World," _Survey_ 28: 220-5, May 4, 1912.
Brooks, Jno. G., "The Shadow of Anarchy," "The Industrial
Workers of the World," _Survey_, April 6, 1912, vol.
xxviii, no. 1, pp. 80-2. Reprinted from _(Boston)
Evening Transcript_, February 10, 1912.
Cannon, J. P., "The Seventh [1912] I. W. W. Convention,"
_International Socialist Review_ 13: 424, Nov., 1912.
Duff, Hezekiah N., "The I. W. W.'s; What They are and What
They are Trying to do," (illustrated), _Square Deal_
10: 297-310, May, 1912. (Intemperately conservative).
* Foster, W. Z., "Revolutionary Tactics," _The Agitator_,
April 15, 1912, May 1, 1912, May 15, June 1, 15,
and July 1, 1912. (Comprehensive discussion by a
syndicalist writer.)
----, "Syndicalism in France," _The Agitator_, July 15,
1912 and Aug. 1, 1912.
Ghent, W. J., "The Devotees of Syndicalism," _Miners'
Magazine_, Aug. 29, 1912, p. 13. From the _Social
Democratic Herald_.
* Haywood, W. D., "The Fighting I. W. W.," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xviii, pp. 246-7--September,
1912.
* Haywood, Wm. D., "Timber Workers and Timber Wolves,"
_International Socialist Review_ 13: 105-10--August,
1912. (The strike of the Louisiana timber workers).
"The Industrial Workers of the World" (series of three
articles), _The Evening Post_ (N. Y.), Nov, 2, 1912,
Saturday supplement, pp. 1, 2; Nov. 9, Saturday
supplement, pp. 1, 3; Nov. 16, Saturday supplement, p.
2. (Excellent general description and analysis).
1912 "The I. W. W.," _Miners' Magazine_, Aug. 1, 1912.
Reprinted from the _Western Clarion_.
"I. W. W. and Labor," _The Protectionist_, September, 1912,
308-10--From _Boston Traveller_.
"Inside Views on the I. W. W.'s," _Toledo Union Leader_,
June 14, 1912.
"Lawrence and the Industrial Workers of the World,"
_Survey_, vol. xxviii, no. 1, April 6, 1912, pp. 79-80.
(Statement in brief of the Lawrence Textile Workers'
Strike Committee on March 24, the date on which it went
out of existence. Its place was taken by a permanent
body, Local 20, National Industrial Textile Workers'
Union, of the I. W. W. The statement as it appears here
is somewhat condensed....)
Lenz, Hugo, "The 'menace' of the I. W. W.," _Labor
Clarion_ (San Francisco), February 16, 1912, also in
_Solidarity_, February 24, 1912.
"Menace of the I. W. W.," _Houston Labor Journal_, November
2, 1912, p. 1.
Randolph, H. S., "The I. W. W.," _The Common Cause_, vol.
i, no. 5, May, 1912, pp. 1-9.
"The Real Menace to Unionism," _Labor Digest_ (monthly),
Minneapolis, Minn., April, 1912.
* Richter, H., "The I. W. W.: Retrospect and prospects,"
_Industrial Union News_, Jan., 1912.
Rosebury, A., "Industrialism the bugbear of society. The I.
W. W. and its poverty of philosophy," _Leather Workers
Journal_, October, 1912, pp. 42-3.
"Rumored Split in the Ranks of the Workers of the World.
Rival Branches of the Organization in Chicago and
Detroit Apparently at Each Other's Throats," _Square
Deal_ 11:65-8, August, 1912.
* Russell, Phillips, "The Strike at Little Falls,"
_International Socialist Review_ 13:455-60, December,
1912.
Steffens, Lincoln, "The Labor Contract of the I. W. W.,"
_Solidarity_, April 6, 1912.
Stevens, F. B., "The I. W. W.--A World Menace to
Civilization," _Brooklyn Eagle_, Sunday, April 28,
1912, magazine section, pp. 1, 2, illustrated.
"Syndicalism, sabotage, socialism and the Industrial
Workers of the World," _Labor World_ (New York),
December 28, 1912, p. 2.
1912 Thompson, Chas. W., "The New Socialism that threatens
the social system" (illustrated), _New York Times_,
Sunday, March 17, 1912, pt. v., pp. 1, 2. (Exaggerates
the strength of the I. W. W.).
* Thompson, J. P., "The Meaning of the Lawrence Strike,"
_Solidarity_, March 9, 1912.
* Tridon, André, "Syndicalism, 'sabotage' and how they
were originated," _Square Deal_ 10:407-14, June, 1912.
"History of the foreign industrial movement, which is
developing startlingly in America."
"What the I. W. W. is--history of the organization,"
_Boiler Makers' Journal_, August, 1912, 675-6; _Toledo
Union Leader_, April 19, 1912, p. 1; _Union Leader_,
June 29, 1912, p. 7.
"Why the I. W. W. is Dangerous," _Labor Clarion_ (San
Francisco), April 5, 1912.
Woehlke, W. V., "I. W. W.," _Outlook_, 101:531-6, July 6,
1912. Reprinted in pamphlet form by the National Metal
Trades Association.
1913 Babson, R. W., "What of the I. W. W.'s?"--Special
letter September 16, 1913--reprinted in _The Masses_,
December, 1913, vol. v, no. 3, p. 20.
"Barren Record of the I. W. W. Movement," _New York Times
"Annalist,"_ September 22, 1913, p. 378.
Berkman, Alexander, "The [Eighth: 1913] I. W. W.
Convention," _Mother Earth_, October, 1913.
Bethune, W. T., "The I. W. W.: Its Significance," _The
Mediator_ 6:16-20, July, 1913. ("Significance of the I.
W. W. movement is that it marks the breaking down of
the popular belief that man must look for some superior
intelligence, some power outside of himself, to decide
for him ... his attitude towards his fellowman.")
Boyle, James, "Fiendish aims and policies of the Industrial
Workers of the World" (Syndicalism and sabotage),
_Union Reporter_ (Canton, Ohio), September, 1913, p. 4.
Reprinted from _Labor World_.
Brooks, J. G., "The real trouble with the Industrial
Workers of the World," _Survey_, October 25, 1913. Its
defects lie in its "atomistic view of industry and
politics." Reprinted in _The Wooden Shoe_, Nov. 8, 1913.
Bryan, J. W., "Seattle Riots," _Congressional Record_, vol
1, 60th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2900, 2902, 2903, 4400,
4410, 4411, 4413, 5980-3; July 29, Sept. 6, 1913, Nov.
22, 1913.
----, "The Seattle Riots," speech in House of
Representatives, July 28, 1913, _Congressional Record_,
July 29, 1913, pp. 32523257--63rd Cong., 1st Sess.,
vol. 1, no. 73--(including reprints of newspaper
articles).
1913 "The Constructive Program of the I. W. W." (editorial),
_Solidarity_, August 2, 1913.
Cooper, C. I., "Stogy makers and the I. W. W. in
Pittsburgh," _Survey_, 31:214, November 29, 1913.
"Destruction the Avowed Purpose of the 1. W. W."
(editorial), _American Federationist_, July, 1913.
* Doran, J. T., "Industrial unionism clearly explained to
electrical workers and incidentally to the rest of the
working class," _Solidarity_, Sept. 6, 1913.
Dosch, Arno, "What the I. W. W. is," _World's Work_
26:406-20, August, 1913.
* Downing, Mortimer, "The Case of the Hop Pickers,"
_International Socialist Review_ 14:210-13, October,
1913.
"Fallacies of the I. W. W.," _Coast Seaman's Journal_ (San
Francisco), September 17, 1913, p. 2. Reprinted from
_Eureka Labor News_.
Fitch, J. A., "The I. W. W. an outlaw organization,"
_Survey_ 30:355-62, June 7, 1913.
* Foster, W. Z., "Syndicalism in the United States," _The
Syndicalist_, January, 1913.
Fraina, Louis, "Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism,"
_International Socialist Review_, July, 1913.
* Giovannitti, Arturo, "The Bum" (poem), _The Masses_,
January, 1913.
----, "Syndicalism--The Creed of Force," _Independent_
76:209-11, October 30, 1913.
Gompers, Samuel, "Destruction the avowed purpose of the
I. W. W.," _American Federationist_ 120, pp. 533-7,
Washington, July, 1913.
----, "The Industrial Workers of the World," _The Mediator_
5:5-9, September, 1912--reprinted from _American
Federationist_, July, 1913.
Hall, Henry N., "Two Wings of Labor's Big Army Warring on
Each Other," _The World_ (New York), July 27, 1913, p.
1, editorial section. Illustrated. Full page feature
article. (A. F. of L. _vs._ I. W. W.).
* Haywood, W. D., "On the Paterson Picket Line,"
_International Socialist Review_, June, 1913, vol.
xiii, pp. 847-51.
Hoxie, R. F., "The Truth About the I. W. W.," _Journal of
Political Economy_, Nov., 1913, vol. xxi, pp. 785-97.
Reprinted in _International Molders' Journal_ 50:6-13,
January, 1914.
"Industrial War," _Locomotive Engineers' Monthly Journal_,
August, 1913:702-3 (A criticism of the I. W. W.).
1913 "The Industrial Workers of the World," _Motorman and
Conductor_ (Detroit), August, 1913, pp. 4-5. (A
criticism).
"The Industrial Workers of the World make confession,"
_Square Deal_ 13: 236-8, October, 1913. (Reprint of
editorial signed "L. C. R." "Sensationalism versus
organizing ability," _Solidarity_, August 23, 1913).
"The Industrial Workers of the World and the New York
Waiters," (editorial), _Square Deal_, February, 1913.
"The I. W. W.--An Inside View of its Methods," _Industrial
World_, Pittsburgh, December 22, 1913, pp. 1526-7. Copy
of an editorial in _Solidarity_.
"The I. W. W. 'machine' and the _Industrial Worker_"
(Letters and statements in regard to the
Heslewood-Smith controversy and the management of the
_Industrial Worker_) _The Social War_, August 16, 1913.
"I. W. W. Strikes" (editorial), _American Federationist_,
August, 1913.
* Koeltgen, Ewald, "I. W. W. Convention" (September
13-27, 1913), _International Socialist Review_
(Chicago), November 1913, 275-6.
Levine, Louis, "Development of Syndicalism in the United
States," _Political Science Quarterly_, vol. xxviii,
pp. 451-479 (September, 1913). (An exceedingly good
historical analysis).
Lippmann, W., "The I. W. W.--Insurrection or Revolution?"
_New Review_, August, 1913.
Owen, Wm. C., "Economic revolution and the I. W. W." _The
Social War_, September, 1913.
* Pease, Frank C., "The I. W. W. and Revolution," _Forum_
50: 153-68, August, 1913. (Eulogy by a member.)
Portenar, A. J., "The Perversion of the Ideal. A reply
to the doctrine of syndicalism as advocated by the
I. W. W.," _International Molders' Journal_, August,
1913, 635-8. Address before the Sagamore Sociological
Conference, Sagamore Beach, Mass., July 2, 1913. (For
a reply to Portenar's article, see _ibid._, September,
1913, pp. 764-6).
Reitman, Ben. L., "Impressions of the Chicago Convention"
(Eighth I. W. W. Convention, 1913), _Mother Earth_,
October, 1913.
"Reverses for the I. W. W." _Protectionist_ (Boston),
October, 1913, pp. 437-9. Reprinted from the _Boston
Transcript_.
* St. John, Vincent, "The economic argument for
industrial Unionism," _International Socialist Review_,
September, 1908, vol. 9: 172. Also in _Solidarity_,
January 18, 1913.
"Some Comments on the I. W. W.," _Typographical Journal_,
February, 1913, pp. 149-50.
1913 * Trautmann, Wm. E., "Free graft fights," New York
_Call_, May 2, 1913.
* Tridon, André, "Haywood," _New Review_ 1: 502-6, May,
1913.
----, "The New Unionism in Germany," _Industrial Worker_,
February 13, 1913.
----, "Syndicalism: What It means," _The International_,
January, 1913. Abridged reprint in _Industrial Worker_,
January 23, 1913.
----, "The workers' only hope--Direct action,"
_Independent_ 74:79-83, January 9, 1913.
Tucker, Irwin St. J., "The Church and the I. W. W.,"
_Churchman_ (New York), August 30, 1913, pp. 278, 290.
(Describes the I. W. W. organization and explains how
the church can reach its members).
"The War Is On" [with the I. W. W.], _Miners' Magazine_,
September 4, 1913, p. 7.
Weston, E., "Some Principles of the I. W. W.," _American
Employer_, July, 1913.
Williams, B. H., "The constructive program of the I. W. W."
Editorial, _Solidarity_, June 7, 1913. Reprinted on pp.
12-20 of _The Revolutionary I. W. W._ by G. H. Perry.
1914 * Ashleigh, Chas., "The floater," _International
Socialist Review_, 15: 34-38, July, 1914.
* Debs, E. V., "A Plea for Solidarity," _International
Socialist Review_, March, 1914, 14: 535-8.
Dueberg, Helmuth, "I. W. W.'s attempt to organize
discontent," _Los Angeles Times_, August 16, 1914, pt.
vi, p. 4.
Eastman, Max, "I. W. W.: The great American scapegoat,"
_New Review_ 2: 465-70, August, 1914.
* Ettor, Jos. J., "I. W. W. versus A. F. of L.," _New
Review_, May, 1914, 2: 275-85.
* Ettor, Jos, J. and Haywood, W. D., "What the I. W. W.
intends to do to the U. S. A.," _The World_ (New York),
June 14, 1914, sec. E, p. 1. Reprinted in _Solidarity_,
June 27, 1914.
Foster, W. Z., "The miners' revolt in Butte," _Mother
Earth_, September, 1914, pp. 216-220.
Fraina, L. C., "Daniel DeLeon," _New Review_ 2: 390-99,
July, 1914.
* Haywood, Wm. D., "An Appeal for Industrial Solidarity,"
_International Socialist Review_ 14: 544-6, March, 1914.
----, "Jaures and the General Strike," _International
Socialist Review_, September, 1914.
----, "The Revolt at Butte," _International Socialist
Review_, August, 1914.
"Industrial Workers of the World: their French
progenitors," _Steam Shovel Magazine_, September, 1914,
pp. 9-10.
1914 "I. W. W.," _Social Tidskrift_, May, 1914, pp. 214-17.
"I. W. W. tactics" (editorial), _International Molders'
Journal_ 50: 652-3, August, 1914.
Lewis, Howard T., "The I. W. W.," (an historical sketch),
_The Mediator_ 6: 21-30, February, 1914.
McGregor, J., "Wreckers of peace--Industrial Workers of the
World are railroad strike advocates all over the World.
An illustration of the fact from New Zealand," _Labor
World_ (Pittsburgh) 22, no. 14, pp. 4, 13, February 12,
1914.
* Quinlan, Patrick L., "The Paterson Strike and After,"
_New Review_ 2: 26-33, January, 1914.
* St. John, Vincent, "The working class and war,"
_International Socialist Review_, August, 1914, 15:
117-18.
Somerville, H., "Successors to socialism," _Catholic World_
99: 173-80, May, 1914 (I. W. W.).
United States Congress, House of Representatives, "Riots
in Seattle, Wash., in (July), 1913 between Industrial
Workers of the World and United States soldiers and
sailors." Speech of William E. Humphrey, of Wash.,
in House, Sept. 3, 1914. (In _Congressional Record_
of Sept. 4, vol. I, no. 105, pp. 4679-4693. Includes
newspaper clippings on the subject.)
Woehlke, W. V., "Porterhouse heaven and the hobo,"
_Technical World_, August, 1914, vol. xxi, pp. 808-18.
"Work and the police mortal foes of the I. W. W.," _New
York Tribune_, April 12, 1914, Part V, special feature
section--full page article, illustrated.
1915 Fitch, J. A., "Baiting the I. W. W.," _Survey_ 33:
634-5, March 6, 1915.
"I. W. W. Beaten in Dominion" [of Canada]. (Description
of I. W. W. activities in British Columbia). Special
correspondence of the _Los Angeles Times_, Sunday, June
6, 1915, pt. vi, p. 3, columns 1, 2, 3.
Katz, Rudolph, "With DeLeon Since '89," serially in _Weekly
People_, March 20, 1915 to Jan. 29, 1916.
* Williams, B. H., "The trend toward industrial freedom."
In a symposium, on "What is Americanism?" _American
Journal of Sociology_, vol. xx, pp. 626-8, March,
1915. Reprinted in St. John's _I. W. W., Its history,
structure and methods_, pp. 30-32.
1916 Babson, R. W., "The I. W. W.'s Latest Move" (in
Minnesota and Michigan, etc.), in _Babson's Reports on
Economic Co-operative Movements_ (confidential bulletin
of the Coöperation Service No. L-59, Wellesley Hills,
Mass.). Aug., 1916 (Labor forecast).
1916 Bindley, Barbara, "Helen Keller would be I. W. W.'s
Joan of Arc.," _New York Tribune_, January 16, 1916,
sec. v, p. 5.
* Dodd, J. Stephen, "The forerunner of industrial
democracy," _Solidarity_, Dec. 30, 1916. (The
industrial union, as embodied in the I. W. W., is the
author's forerunner.)
* Nef, W. T., "Job Control in the Harvest Fields,"
_International Socialist Review_, September, 1916, vol.
xvii, pp. 140-3.
* Smith, Walker C., "The Voyage of the Verona,"
_International Socialist Review_ 17:340-6, December,
1916. (The "riot" at Everett, Wash.).
* Woodruff, Abner E., "Evolution of Industrial
Democracy," _Solidarity_, Nov. 4, 11, 18, 25 and Dec.
2, 9, 1916. (Also published in pamphlet form.)
1917 "America's cancer sore--the I. W. W.," _Los Angeles
Times_, Dec. 9, 1917, pp. 4, 18 (magazine supplement).
* Ashleigh, Charles, "Everett, November Fifth" (poem),
_International Socialist Review_, February, 1917, vol.
xvii, p. 479.
Ashurst, H. F., "The I. W. W. menace" (speech in U. S.
Senate, Aug. 17, 1917) _Congr. Record_, vol. lv (no.
113), p. 6687.
* Baldazzi, Jno., "Ethics of Revolutionary Syndicalism,"
_Solidarity_, January 27, 1917, p. 3.
Colby, E., "The Industrial Workers of the World,"
_Bellman_, 22:233-5, Mar. 3, 1917.
Coleman, B. S., "The I. W. W. and the law; ... the
result of Everett's Bloody Sunday" (illus.), _Sunset
Magazine_, vol. xxxix, pp. 3, 5, 68-70 (July, 1917).
Crawford, A., "The spectre of industrial unionism"
(illus.), _International Socialist Review_, vol. xviii,
pp. 80-83 (Aug., 1917).
* Doree, E. F., "Ham stringing the sugar hogs,"
_International Socialist Review_, xvii, 615-17, April,
1917 (Sugar workers' strike).
"Enemy within our midst," _Gateway_, vol. xxix, pp. 13-16
(Dec., 1917).
Fraina, Louis C., "The I. W. W. trial," _The Class
Struggle_, vol. i, no. 4, pp. 1-5 (Nov.-Dec., 1917).
"From the I. W. W. Indictments," _International Socialist
Review_, vol. xviii, pp. 271-277 (Nov.-Dec., 1917).
(Contains comprehensive excerpts from the indictments
brought by the U. S. Government in Sept., 1917.)
[I. W. W. activities in the Pacific Northwest, 1917].
Remarks in the U. S. Senate, Aug. 11, 1917. _Congr.
Record_, vol. lv, pp. 6533-6534.
"The I. W. W.[s] as prison reformers," _Survey_, vol.
xxxvii, pp. 461-462 (Jan. 20, 1917).
1917 "I. W. W. raids and others," _New Republic_, vol. xii,
pp. 175-177.
"The Industrial Workers of the World," _Industrial Peace_
(London), October, 1917, pp. 14-20.
"The iron heel in Australia," _International Socialist
Review_, vol. xvii, no. 8, pp. 473-475.
Johnson, Albert, "The preaching of treason and the breeding
of sedition must stop," _Congressional Record_, vol.
lv, no. 145, p. 8037. (Speech on the I. W. W. and the
war in the U. S. House of Representatives, June 25,
1917).
"Lay Australian arson plot to I. W. W.," _New York Times_,
Apr. 14, 1917, p. 6, cols. 1-3.
* Macdonald, J., "From Butte to Bisbee" (illus.),
_International Socialist Review_, vol. xviii. pp. 69-71
(Aug., 1917). (The I. W. W. in the copper camps.)
Merz, C., "Tying up western lumber," _New Republic_, vol.
xii, pp. 242-244 (Sept. 29, 1917).
Myers, H. L. (U. S. Senator from Montana). (Speech on
the I. W. W. with special reference to the Butte
copper-mining situation), U. S. Senate, Aug. 23, 1917.
_Congr. Record_, vol. lv, no. 118, pp. 6869-6871.
"Organization or anarchy," _New Republic_, vol, xi, pp.
320-322 (July 21, 1917).
Parker, C. H., "The I. W. W.," _Atlantic Monthly_, vol.
120, pp. 651-662 (Nov., 1917). (An extremely good
psychological interpretation of the I. W. W. movement
and personnel.)
"Patriotism in the Middle West," _The Masses_, 9: 19-21
(June, 1917). (The militia raid on the I. W. W. hall in
Kansas City, Mar. 27, 1917.)
"The tenth annual I. W. W. convention," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xvii, pp. 406-409 (Jan., 1917).
"What Haywood says of the I. W. W.," _Survey_, vol.
xxxviii, pp. 429-430 (Aug. 11, 1917).
Woehlke, Walter V., "The I. W. W. and the Golden Rule:
Why Everett [Wash.] used the club and gun on the Red
Apostles of direct action," _Sunset Magazine_, vol.
xxxviii, pp. 16-18, 62-65 (February, 1917).
1918 Blythe, Samuel G., "Our imported troubles and trouble
makers," _Saturday Evening Post_, May 11, 1918. (The I.
W. W. and the war.)
Browne, L. A., "Bolshevism in America," _Forum_, 59:
703-17. June, 1918.
Bruère, Robert W., "Copper camp patriotism," (The I. W. W.
and the war. The Bisbee deportations). _The Nation_,
vol. 106, pp. 202-3, 235-6 (Feb. 21 and 28, 1918).
1918 ----, "Following the trail of the I. W. W.," "A
first-hand investigation into labor troubles of the
West." Series of articles on conditions in mining,
lumbering and agriculture, _The New York Evening Post_,
Nov. 14, 17, 24; Dec. 1, 8, 12, 15, 1917; Feb. 13, 16,
23; Mar. 2, 9, 16, 23, 30; Apr. 6, 13, 20, 1918.
----, "The Industrial Workers of the World"--an
interpretation, _Harper's Magazine_, July, 1918 (pp.
250-257).
Callender, Harold, "The truth about the I. W. W.,"
_International Socialist Review_, vol. xviii, no. 7,
pp. 332-342 (Jan., 1918).
"Colonel Disque and the I. W. W.," _New Republic_, vol.
xiv, pp. 284-285 (April 6, 1918). (The I. W. W. in the
lumber industry of the Northwest.)
* Debs, E. V., "The I. W. W. bogey," _International
Socialist Review_, vol. xviii, pp. 395-396 (Feb., 1918).
Easley, Ralph M., "Survey of I. W. W. activities during the
war," _New York Times_, July 7, 1918, sec. iii, p. 3,
cols. 1-6.
"Defensive propaganda for accused leaders answered...."
Based on brochure written by T. E. Harré who, the
editors state, "has made a careful survey of the
activities of the International [sic] Workers of the
World since the outbreak of the war."
"Great Labor Trial Astounding Verdict," _The Labor
Defender_, vol. i, no. 14, pp. 3-6 (Sept. 1, 1918).
Green, W. R., "I. W. W. organization," _Congressional
Record_, vol. lvi, pp. 6799-6800 (May 9, 1918).
Hartman, F. H., "The I. W. W.--a scapegoat," _The Radical
Review_, July, 1918.
"The I. W. W. as an agent of pan-Germanism," _World's
Work_, vol. xxxvi, pp. 581-2 (Oct., 1918).
[The I. W. W. in the lumber industry of the northwest].
Remarks of various members of the U. S. Senate, Mar.
21, 1918. _Congr. Record_, vol. lvi, no. 82, pp.
4095-4101.
* Keller, Helen, "In behalf of the I. W. W.," _The
Liberator_, March, 1918.
King, William H., (U. S. Senator from Utah), [The I. W.
W.], _Congressional Record_, vol. lvi, pp. 6565-6566
(May 6, 1918).
Landis, K. M. [Address to the jury in the case of Wm. D.
Haywood _v._ The United States of America, August 17,
1918]. _Defense News Bulletin_, Aug. 24, 1918, pp. 3-4.
"Misconceptions of the I. W. W.," _Labor Defender_, Dec. 1,
1918, pp. 4-5. Published also as a leaflet.
* Phillips, Jack, "Speaking of the Department of
Justice," _International Socialist Review_, vol. xviii,
pp. 406-407 (February, 1918). (On the U. S. Government
indictments of the I. W. W.)
1918 Reed, John, "The social revolution in court" (illus. by
Art Young), _Liberator_, September, 1918, pp. 20-28.
Reprinted in _Cal. Defence Bulletin_, Nov. 4 1918.
Sherman, Lawrence Y. (U. S. Senator from Illinois), [The I.
W. W. and the war], _Congressional Record_, vol. lvi,
pp. 8742-8745 (June 20, 1918).
Speech in the United States Senate, June 20, 1918.
"Spruce and the I. W. W.," _New Republic_, vol. xiv, pp.
99-100 (Feb. 23, 1918).
"Telling it to Wilson," _Labor Defender_, vol. i, no.
16, pp. 4-5, 11 (Oct. 15, 1918); reprinted in _The
Liberator_, November, 1918, pp. 43, 47. Also reprinted
in _The Nation_ under the title: "Is civil liberty
dead?".
Reprint of a memorandum on the Federal Government and
the I. W. W. sent to President Wilson by the National
Civil Liberties Bureau.
* Thompson, Jas. P., "Industrial unionism: what it is,"
_International Socialist Review_, vol. xviii, pp.
366-73 (Jan., 1918). A reprint of his testimony before
the U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations.
"Tulsa, November 9th" (story of deportation of I. W. W.s
from Tulsa, Oklahoma, Nov. 9, 1917. The sworn statement
of the secretary of the Tulsa local of the I. W. W.)
_The Liberator_, vol. i, pp. 15-17 (April, 1918).
Walsh, John T., "The I. W. W. trial," _The Labor Defender_,
vol. i, no. 12, pp. 3-5 (July 30, 1918).
Walsh, Thomas J. (United States Senator from Montana),
[The Industrial Workers of the World], _Congressional
Record_, vol. lvi, pp. 6566-6569 (May 6, 1918).
Excerpts from I. W. W. papers and pamphlets.
Warren, W. H., "Treason by the wholesale; an exposé of I.
W. W. methods," _Oregon Voter_, vol. xii, pp. 310-311
(Mar. 9, 1918).
"What has been proved at the I. W. W. trial. Review of
evidence introduced at Chicago ...," _New York Times_,
Aug. 4, 1918, sec. iv, p. 4, cols. 1-6.
"This article, in which is presented a concise
statement of what the trial has brought to light, was
written by an observer, acting under official auspices,
having access to all the records and sources of
information."
"What shall be done with the I. W. W.?" _Seattle Municipal
News_, vol. vii, pp. 1-2 (May 4, 1918).
Wolff, W. A., "The northwestern front," _Collier's Weekly_,
Apr. 20, 1918. (The I. W. W., the lumber industry and
the war.)
Yarros, Victor S., "The I. W. W. trial," _Nation_, Aug. 31,
1918, vol, 107, pp. 220-223.
1918----, "The story of the I. W. W. trial"; I. "The atmosphere
of the trial," _Survey_, Aug. 31, 1918; II. "The case
for the prosecution," _Survey_, Sept. 7, 1918; III.
"The nature and pith of the defense," _Survey_, Sept.
14, 1918. Vol. xl, pp. 603-604. 630-632, 660-663.
Young, Arthur, "The social revolution in court," _The
Liberator_, September, 1918, pp. 20-28 (illus.).
The Chicago I. W. W. trial.
1919 A Silent Defense Prisoner, "A direct appeal to the
American people. A statement of the Sacramento case,"
_One Big Union Monthly_, March, 1919, pp. 32-34.
* Andreytchine, George, "Industrial unionism _versus_
Bolshevism," _Industrial Worker_, November 1, 1919.
* Blossom, Frederick A., "Misconception of the I. W. W.,"
_Industrial Worker_, August 9, 1919. Reprinted from
_Gale's Magazine_.
* Bruner, Roberta, "The 11th annual I. W. W. convention,"
May, 1919, _One Big Union Monthly_, June, 1919, pp.
46-47; July, 1919, pp. 18-19.
Carleton, Frank T., "Pedagogy and syndicalism," _The
Public_, February 8, 1919, vol. xxii, pp. 133-134.
On the I. W. W. after the war.
* Ebert, Justus, "Reconstruction: A working-class
presentation of its problems," _One Big Union Monthly_,
September, 1919, pp. 22-25.
* Edwards, Forrest, "The merits of legal defense," _One
Big Union Monthly_, September, 1919, pp. 10-11.
Ferguson, I. E., "The I. W. W. convention," _Revolutionary
Age_, June 14, 1919.
"The future and the I. W. W.", by a Washington official.
_The Public_, February 8, 1919, vol. xxii, pp. 134-136.
The I. W. W. and the lumber industry.
Gale, Linn A. E., "The Mexican communists and industrial
unionism," _Industrial Worker_, November 15, 1919.
Hedrick, P. C., "The I. W. W. and Mayor Hanson,"
_Unpartizan Review_, July, 1919 (vol. xii, pp. 35-45).
"Industrial Workers of World organize anew," _Labor
Opinion_ (Portland, Oreg.), July, 1919.
Report of the May, 1919, convention.
"The invincible I. W. W.," _Liberator_, May, 1919, pp. 9-10.
Lanier, A. S., "To the President: An open letter in regard
to case of United States _versus_ Wm. D. Haywood, _et
al._," _The New Republic_, vol. xviii, pp. 383-384
(April 19, 1919).
1919 Lyons, Eugene, "Tulsa: A study in oil," _One Big Union
Monthly_, December, 1919, pp. 35-37.
McMahon, Theresa S., "Centralia and the I. W. W.," _The
Survey_, November 29, 1919, pp. 173-174.
Marcy, Mary E., "The I. W. W. convention," _Liberator_,
July, 1919, pp. 10-12.
"Ol' rags and bottles," _The Nation_, January 25, 1919,
vol. cviii, pp. 114-116.
An account of the I. W. W. trial at Sacramento,
California, by _The Nation's_ special correspondent.
"The One Big Union," _The Round Table_, June, 1919, pp.
611-619, The I. W. W. in Australia.
Parsons, Geoffrey, "Wichita's way with a wave of I. W. W.
Bolshevism," _New York Tribune_, March 2, 1919, sec.
vii, p. 3.
* Payne, C. E., "The fundamental principles of the I. W.
W.," _One Big Union Monthly_, November, 1919, pp. 38-39.
Price, A. H., "How the I. W. W. men brought about the
8-hour day in the lumber industry," _One Big Union
Monthly_, March, 1919, pp. 16-18.
* Sandgren, John, "The I. W. W. needs an industrial
encyclopedia," _One Big Union Monthly_, November, 1919,
pp. 42-4.
Urges upon the organization the study and practice of
industrial administration.
----, "Industrial unionism _versus_ Bolshevism,"
_Industrial Worker_, November 8, 1919.
* Soltis, John Gabriel, "The Bolsheviki in America," _One
Big Union Monthly_, May, 1919, pp. 19-20.
----, "The realism of the Bolsheviki," _One Big Union
Monthly_, September, 1919, pp. 39-40.
Sterling, Jean, "The silent defense in Sacramento," _The
Liberator_, February, 1919, pp. 15-17.
The Sacramento conspiracy case.
* Varney, Harold L., "Butte in the hands of the I. W.
W.," _One Big Union Monthly_, March, 1919, pp. 36-37.
----, "The story of the I. W. W.," _One Big Union Monthly_,
March, 1919, and subsequent issues.
A detailed history of the organization by a member,
running serially in the _O. B. U. Monthly_ beginning
with the issue of March, 1919.
"What's wrong with labor? Federation threatened with I. W.
W. control from the inside," _New York Times_, October
26, 1919, sec. 4, pp. 1-2, 12.
"What the I. W. W. black cat and wooden shoe emblems mean."
_Literary Digest_, vol. 61, pp. 70-75 (April 19, 1919).
1919 * Woodruff, Abner E., _The evolution of American
agriculture_. With an introduction by Wm. D. Haywood.
Chicago: Agricultural Workers Industrial Union No. 400:
1919, 77 pp., illus.
1920 * Doran, J. T. (of the I. W. W.), "Murder in
Centralia," _The Liberator_, February, 1920, pp. 16-18.
Hard, William, "William Z. Foster," _The New Republic_,
January 7, 1920, pp. 163-166.
Spargo, John, "Why the I. W. W. flourishes," _World's
Work_, January, 1920, pp. 243-247.
Turner, George Kibbe, "The Possibilist," _Saturday Evening
Post_, issues beginning with January 31, 1920.
* Varney, Harold Lord, "The I. W. W. exposed by its chief
propagandist. Harold Lord Varney, 'Bill' Haywood's
counsellor and aid, charges that the main object of
the leaders is to bring about the destruction of the
American Federation of Labor...." _The World_ (New
York), February 8, 1920, sec. E., p. 1.
INDEX
A
Aberdeen, S. D., free-speech fight, 266.
Agreements, 88, 101, 115, 198, 321, 325-326, 373;
constitutional amendment on, 330.
Agricultural workers. _Vide_ Farm laborers.
Agricultural Workers Organization, 337, 339, 341.
American Federation of Labor, 35, 54, 66, 108, 114, 118, 123,
129, 186, 210, 215, 250-252, 278, 299, 303-305, 320-321, 327,
336, 339, 372-374;
on the I. W. W., 65;
locals represented at 1st I. W. W. convention, 71-72;
I. W. W. criticism of, 83-89;
friction with I. W. W. in strikes, 116-117, 204-205;
at Goldfield, Nev., 191-192, 195;
and I. W. W. at Lawrence, Mass., 289.
American Labor Union, 44, 54, 58, 70, 71, 74-75, 90, 102, 122, 132, 153;
compared with I. W. W., 45;
principles of, 46;
weakness in 1905, 54.
American Railway Union, 40, 54.
Anarchism, 252, 281, 298, 310, 316.
Anarchists, 109, 316;
at 1st I. W, W. convention, 78;
at 3rd convention, 178.
Anti-militarism. _Vide_ Militarism _and_ War.
Arizona, "sabotage" law vetoed by the Governor, 347.
Arizona District Industrial Council of the I. W. W., 163.
Association of United Workers of America. _Vide_ Socialist Labor party.
Augustine, Paul, 151.
Australia, the I. W. W. in, 282, 342-345;
Unlawful Associations Act, 282, 343-344.
Autonomy, craft, 63, 97, 101.
_Vide_ also Decentralization.
B
Baltimore I. W. W. cigar makers,246, 248;
Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the I. W. W., 251-252.
Barnes, J. M., 147.
Berger, Victor, 140;
on sabotage, 281.
Berkman, Alexander, 318.
Bohn, Frank, 62, 95, 103, 316.
Bolsheviki, 241, 374-375.
"Boring from within" policy, the, 60, 65-66, 81-82, 89, 104, 118;
January (1905) Conference on, 66-67;
attitude of Socialist party, 82;
_vs._ "dual unionism," 299-304;
results of policy in England, 300.
_Vide_ also Dual Unionism.
Bowman, Guy, 302.
Brewery Workmen of the U. S., National Union of the United, 38,
55, 58, 61, 72, 215.
Bridgeport, Conn., strike of tube mill workers, 203-204, 214.
British Labor party and the I. W. W., on workers' control in
industry, 12-13.
Brooks, J. G., _American syndicalism_, 27.
Brussels, International Labor and Socialist Congress (1911), 252.
Budapest, International Labor Congress, on admission of I. W.
W. delegate, 273-275.
_Bulletins of the Industrial Workers of the World_, 146.
"Bummery," the, 220, 371.
Butte, Mont., controversy between I. W. W. and A. F. of L., 321
_et seq._;
dynamiting of the Miners' Union Hall, 321-322;
"reds" _vs._ "yellows" at, 322-324.
Butte Miners' Union, 105.
C
California, I. W. W. attitude toward Japanese in, 208-209;
criminal syndicalism act, 347.
Carpenters and Joiners, United Brotherhood of, ban on
membership in I. W. W., 118.
Casey, Thos. B., 202.
Centralization. _Vide_ Decentralization
Challaye, F., quoted, 232.
Chambers, T., 202.
Chartists, compared with I. W. W., 27.
Chase, C. H., 230.
Chicago, Ill., window washers' strike, 123;
Industrial Council of the I. W. W., 163.
Chicago conspiracy case, 347;
the indictment, 7;
verdict and sentences imposed, 8.
Chicago faction of the I. W. W., compared with the Detroit
wing, 220, 234, 252;
and the Detroit wing, 237-240;
and the Baltimore clothing workers, 251-252;
condition after 1908 split, 260;
Preamble to Constitution, 351-352;
membership statistics, 354-359.
_Vide_ also Industrial Workers of the World.
Cincinnati, Ohio, marble workers' strike, 123;
Industrial Council of the I. W. W., 163.
Cleveland, Ohio, stogie workers' strike, 123.
Cloth Cap and Hat Makers, United, forbid members to join I. W. W., 118.
Clothing Workers, Amalgamated, and the I. W. W. in Baltimore, 251-252.
Coates, D. C., 79.
Cole, Thos., 228.
Cole, T. J., 176.
Collective bargaining. _Vide_ Agreements.
_Confédération Générale du Travail_, 36, 47-48, 109, 274-276,
299, 301, 326;
compared with I. W. W., 276.
Constitution, 102, 110, 176, 236, 273, 308;
departmental and other subdivisions, 98, 134, 164-165;
locals, 99;
officers provided for, 99;
General Executive Board, 100;
mixed locals, 162;
industrial councils, 163;
initiative and referendum, 310, 331-332;
agreements, 332;
Preamble to, 351-353.
_Vide_ also Structure _and_ Preamble.
Contracts. _Vide_ Agreements.
Control of industry by workers, I. W. W. emphasis upon idea of, 12;
present unfitness of I. W. W. for, 13;
policy of W. F. M. on, 43.
Conventions of the I. W. W., constituent convention (1905),
organizations represented at, 68-69, 74;
types of unions represented, 70;
method of representation, 72-73;
distribution of power in, 74-75;
doctrinal types at, 76-79;
resolutions, 91-92.
Conventions of the I. W. W., 2nd (1906), 129, 136, 176-177;
controversy at, 136 _et seq._;
3rd (1907), 178-182, 188, 210-211;
number of locals represented, 180-181;
efforts to modify Preamble, 188-189;
4th (1908), 212, 218, 221-228;
delegates at, 221;
officers elected, 228;
5th (1910), 267;
6th (1911), 267, 271;
7th (1912), 277, 295, 298;
8th (1913), 305;
9th (1914), 327-332;
10th (1916), 337-338, 340-341, 349;
pre-convention conference of the "Proletarian Rabble" (1906), 137-139;
Sherman faction (1907), 179.
Conventions of the (Detroit) I. W. W., "rump" convention of
1908, 228-230;
"sixth I. W. W. convention" (1913), 244-245;
"eighth I. W. W. convention" (1915), 245, 250, 254.
Coöperation, resolution on, 91.
Craft unionism, I. W. W. criticism of, 62-63, 84-89, 184-185;
Gompers on, 90;
I. W. W. compromises with, 118-119.
Craft unions, political activity of, 93-96;
prohibit members joining I. W. W., 118.
Crawford, C. E., 254.
Creel, George, 264.
Criminal syndicalism laws, 282, 346-348;
held constitutional, 348;
California, 347;
South Dakota, 347-348;
Michigan, 347;
Minnesota, 381-382;
Idaho, 383-384;
Montana, 384-386;
Washington, 347.
_Vide_ also Unlawful Associations Act.
D
Darrow, Clarence S., 172.
Debs, Eugene V., 73, 79-80, 327;
activity in launching I. W. W., 58;
on agreements, 86;
on "boring from within," 89;
on Daniel DeLeon, 241;
on political action, 253-254.
Decentralization, 161, 167, 271, 297-298, 305-318;
Eastern compared with Western I. W. W., 298.
_Vide also_ Autonomy.
DeLeon, Daniel, 65-66, 75, 79-82, 103, 141, 143, 147-148,
151-152, 164, 167, 178, 180, 187, 211, 220-221, 224, 235-236;
on revolutionary unionism, 48, 51;
on agreements, 86;
on "pure and simple" unions, 88;
on "boring from within," 89;
on political action, 93-94, 168;
work at 1st convention, 105;
on the referendum, 158;
unseated at 4th convention, 222-223;
influence on I. W. W. 238-240;
personal character, 238-240;
and Lenin, 241.
DeLeonism, 104-105, 149, 227.
Democratic government, I. W. W. attitude toward, 158.
Denver, Colo., free-speech fight, 264.
Departments of the I. W. W., Industrial. _Vide_ Structure _and_
Constitution.
Detroit faction of the I. W. W., 227, 234;
compared with Chicago faction, 220, 234 _et seq._;
local unions adhering to, 230-231, 243;
claims to be "the real I. W. W.," 237-238;
membership, 243-244, 354-359;
1913 convention, 244-245;
1915 convention, 245, 250;
industrial character of membership, 245;
strikes, 246-248;
and the Chicago faction, 248-250, 254;
Debs on, 253;
Preamble to Constitution, 351-352.
_Vide_ also Industrial Workers of the World.
Direct action, 53, 251, 253-254, 278 _et seq._, 286, 292, 296, 317, 329;
at Goldfield, 195;
DeLeon and St. John on, 236;
definitions of 278-279.
_Vide_ also Sabotage _and_ Violence.
Doctrine, types of at first convention, 77-79.
Dual membership. _Vide_ Membership.
Dual unionism, 114, 117;
_vs._ "boring from within," 299-304.
_Vide_ also Boring from within.
Dynamite planting at Lawrence, Mass., 288.
E
Eastern and Western locals, compared, 233-234, 298, 313-316.
Ebert, Justus, 40, 224-225.
Edwards, A. S., 176, 220.
Efficiency, in conduct of business of local unions, 330.
Employers, attitude of, toward I. W. W., 9-13;
use of sentiment of patriotism in dealing with labor, 10.
Engineers, Amalgamated Society of, secedes from I. W. W., 121-122;
part of the I. W. W. Metals and Machinery Dept., 122.
England, the I. W. W. in, 342.
Enlistment, alleged hindering of, by I. W. W., 7.
_Vide_ also Espionage act, Militarism, War.
Espionage act, indictment of I. W. W.s under;
Chicago case, 7-8, 347;
Sacramento case, 282.
Estes, Geo., 57.
Ethics, proletarian, 263, 293-295.
Ettor, J. J., 228, 286-287, 289-290, 291;
quoted, 296;
on dual unionism, 303-304.
Eureka, Calif., strikes at, 203, 261.
Everett, Wash., free-speech fight 266, 339.
F
Farberg, Lillian, 140.
Farm Laborers, 155-156;
organization of, 156, 337;
strike at Waterville, Wash., 261;
strike at North Yamhill, Ore., 270-271.
_Vide_ also Agricultural Workers Organization.
Federal Mediation Commission. _Vide_ President's Mediation Commission.
Finances, 153-154, 207, 211;
central defence fund, 115;
of the Transportation Department, 132;
discounts to "dual unions," 153.
Fischer, E., 176.
Flat River, Mo., Industrial Council of the I. W. W., 163.
Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley, 181, 221, 310.
Foote, E. J., 168, 180, 202.
Force and violence, 251, 253-254, 264, 278-281, 338, 343.
_Vide_ also Violence.
Foreign relations, of the I. W. W., 91-92.
Foreigners, 159-160, 291, 337;
I. W. W. and the, 208-209.
Foremen, in the I. W. W., 204.
Forerunners of the I. W. W., 27-56, 350.
Forest and Lumber Workers, National Industrial Union of, 295, 305, 341.
Foss, J. M., 310, 313, 317.
Foster, William Z., 273, 275;
on dual unionism, 299-303.
Francis, A. J., 232.
Free speech, 264;
I. W. W. tactics, 265;
George Creel on, 264.
Free-speech fights, 262-266, 283;
routine of, 262;
I. W. W. policy in, 263, 297;
Fresno, Calif., 265;
San Diego, Calif., 265;
Paterson, N. J., 266;
Everett, Wash., 266, 339;
attitude of local authorities, 266;
list of, 367.
French syndicalism, 274;
influence on American movement, 53, 231;
the I. W. W. and, 274-276.
Fresno, Calif., free-speech fight, 265, 271.
G
Gaines, H. L., 228.
Garment workers, United, 251.
Gas works laborers, strike of, in Southern California, 271.
General Executive Board, 100-101, 297, 307-309, 311, 313, 317.
General Organizer, 307-308;
office of, established, 188.
General Secretary-Treasurer, 308.
General strike, 87, 174-175, 289-290;
resolution at constituent convention, 91;
and the Moyer, Haywood and Pettibone case, 174.
Geographical location, influence of, on I. W. W. personnel, 298;
and the decentralization controversy, 306-307, 313-316.
German syndicalist movement, 301.
Gilbert, Joseph, 93.
Giovannitti, Arturo, 289-290.
Glanz, William, 230.
Golden, John, 286.
Goldfield, Nev., hotel and restaurant workers' strike, 123;
miners' strike, 123;
I. W. W. at, 191-203;
Mine Operators' Association, 192-198;
mine workers _vs._ town workers, 191-194;
report of Federal investigating commission, 196-198;
alleged crimes of the I. W. W. at, 199;
results of I. W. W. activities at, 200-201.
Goldman, Emma, on direct action, 278.
Gompers, Samuel, 79, 90, 116, 275, 372;
on 1st I. W. W. convention, 106.
Goodwin, R. C., 98.
H
Hagerty, "Father" T. J., 58, 62, 79;
"Wheel of Fortune," 351.
Haggerty, M. P., 181.
Hall, Covington, 296.
Hall, W. L., 57, 60.
Havel, Hippolyte, 277.
Haymarket riots, 39;
influence on syndicalist and I. W. W. movements, 40.
Haywood, William D., 15, 61-62, 73, 75, 76, 79-80, 115, 142,
171-175, 208, 247, 274, 286-287, 289, 329;
and Western Federation of Miners, 42, 216-217;
on the American Federation of Labor, 83;
on the "union scab," 85-86;
on the unskilled, 87;
on organizing foreigners, 159;
and the Socialist party, 282;
on dual unionism, 303.
Hervé, G., on sabotage, 279.
Heslewood, F. W., 144, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 206, 226;
quoted, 202, 210.
Hillquit, Morris, 147, 186.
I
Idaho, criminal syndicalism act, 282, 347, 383-384.
Industrial Brotherhood, the, 38.
Industrial Councils, 98;
functions, 163.
Industrial Departments, 131 _et seq._;
original thirteen, 96-97.
_Industrial Union News_, 230.
_Industrial Union Bulletin_, 146, 211, 229, 271.
Industrial Unionism, 99, 108-109, 119-120, 161-167;
_vs._ craft unionism, 62-63;
and mass unionism, 202;
Moyer on, 215-216;
St. John and DeLeon on, 235;
and Bolshevism, 241.
Industrial Unions of the I. W. W. _Vide_ National Industrial Unions.
_Industrial Worker, The_, 146, 229, 250, 271-272, 281, 312-313.
_Industrial Worker, The_, (organ of the Sherman faction), 146, 179-180.
Industrial Workers clubs, at 1st I. W. W. convention, 70.
Industrial Workers of the World, American origin of, 53;
constituent convention, 57;
pre-convention conference (1904), 57-58;
January conference (1905), 60-62;
Industrial Union Manifesto (of 1905), 62-64;
on the American Federation of Labor, 65;
administration, 101;
craft character of locals, 118;
secession movements in, 120-122, 219-220;
accused of stockmarket manipulation, 199;
attitude of Western membership to political parties, 231-232;
Detroit and Chicago factions compared, 231, 251, 253, 259;
Debs proposes union of two factions, 254;
compared with _Confédération Générale du Travail_, 275;
proletarian ethics of, 263, 293-294;
and Western Federation of Miners, 320-325;
at Butte, Mont., 321-324;
and United Mine Workers, 325-327;
in other countries, 341-342;
in Australia, 342-345;
"National Administrations," 349;
constructive elements, 340, 349-350;
chart of organization, 353;
membership statistics, 354-359;
list of locals, 360-365;
songs, 370-380.
Industrialists, 227;
_vs._ parliamentarians at 4th convention, 224.
Initiative and referendum, 309-310, 314, 331-332;
in politics and industry on Pacific Slope, 314-315.
Intellectuals, 267.
International, the;
modern revolutionary unionism and, 36;
principles of, 37.
International Workingmen's Association, 35-36;
and Socialist Labor party, 46.
International Working Peoples Association, 35-36.
Iron Miners' Industrial Union of the I. W. W., 341.
J
January Conference. _Vide_ Industrial Workers of the World.
Japanese in California, attitude of I. W. W. toward, 208-209.
Job control, at Goldfield, 200-201.
Jones, "Mother" Mary, 60, 62, 73.
"Jungle kitchens," in Western locals, 315, 338-339.
Jurisdiction disputes, 176.
K
Kalispell, Mont., strike at, 261.
Katz, Rudolph, 44, 180-181, 211, 215, 220, 222, 229, 251.
Kelly, Harry, 276-277.
Kern, E. J., 236.
Kiehn, Charles, 102.
Kirkpatrick, Charles, 100.
Kirwan, James, 140.
Knights of Labor, 109;
founded, 30;
principles of, 31;
structure, 32-33;
compared with I. W. W., 32;
and politics, 33;
and sabotage, 34.
Koeltgen, Ewald, 265, 315-316.
L
Label, the I. W. W. _Vide_ Universal label.
"Labor lieutenants," 87-88.
Labor organizations, relations with political parties, 126-129.
Lagardelle, Hubert, 274;
on direct action, 278.
Lake Charles, La., lumber workers' strike, 123.
Lancaster, Pa., silk workers' strike, 203.
Land policy, 296.
Lawrence, Mass., strike of French branch of I. W. W. textile
workers (1908), 214;
strike of 1912, 284-295.
Leaders, I. W. W. attitude toward, 79;
at the 1st I. W. W. convention, 79-81.
_Vide_ also Rank and file.
Leather Workers, United Brotherhood of, forbids members to join
I. W. W., 118.
Ledermann, Max, 221.
Lenin, Nikolai, 241-242.
Lessig, Adolph, 247-248.
Little, F. H., 330.
Local autonomy. _Vide_ Decentralization.
Local unions of the I. W. W., 98, 134, 160-161, 230-231;
character of, 99;
craft character of some, 119;
number of, 131, 180, 181, 183-184, 207, 243-244, 261, 268-269,
272, 305, 333-334;
discussion of politics in, 169-170;
turnover of, 183, 207, 333-334, 349-350;
reasons for disbanding, 213, 244-245, 273, 366;
shifting of allegiance after 1908 convention, 230;
Baltimore cigar makers, 246;
industrial distribution, 261, 272, 365;
representation at conventions, 328;
efficiency in, 330;
referendum to, 331-332;
list of, 360-365.
_Vide_ also Mixed locals.
Lumber industry, I. W. W. in, 210.
_Vide_ also Forest and Lumber Workers' National Industrial Union.
Lumber workers, strikes, 261.
M
McCabe, Frank, 100.
McClure, R., 230.
MacDonald, Daniel, 120.
Machinists, International Association of, ban on members
joining I. W. W., 118.
MacNamara case, the I. W. W. and, 277-278;
call for a general strike, 277.
Mahoney, Charles E., 176, 217;
quoted, 192, 194.
Maichele, A., 176.
Manifesto, Industrial Union. _Vide_ Industrial Workers of the World.
Manifesto of Socialist Industrial Unionism, 255.
Mann, Tom, on sabotage, 279, 299, 302;
on dual unionism, 303-304.
Marble, Colo., quarry workers' strike, 214.
Marine Transport Workers, National Industrial Union of, 305,
336-337, 341.
Marx, Karl, quoted, 232.
Mass unionism, at Goldfield, Nev., 191-192, 202.
Master in Chancery, on controversy at 2nd convention, 140, 145, 149.
Mechanics, strike of, in Philadelphia, 248.
Membership, 181-182, 341, 354-359;
restricted to "wage workers," 91;
statistics of, 108, 129-131, 145, 180-184, 207, 213, 243, 269, 333-337;
dual membership, 118;
in specified industries, 270, 336, 341, 356-357;
in Lawrence textile industry, 286, 290;
exaggeration of, 335-336;
compared with that of A. F. of L., 336;
instability of, 349-350.
Mesaba Range, strike of iron miners, 339.
Metal and Machinery Workers' Industrial Union, 341.
Metal Workers, United, 71-72, 74, 76, 100, 102, 121-122;
and A. F. of L., 54;
part of Metal and Machinery Department of I. W. W., 122.
Michigan, criminal syndicalism act, 347.
Migratory laborers, in I. W. W. membership, 341.
"Militant minority," the, 308, 310-311, 328.
Militarism, 7;
resolution at 1st I. W. W. convention, 92;
resolution against war (1914), 331.
_Vide_ also War.
Miller, Francis, 228.
Mine Workers of America, the United, 38-39, 54, 70, 72, 115,
208, 307, 321, 325-327;
at 1st I. W. W. convention, 71.
_Miner's Magazine_, 176.
Mining industry, I. W. W. in, 191-201, 207-208, 210.
Minnesota, criminal syndicalism act, 282, 347-348, 381-382;
held constitutional, 348.
Missoula, Mont., free-speech fight, 265.
"Mr. Block," 372.
Mixed locals, 162, 309, 315-316.
Montana, criminal syndicalism act, 282, 347, 384-386.
Most, Johann, 36.
Moyer, Charles H., 43, 60, 62, 76, 321, 324;
quoted, 217-218.
Moyer, Haywood and Pettibone case, 170-175;
effect of, on I. W. W., 175.
Musical Union, International, in Public Service Department of
I. W. W., 133.
Myrtle, Frank, 202.
N
"National Administrations" of the I. W. W., 349.
National Civic Federation, 63.
National Convention, the, 307, 309-310.
National Industrial Unions, 131, 134, 341.
National Labor Union, 30;
and the Socialist Labor party, 46.
National Trades Union, 30.
Nebraska, criminal syndicalism law, 347-348.
Negroes, A. F. of L. and I. W. W. on organization of, 84, 208.
Nelson, Caroline, 349.
New Castle, Pa., strike at, 261;
free-speech fight, 265.
New Jersey Socialist Unity Conference. _Vide_ Socialist Unity Conference.
New York City, I. W. W. Industrial Council in, 163.
Nilsson, B. E., 310.
North Dakota, criminal syndicalism law, 347-348.
North Yamhill, Ore., strike of farm laborers at, 270-271.
O
Oakland, Calif., alleged attempt of I. W. W. to break up
Socialist local, 282.
Old Forge, Pa., free-speech fight, 266.
Olson, John, 316.
One Big Union, 5, 29, 82, 110.
O'Neill, J. M., 61-62, 139-140, 182, 324-325.
Oregon, I. W. W. in, 182.
Organization, I. W. W. policy in work of, 210;
chart of I. W. W., 353.
Oulianov, V. I. _Vide_ Lenin.
"Overalls Brigade, the," 221-224, 233.
P
Pacific Coast, free-speech fights on the, 262 _et seq._
Pacific Coast District Organization, 312-314.
Panic of 1907, effect on I. W. W., 201, 203, 211, 215.
Parliamentarism, 225, 232, 252.
Parliamentarians, _vs._ "straight industrialists" at 4th convention, 224.
Passive resistance, 287-288.
Paterson, N. J., I. W. W. Industrial Council of, 163;
silk workers' strike, 203;
piano workers' strike, 203;
Rump convention of the DeLeonites, 228-230, 249;
free-speech fight, 266.
Paterson, Passaic, N. J., friction between the two I. W. W.s, 247.
Patriotism, made use of by employers in labor struggles, 10;
as a free-speech fight issue, 263;
and the I. W. W., 294.
_Per capita_ tax, 312;
(Detroit wing), 231.
_Per diem_ resolution at 1906 convention, 142-143.
Philadelphia, mechanics' strike, 249.
Pick, Hugo, 183.
Politics, 168-169, 178, 186-187, 189-190, 212, 236, 253, 268, 304;
attitude of Western Federation of Miners toward, 42;
discussion of, in locals, 169-170;
trade unions and, 89, 226;
political action and affiliation, 92;
discussion of, at Stuttgart Congress, 184;
I. W. W. in Nevada, 201-202;
discussion at 4th convention, 218-228, 231-237;
Debs on, 253.
Portland, Ore., strike of saw mill workers, 203, 205-206, 215.
Pouget, Émile, 274.
Powderly, T. V., quoted, 31, 33, 34.
Preamble, 92, 168-169, 188-189, 245, 351-353;
political clause, 93-96, 153, 189, 212, 221, 224-228, 231-237;
elimination of political clause, 226-227.
_Vide_ also Constitution.
President, of the I. W. W., 188, 307;
powers of, 101;
attack on presidency, 138-139;
abolition of the office, 143.
President's Mediation Commission, quoted, 10.
Press, attitude of the, to I. W. W., 107;
I. W. W. press, 271.
Preston, M. R., 197.
Prince Rupert, B. C., strike at, 261.
Progressives, attitude of, toward I. W. W., 11.
"Proletarian rabble, the," pre-convention conference of (1906), 137-139.
_Proletario, Il_, 160.
Providence, R. I., strike of window cleaners, 271.
"Pure and simple" unions. _Vide_ Craft unions.
Public officials, attitude of, toward I. W. W., 10.
Public opinion and the I. W. W., 8, 107.
R
Railway Employees, United Brotherhood of, 54, 61, 74, 100, 102;
Transportation Department of I. W. W., 132.
Railway Workers Industrial Union, of the I. W. W., 341.
Rank and file, the, doctrine of, 79, 167;
rule of, 309.
Recruiting Unions, 341.
Referendum, emphasis on by I. W. W., 158.
_Vide_ also Initiative and Referendum.
Reitman, Ben, on the 8th I. W. W. convention, 318-319.
Religion and the I. W. W., 294.
Representation, proportional, 328.
Respectability, I. W. W. contempt for, 298.
Revolutionary unionism, in England, 29;
Owen's "General Union of the Productive Classes," 29;
Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, the, 29.
Richter, Hermann, 15, 105, 168, 228, 230, 237, 250, 255-256.
Riordan, John, 100, 137.
Ritual, abolition of, in I. W. W. meetings, 167.
Ryan, Albert, 217-218.
S
Sacramento, Calif., I. W. W. conspiracy case of 1918, 282.
Sabotage, 13, 34, 53, 251, 253-255, 279 _et seq._, 286, 317, 330, 343;
attitude of DeLeon and St. John on, 238;
definitions of, 279-280;
Socialist party sabotage clause (Art. II, sec. 6), 280-282.
_Vide_ also Direct action, Violence.
St. John, Vincent, 15, 73, 76, 77, 130, 136-137, 142, 144,
151-152, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182, 221, 223, 228, 235-236,
268-269, 273, 293, 335-336, 337;
in the Western Federation of Miners, 42;
quoted, 58, 192, 193, 194, 200-201, 203, 205, 213, 217-218, 248-249;
on DeLeonism, 149;
on free-speech fights, 262-263.
St. Louis, I. W. W. Industrial Council in, 163.
Salaries of I. W. W. officials, 168.
San Diego, Calif., free-speech fight, 265-266;
report of Commissioner Weinstock, 266.
San Francisco, Calif., ladies' tailors' strike, 248.
Scab. _Vide_ "Union scab."
Schenectady, N. Y., electrical workers' strike, 203;
syndicalist strike tactics at, 204.
Scranton, Pa., I. W. W. and United Mine workers at, 326.
Secession movements in I. W. W., 312-314.
Shenango, Pa., strike at, 261.
Shenkan, I., 119.
Sherman, Charles O., 58, 62, 79, 87, 100, 125, 137, 143, 148,
150, 161, 169, 171, 175, 179;
charges against, 139-140;
his defense, 141, 151;
decision of Master in Chancery, 145;
Western organizing in preference to Eastern, 157.
Shop steward system, in Pacific Northwest, 5.
Silva, Tony, 197.
Simons, A. M., 62-63, 73, 79, 91, 95, 103;
quoted, 65-66, 81;
on political action, 93.
Skowhegan, Me., strike of textile workers, 203, 214.
Smith, Clarence, 57, 79;
quoted, 58.
Smith, J. W., 202.
"Soap boxers," 340.
Social Democratic party. _Vide_ Socialist party.
Social Democratic Workmen's party, 47.
Socialist Labor party, 54, 78, 109, 141, 149, 151, 168, 211,
220, 224, 231, 247, 249, 251-252;
organized, 38, 46;
Haymarket riot and, 40;
compared with Socialist party, 47;
and Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, 50, 81;
attitude toward "pure and simple" unions, 88;
on unions in politics, 94;
at second I. W. W. convention, 151-152;
tenets, 220, 240-241.
Socialist party, 44, 78, 109, 186, 251, 252, 289;
and the Western Federation of Miners, 42;
and American Labor union, 45;
compared with Socialist Labor party, 47;
and I. W. W., 64, 127, 231, 278, 281-282;
on "boring from within," 82;
on the controversy of 1906, 148-149;
report to Stuttgart Congress on I. W. W., 185;
and sabotage, 280-282;
Haywood recalled from Executive Committee, 282.
Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, 45-46, 54-55, 74, 76, 78,
80, 102-103, 105, 109, 127, 148, 153, 225, 246;
organized, 47;
and Socialist Labor party, 48, 81;
and Knights of Labor, 49;
character of, 49 _et seq._;
composition and membership, 51-52;
at 1st I. W. W. convention, 75;
on "pure and simple" unions, 88.
Socialist Unity Conference, New Jersey, 125-129;
resolutions, 128;
on the I. W. W., 128-129.
Somers, Mont., strike at, 261.
Songs of the I. W. W., 370-380.
Sorel, Georges, 274.
South Africa, I. W. W. in, 342.
South Dakota, criminal syndicalism law, 347-348.
Sovereigns of Industry, 37.
Soviet principles compared with industrial union principles, 241-242.
Speed, George, 110, 180, 208.
Stogie makers, 116.
Spokane, Wash., free-speech fight, 265, 282.
Strikes, 122-124, 203-206, 261, 270-271, 283-285, 339;
at Goldfield, Nev., 191-201;
I. W. W. tactics, 124-125, 204-206, 209-210, 297;
I. W. W. failure to hold ground after strikes, 214;
of Detroit faction, 246-248;
effect of, on membership, 261;
Lawrence, Mass., 284-295;
Mesaba Range, 339;
list of, 368-369.
_Vide_ also General Strike.
Structure, 98, 134, 160-167, 202, 339, 351;
original 13 Departments, 96-97;
Industrial Councils, 98-99, 163;
local unions, 99;
National Industrial Unions, 131, 134;
Industrial Departments, 164;
office of General President, 166-167;
St. John and DeLeon on, 235;
Recruiting Unions, 341.
Stuttgart Socialist Congress (1907), 147, 183;
report of Hillquit and Barnes on the I. W. W., 148;
relation between parties and unions, 184;
resolution on political action, 187-188.
Syndicalist Educational League, 276-277.
Syndicalist League of North America, 276.
T
Tacoma, Wash., smeltermen's strike, 203-204.
Tactics, organizing, 117;
"boring from within," 118, 297;
strike, 124-125, 204, 205-206, 288;
organizing in East and West, 157;
dual unionism, 299-304.
Tailors, ladies', strike of, in San Francisco, 248.
Textile industry, I. W. W. in, 214, 350;
membership in, 286.
Textile workers' strikes, Paterson-Passaic, N. J., 247;
Mystic, Conn., 248;
Lawrence, Mass., 284-295.
Textile Workers' National Industrial Union, 267, 295, 305.
Thompson, James P., 79.
Timber Workers, Brotherhood of, 267, 295.
Tonopah, Nev., miners' strike, 123, 203-204.
_Tonopah Sun_, 192.
Trade agreements. _Vide_ Agreements.
Trade unions. _Vide_ Craft unions.
Trainor, C. E., 230.
Trautmann, William E., 49, 57, 61, 79, 87, 98, 100, 119, 124,
129, 137, 140, 144, 146, 150-152, 163, 172, 176, 180, 219-220,
223, 261, 268, 293;
quoted, 53, 207-208, 228;
on organizing farm laborers, 228.
Trenton, N. J., silk workers' strike, 123.
Turner, John Kenneth, quoted, 205-206.
U
Unemployment, 329, 337.
"Union scab, the," 85, 289, 376-377.
Unionism, objects of, from I. W. W. standpoint, 84-85.
United Labor League, 70.
United States Government, intervention at Goldfield, Nev., 196;
report of Pres. Roosevelt's Commission, 196-198.
United States Senate, "anti-sabotage" bill, 346-347.
Universal label, the, 165-166.
Unlawful Associations Act of Australia, 282, 343-345.
Unskilled labor, 66, 118, 177, 291, 341;
Knights of Labor and, 33.
Untermann, Ernest, 281.
Utah State Federation of Labor, 70.
V
Vienna, International Socialist Congress (1914, report of
Socialist Labor party on Chicago I. W. W.,) 238, 247.
Violence, 250, 252-253, 264, 278-281, 338, 343;
DeLeon on use of, 93-94;
at Lawrence, 286-289, 292.
_Vide_ also Sabotage _and_ Direct action.
Voting, attitude of Detroit faction on, 253.
W
Wages, increases in, at Goldfield, 200.
Walla Walla, Wash., free-speech fight, 265.
Walsh, J. H., 221-222.
War, 342-348;
resolution against, 331.
_Vide_ also Militarism _and_ War of 1914-1918.
War of 1914-1918, and the I. W. W., 7-8, 282, 331, 342-348.
Washington (State), "syndicalism bill," vetoed by Governor, 347;
passed over veto, 347_n._
Waterville, Wash., strike of farm laborers at, 261.
_Weekly People_, 211.
Weinstock, Harris, report on San Diego free-speech fight, 266.
Wenatchee, Wash., free-speech fight, 265.
Western federation of Miners, 53-54, 55, 60, 70, 74-75, 100,
102, 113, 130, 132, 145, 150, 152, 170, 175, 180-182, 203,
216-217, 320-325, 327;
organized, 40;
and American Federation of Labor, 40-41, 215, 318-319;
strike activities, 41-42;
and Socialist party, 42;
and the state, 55-56;
importance in early I. W. W. history, 104-105;
secession from I. W. W., 122, 147, 149-151, 176, 179;
at Goldfield, 191-201;
on agreements, 198, 319;
Haywood and, 216-217;
I. W. W. at Butte, Mont., 321-324.
Western I. W. W.s, 231-232, 233;
compared with Eastern members, 233-234, 298, 313-316.
Western Labor Union, 41, 53, 127;
organized, 43.
"Wheel of Fortune, the," 5, 79, 351.
Whitehead, Thomas, 228.
Williams, B. H., 180, 314.
Window cleaners, strike of, at Providence, R. I., 271.
"Wobblies," origin of name, 57.
Women, I. W. W. attitude toward organization of, 160.
_Wooden Shoe, The_, sabotage slogans, 279-280.
Woods, Arthur, on free speech, 264.
Workers, Industrial Union of Australia, 345.
Workers' International Industrial Union, 215, 220, 235, 243, 254-255;
membership, 243.
Workmen's party. _Vide_ Socialist Labor party.
Y
Youngstown, Ohio, strike of sheet metal workers, 203-204.
Studies in History, Economics and Public Law
edited by
Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University
VOLUME I, 1891-92. 2nd Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. The Divorce Problem. A Study In Statistics.
By WALTER F. WILLCOX, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents.
2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from
Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill.
By JOHN DEAN GOSS, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island.
By GEORGE ASHTON BLACK, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
4. Financial History of Massachusetts.
By CHARLES H. J. DOUGLAS, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME II, 1892-93. (See note on last page.)
1. [5] The Economics of the Russian Village.
By ISAAC A. HOURWICH, Ph.D. (_Out of print_).
2. [6] Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation.
By SAMUEL W. DUNSCOME, Jr., Ph.D. (_Not sold separately._)
3. [7] Special Assessments; A Study in Municipal Finance.
By VICTOR ROSEWATER, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. (See note on last page.)
1. [8] *History of Elections In American Colonies.
By CORTLAND F. BISHOP, Ph.D. (_Not sold separately._)
2. [9] The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies.
By GEORGE L. BEER, A. M. (_Out of print._)
VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp. (See note on last page.)
1. [10] Financial History of Virginia.
By WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY, Ph.D. (_Not sold separately._)
2. [11] *The Inheritance Tax.
By MAX WEST, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1908. Price. $2.00.
3. [12] History of Taxation in Vermont.
By FREDERICK A. WOOD, Ph.D. (_Out of print_).
VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [13] Double Taxation in the United States.
By FRANCIS WALKER, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [14] The Separation of Governmental Powers.
By WILLIAM BONDY, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [15] Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio.
By DELOS F. WILCOX, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; Paper covers, $4.00.
[16] History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania.
By WILLIAM ROBERT SHEPHERD, Ph.D.
VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [17] History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth
Government in Massachusetts.
By HARRY A. CUSHING, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [18] *Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United
States.
By HENRY CROSBY EMERY, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [19] The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over
Reconstruction.
By CHARLES ERNEST CHADSEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [20] Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational
Administration.
By WILLIAM CLARENCE WEBSTER, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents.
3. [21] The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris.
By FRANCIS R. STARK, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
4. [22] Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central
to Local Activity.
By ROBERT HARVEY WHITTEN, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [23] *English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations
of Central and Local Government.
By MILO ROY MALTBIE, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [24] German Wage Theories. A History of their Development.
By JAMES W. CROOK, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [25] The Centralization of Administration in New York State.
By JOHN ARCHIBALD FAIRLIE, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME X, 1898-99. 409 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [26] Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts.
By FRED S. HALL, Ph.D. Price, $1.00
2. [27] *Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union.
By FRANK GREENE BATES, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [28] Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws in the American
Commonwealths.
By CLEMENT MOORE LACEY SITES, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00; paper covers, $3.50.
[29] The Growth of Cities.
By ADNA FERRIN WEBER, Ph.D.
VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [30] History and Functions of Central Labor Unions.
By WILLIAM MAXWELL BURKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [31] Colonial Immigration Laws.
By EDWARD EMERSON PROPER, A.M. Price, 75 cents.
3. [32] History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States.
By WILLIAM HENRY GLASSON, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
4. [33] History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau.
By CHARLES E. MERRIAM, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [34] The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties.
By ISIDOR LOEB, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [35] Political Nativism in New York State.
By LOUIS DOW SCISCO, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
3. [36] The Reconstruction of Georgia.
By EDWIN C. WOOLLEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XIV, 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [37] Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution.
By ALEXANDER CLARENCE FLICK, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [38] The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance.
By ALLAN H. WILLETT, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [39] The Eastern Question: A Study in Diplomacy.
By STEPHEN P. H. DUGGAN, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; Paper covers, $3.00.
[40] Crime in Its Relation to Social Progress.
By ARTHUR CLEVELAND HALL, Ph.D.
VOLUME XVI, 1902-1903. 547 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [41] The Past and Present of Commerce in Japan.
By YETARO KINOSITA, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [42] The Employment of Women in the Clothing Trade.
By MABEL HURD WILLET, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [43] The Centralization of Administration in Ohio.
By SAMUEL P. ORTH, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [44] *Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of Indiana.
By WILLIAM A. RAWLES, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
2. [45] Principles of Justice in Taxation.
By STEPHEN F. WESTON, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [46] The Administration of Iowa.
By HAROLD MARTIN BOWMAN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [47] Turgot and the Six Edicts.
By ROBERT P. SHEPHERD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [48] Hanover and Prussia, 1795-1803.
By GUY STANTON FORD, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 588 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [49] Josiah Tucker, Economist.
By WALTER ERNEST CLARK, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [50] History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value in English
Political Economy.
By ALBERT C. WHITAKER, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [51] Trade Unions and the Law in New York.
By GEORGE GORHAM GROAT, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [52] The Office of the Justice of the Peace in England.
By CHARLES AUSTIN BEARD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [53] A History of Military Government in Newly Acquired Territory of
the United States.
By DAVID Y. THOMAS, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XXI, 1904. 746 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [54] *Treaties, their Making and Enforcement.
By SAMUEL B. CRANDALL, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [55] The Sociology of a New York City Block.
By THOMAS JESSE JONES, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [56] Pre-Malthusian Doctrines of Population.
By CHARLES E. STANGELAND, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
VOLUME XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00.
[57] The Historical Development of the Poor Law of Connecticut.
By EDWARD W. CAPEN, Ph. D.
VOLUME XXIII, 1905. 594 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [58] The Economics of Land Tenure in Georgia.
By ENOCH MARVIN BANKS, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [59] Mistake in Contract. A Study in Comparative Jurisprudence.
By EDWIN C. MCKEAG, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [60] Combination in the Mining Industry.
By HENRY R. MUSSEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
4. [61] The English Craft Guilds and the Government.
By STELLA KRAMER, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [62] The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe.
By LYNN THORNDIKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [63] The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code.
By WILLIAM K. BOYD, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [64] *The International Position of Japan as a Great Power.
By SEIJI G. HISHIDA, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. (Sold only in Sets.)
1. [65] *Municipal Control of Public Utilities.
By O. L. POND, Ph.D. (_Not sold separately._)
2. [66] The Budget in the American Commonwealths.
By EUGENE E. AGGER. Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [67] The Finances of Cleveland.
By CHARLES C. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [68] Trade and Currency in Early Oregon.
By JAMES H. GILBERT, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [69] Luther's Table Talk.
By PRESERVED SMITH, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [70] The Tobacco Industry in the United States.
By MEYER JACOBSTEIN, Ph.D. Price, $1 .50.
4. [71] Social Democracy and Population.
By ALVAN A. TENNEY, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents.
VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [72] The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole.
By NORRIS A. BRISCO, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [73] The United States Steel Corporation.
By ABRAHAM BERGLUND, Ph.D. Price, $1 .50.
3. [74] The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts.
By HARRY G. FRIEDMAN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXVIII, 1907. 564 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [75] DeWitt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York.
By HOWARD LEE MCBAIN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [76] The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia.
By ELMER I. MILLER, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [77] The Distribution of Ownership.
By JOSEPH HARDING UNDERWOOD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [78] Early New England Towns.
By ANNE BUSH MACLEAR, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [79] New Hampshire as a Royal Province.
By WILLIAM H. FRY, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; Paper covers, $4.00.
[80] The Province of New Jersey, 1664-1738.
By EDWIN P. TANNER, Ph.D.
VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 575 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [81] Private Freight Cars and American Railroads.
By L. D. H. WELD, Ph.D. Price $1.50.
2. [82] Ohio before 1850.
By ROBERT E. CHADDOCK, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [83] Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population.
By GEORGE B. LOUIS ARNER, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents.
4. [84] Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician.
By FRANK H. HANKINS, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper covers, $4.00.
1. [85] The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers.
By BERTHA HAVEN PUTNAM, Ph.D.
VOLUME XXXIII, 1908-1909. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [86] Factory Legislation in Maine.
By E. STAGG WHITIN, A.B. Price, $1.00.
2. [87] *Psychological Interpretations of Society.
By MICHAEL M. DAVIS, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
3. [88] *An Introduction to the Sources relating to the Germanic
Invasions.
By CARLTON J. H. HAYES, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXXIV, 1909. 628 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [89] Transportation and Industrial Development in the Middle West.
By WILLIAM F. GEPHART, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [90] Social Reform and the Reformation.
By JACOB SALWYN SCHAPIRO, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
3. [91] Responsibility for Crime.
By PHILIP A. PARSONS, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXXV, 1909. 568 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [92] The Conflict over the Judicial Powers in the United States to
1870.
By CHARLES GROVE HAINES, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [93] A Study of the Population of Manhattanville.
By HOWARD BROWN WOOLSTON, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
3. [94] *Divorce: A Study in Social Causation.
By JAMES P. LICHTENBERGER, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXXVI, 1910. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [95] *Reconstruction in Texas.
By CHARLES WILLIAM RAMSDELL, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
2. [96] *The Transition In Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth.
By CHARLES RAMSDELL LINGLEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXXVII, 1910. 606 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [97] Standards of Reasonableness in Local Freight Discriminations.
By JOHN MAURICE CLARK, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
2. [98] Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts.
By CHARLES J. HILKEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
3. [99] *Social and Mental Traits of the Negro.
By HOWARD W. ODUM, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XXXVIII, 1910. 463 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [100] The Public Domain and Democracy.
By ROBERT TUDOR HILL, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [101] Organismic Theories of the State.
By FRANCIS W. COKER, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME XXXIX, 1910-1911. 651 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [102] The Making of the Balkan States.
By WILLIAM SMITH MURRAY, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [103] Political History of New York State during the Period of the
Civil War.
By SIDNEY DAVID BRUMMER, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
VOLUME XL, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [104] A Survey of Constitutional Development In China.
By HAWKLING L. YEN, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [105] Ohio Politics during the Civil War Period.
By GEORGE H. PORTER, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
3. [106] The Territorial Basis of Government under the State
Constitutions.
By ALFRED ZANTZINGER REED, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME XLI, 1911. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00.
[107] New Jersey as a Royal Province.
By EDGAR JACOB FISHER, Ph.D.
VOLUME XLII, 1911. 400 pp. Price, cloth, $3.00; paper covers, $2.50.
[108] Attitude of American Courts in Labor Cases.
By GEORGE GORHAM GROAT, Ph.D.
VOLUME XLIII, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [109] *Industrial Causes of Congestion of Population in New York
City.
By EDWARD EWING PRATT, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [110] Education and the Mores.
By F. STUART CHAPIN, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents.
3. [111] The British Consuls in the Confederacy.
By MILLEDGE L. BONHAM, JR., Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUMES XLIV and XLV, 1911. 745 pp.
Price for the two volumes, cloth, $6.00; paper covers, $5.00.
[112 and 113] The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School.
By CHEN HUAN-CHANG, Ph.D.
VOLUME XLVI, 1911-1912. 623 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [114] The Ricardian Socialists.
By ESTHER LOWENTHAL, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [115] Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vizier of Suleiman, the Magnificent.
By HESTER DONALDSON JENKINS, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [116] *Syndicalism in France.
By LOUIS LEVINE, Ph.D. Second edition, 1914. Price, $1.50.
4. [117] A Hoosier Village.
By NEWELL LEROY SIMS, Ph.D. Price. $1.50.
VOLUME XLVII, 1912. 544 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [118] The Politics of Michigan, 1865-1878.
By HARRIETTE M. DILLA, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [119] *The United States Beet Sugar Industry and the Tariff.
By ROY G. BLAKEY, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME XLVIII, 1912. 493 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [120] Isidor of Seville.
By ERNEST BREMAUT, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.
2. [121] Progress and Uniformity in Child-Labor Legislation.
By WILLIAM FIELDING OGBURN, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME XLIX, 1912. 592 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [122] British Radicalism 1791-1797.
By WALTER PHELPS HALL. Price, $2.00.
2. [123] A Comparative Study of the Law of Corporations.
By ARTHUR K. KUHN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [124] *The Negro at Work in New York City.
By GEORGE E. HAYNES, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
VOLUME L, 1911. 481 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [125] *The Spirit of Chinese Philanthropy.
By YAI YUE TSU, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [126] *The Alien In China.
By VI. KYUIN WELLINGTON KOO, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
VOLUME LI, 1912. 4to. Atlas. Price: cloth, $1.50; paper covers, $1.00.
1. [127] The Sale of Liquor in the South.
By LEONARD S. BLANEY, Ph.D.
VOLUME LII, 1912. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [128] *Provincial and Local Taxation In Canada.
By SOLOMON VINEBERG, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [129] *The Distribution of Income.
By FRANK HATCH STREIGHTOFF, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [130] *The Finances of Vermont.
By FREDERICK A. WOOD, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME LIII, 1913. 789 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00.
[131] The Civil War and Reconstruction In Florida.
By W. W. DAVIS, Ph.D.
VOLUME LIV, 1913. 604 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [132] *Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States.
By ARNOLD JOHNSON LIEN. Ph.D. Price, 75 Cents.
2. [133] The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Legislation.
By BLAINE FREE MOORE, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
3. [134] *Indian Slavery in Colonial Times within the Present Limits of
the United States.
By ALMON WHEELER LAURER, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
VOLUME LV, 1913. 665 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [135] *A Political History of the State of New York.
By HOMER A. STEBBINS, Ph.D. Price, $4.00.
2. [136] *The Early Persecutions of the Christians.
By LEON H. CANFIELD, Ph.D. Price, S1.50.
VOLUME LVI, 1913, 406 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
1. [137] Speculation on the New York Stock Exchange. 1904-1907.
By ALGERNON ASHBURNER OSBORNE. Price, $1.50.
2. [138] The Policy of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly.
By OSWALD WHITMAN KNAUTH, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LVII, 1914. 670 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [139] *The Civil Service of Great Britain.
By ROBERT MOSES, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [140] The Financial History of New York State.
By DON C. SOWERS. Price, $2.50.
VOLUME LVIII, 1914. 684 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00.
[141] Reconstruction In North Carolina.
By J. G. DE ROULNAC HAMILTON, Ph.D.
VOLUME LIX, 1914. 625 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [142] The Development of Modern Turkey by means of its Press.
By ANMED EMIN, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
2. [143] The System of Taxation in China. 1614-1911.
By SHAO-KWAN CHEN, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
3. [144] The Currency Problem in China.
By WEN PIN WEI, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
4. [145] *Jewish Immigration to the United States.
By SAMUEL JOSEPH, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME LX. 1914. 516 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [146] *Constantine the Great and Christianity.
By CHRISTOPHER BUSH COLEMAN, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [147] The Establishment of Christianity and the Proscription of
Paganism.
By MAUD ALINE HUTTMAN, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LXI. 1914. 496 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [148] *The Railway Conductors: A Study in Organized Labor.
By EDWIN CLYDE ROBBINS. Price, $1.50.
2. [149] *The Finances of the City of New York.
By YIN-CH'U MA, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
VOLUME LXII. 1914. 414 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50.
[150] The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction.
39th Congress, 1865-1867.
By BENJAMIN B. KENDRICK, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
VOLUME LXIII. 1914. 561 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [151] Emile Durkheim's Contributions to Sociological Theory.
By CHARLES ELMER GEHLKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [152] The Nationalization of Railways in Japan.
By TOSHIHARU WATARAI, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
3. [153] Population: A Study in Malthusianism.
By WARREN S. THOMPSON, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME LXIV. 1915. 646 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [154] *Reconstruction in Georgia.
By C. MILDRED THOMPSON, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
2. [155] *The Review of American Colonial Legislation by the King in
Council.
By ELMER BEECHER RUSSELL, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME LXV. 1915. 524 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [156] *The Sovereign Council of New France.
By RAYMOND DU BOIS CAHALL, Ph.D. Price, $2.25.
2. [157] *Scientific Management (2nd. ed. 1918).
By HORACE B. DRURY, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LXVI. 1915. 655 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [158] *The Recognition Policy of the United States.
By JULIUS GOEBEL, JR., Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [159] Railway Problems in China.
By CHIH HSU, Ph.D. Price $1.50.
3. [160] *The Boxer Rebellion.
By PAUL H. CLEMENTS, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LXVII. 1916. 538 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [161] *Russian Sociology.
By JULIUS F. HECKER, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
2. [162] State Regulation of Railroads in the South.
By MAXWELL FERGUSON, A.M., LL.B. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME LXVIII. 1916. 518 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
[163] The Origins of the Islamic State.
By PHILIP K. HITTI, Ph.D. Price, $4.00.
VOLUME LXIX. 1919. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [164] Railway Monopoly and Rate Regulation.
By ROBERT J. MCFALL, Ph.D. Price, $2 .00.
2. [165] The Butter Industry in the United States.
By EDWARD WIEST, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LXX. 1916. 540 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
[166] Mohammedan Theories of Finance.
By NICOLAS P. AGHNIDES, Ph.D. Price, $4.00.
VOLUME LXXI. 1916. 476 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [167] The Commerce of Louisiana during the French Regime, 1699-1763.
By N. M. MILLER SURREY, Ph.D. Price, $3.50.
VOLUME LXXII. 1916. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [168] American Men of Letters: Their Nature and Nurture.
By EDWIN LEAVITT CLARKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [169] The Tariff Problem in China.
By CHIN CHU, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
3. [170] The Marketing of Perishable Food Products.
By A. B. ADAMS, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME LXXIII. 1919. 616 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [171] *The Social and Economic Aspects of the Chartist Movement.
By FRANK F. ROSENBLATT, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [172] *The Decline of the Chartist Movement.
By PRESTON WILLIAM SLOSSON, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
3. [173] Chartism and the Churches.
By H. U. FAULKNER, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
VOLUME LXXIV. 1917. 546 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [174] The Rise of Ecclesiastical Control in Quebec.
By WALTER A. RIDDELL, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
2. [175] Political Opinion In Massachusetts during the Civil War and
Reconstruction.
By EDITH ELLEN WARE, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
3. [176] Collective Bargaining In the Lithographic Industry.
By H. E. HOAGLAND, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME LXXV. 1917. 410 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
An extra-illustrated and bound volume is published at $5.00.
1. [177] New York as an Eighteenth Century Municipality. Prior to 1731.
By ARTHUR EVERETT PETERSON, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [178] New York as an Eighteenth Century Municipality. 1731-1776.
By GEORGE WILLIAM EDWARDS, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
VOLUME LXXVI. 1917. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [179] *Economic and Social History of Chowan County, North Carolina.
By W. SCOTT BOYCE, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
2. [180] Separation of State and Local Revenues In the United States.
By MABEL NEWCOMER, Ph.D. Price, $1.75.
VOLUME LXXVII. 1917. 473 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
[181] American Civil Church Law.
By CARL ZOLLMANN, LL.B. Price, $3.50.
VOLUME LXXVIII. 1917. 647 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
[182] The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution.
By ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER, Ph.D. Price, $4.00.
VOLUME LXXIX. 1917-1918. 535 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [183] Contemporary Theories of Unemployment and Unemployment Relief.
By FREDERICK C. MILLS, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [184] The French Assembly of 1848 and American Constitutional
Doctrine.
By EUGENE NEWTON CURTIS, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
VOLUME LXXX. 1918. 448 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [185] *Valuation and Rate Making.
By ROBERT L. HALE, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [186] The Enclosure of Open Fields In England.
By HARRIET BRADLEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
3. [187] The Land Tax In China.
By H. L. HUANG, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME LXXXI. 1918. 601 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [188] Social Life In Rome In the Time of Plautus and Terence.
By GEORGIA W. LEFFINGWELL, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
2. [189] *Australian Social Development.
By CLARENCE H. NORTHCOTT, Ph.D. Price, $2.50.
3. [190] *Factory Statistics and Industrial Fatigue.
By PHILIP S. FLORENCE, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
VOLUME LXXXII. 1918-1919. 576 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [191] New England and the Bavarian Illuminati.
By VERNON STAUFFER, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
2. [192] Resale Price Maintenance.
By CLAUDIUS T. MURCHISON, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
VOLUME LXXXIII. 1919. 432 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
[193] The I. W. W.
By PAUL F. BRISSENDEN, Ph.D. Price, $3.50.
VOLUME LXXXIV. 1919. 534 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50.
1. [194] The Royal Government In Virginia, 1624-1775.
By PERCY SCOTT FLIPPIN, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
2. [195] Hellenic Conceptions of Peace.
By WALLACE E. CALDWELL, Ph.D. Price, $1.25.
VOLUME LXXXV. 1919. 450 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [196] The Religious Policy of the Bavarian Government during the
Napoleonic Period.
By CHESTER P. HIGBY, Ph.D. Price, $3.00.
2. [197] Public Debts of China.
By F. H. HUANG, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.
VOLUME LXXXVI. 1919. 460 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
[198] The Decline of Aristocracy In the Politics of New York.
By DIXON RYAN FOX, Ph.D. Price, $3.50.
VOLUME LXXXVII. 1919. 451 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
[199] Foreign Trade of China.
By CHONG SU SEE, Ph.D. Price, $3.50.
VOLUME LXXXVIII. 1919. 444 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
1. [200] The Street Surface Railway Franchises of New York City.
By HARRY J. CARMAN, Ph.D. Price, $2.00.
2. [201] Electric Light Franchises in New York City.
By LEONORA ARENT. (_In press_).
VOLUME LXXXIX. 1919.
1. [202] Women's Wages.
By EMILIE J. HUTCHINSON. Ph.D. Price, $1.50.
2. [203] The Penitentials.
By T. P. OAKLEY. (_In press_).
* * * * *
_The price for each separate monograph is for paper-covered
copies; separate monographs marked*, can be supplied bound
in cloth, for 50c. additional. All Prices are net._
* * * * *
The set of eighty-eight volumes, covering monographs 1-201, is
offered, bound, for $300; except that Volumes II, III, and IV
can be supplied only in part, Volume II No. 1, Volume III No.
2, and Volume IV No. 3, being out of print. Volumes II, III,
and IV, as described in the last sentence, and Volume XXV can
now be supplied only in connection with complete sets, but the
separate monographs of each of these volumes are available
unless marked "_not sold separately_".
* * * * *
For further information, apply to
Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., New York.
London: P. S. KING & SON, Ltd., Orchard House, Westminster.
Transcriber's Notes:
Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were
corrected.
Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.
Fancy or unusual font markup is enclosed in #number signs#.
Continued underscores indicate intentional gaps in sentence.
P. 23 corrected reference to "IX. Selections from the I. W. W.
Song Book," from p. 380 to 370.
P. 23 added page number 381 to "X. Copies of State "Criminal
Syndicalism" statutes."
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The I.W.W. - A Study of American Syndicalism" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.