mirror-textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000698.txt

          POLITICS V. SYNDICALISM: A CASE STUDY OF THE IWW
                         by Luther M. Gaylord
 
     On June 27, 1905, William D. Haywood of the Western Federation
of Miners called to order the founding convention of the Industrial
Workers of the World.  It was to be the "One Big Union," an
economic movement of all workers in all industries to bring about
their emancipation from wage slavery.
     But the vision of One Big Union faded quickly amid bitter
divisions following the founding convention, and by 1908 the
organization had split into two groups, both calling themselves the
Industrial Workers of the World, one headquartered in Chicago, the
other in Detroit.
     The IWW with which most Americans are familiar is the Chicago,
or "red" IWW.  This is the union of the Lawrence and Paterson
strikes, of Joe Hill and Frank Little, of free speech and direct
action~the union that still exists today with branches across the
United States, Canada, Australia and England.
     The Detroit IWW was organized upon the departure (or
expulsion, depending upon whose history one reads) of Socialist
Labor Party leader Daniel DeLeon and his adherents from the union
after the fourth convention.  Also known as the "yellow" IWW, this
doctrinaire faction rechristened itself "The Workers International
Industrial Union" in 1915 and finally expired in 1925.
     The Detroit group claimed to be the custodian of the original
IWW idea, seeing itself as the keeper of the tradition of the
founders as expressed in the first preamble to the IWW
constitution.  Likewise, the Chicago group maintained that it had
restored the preamble to its originally intended form at the 1908
convention and was therefore the _real_ IWW.
     Fortunately, I am not faced with the task of proving which IWW
is "the one and only true union."  Since Detroit gave up the name
(and ultimately the ghost), Chicago won by default.  The importance
of the schism for the purposes of this paper is as a case study of
syndicalist vs. political approaches to confronting capitalism.  We
will first examine the division as it manifested itself within the
union, then explore the larger philosophical debate.
 
SOCIALIST/ANARCHIST DIFFICULTIES
     Though personal antagonisms between delegates certainly
weighed in as factors, the real cause of the IWW split in 1908 was
a fundamental ideological dispute.  On one side was Daniel DeLeon,
arguing that political action was an essential component in the
struggle of the working class against the capitalist system.  On
the other was a collection of delegates from the West popularly
known as the "Overalls Brigade" who had tramped their way from
Portland to Chicago on freight trains.  Concerning these, Paul
Brissenden writes:
 
     The western IWWs 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 very similar to  that of the revolutionary
     syndicalists of France.  Indeed, the Western American Wobblies
     looked upon the whole modern system of congressional or
     parliamentary government with considerable disdain. 
     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. [1]
 
     While such anarchist sentiment was probably strongest among
western Wobblies, it was by no means exclusive to them, nor was it
new to the IWW.  According to Patrick Renshaw, almost all of the
delegates who came together at the founding convention in 1905
could be described either as socialists, militant trade unionists
or anarcho-syndicalists. [2]  (Parliamentary reformers, making up
the right and center wings of the Socialist Party, wanted no part
of the IWW, deciding instead to "bore from within" the AF of L.) 
Indeed, Sal Salerno devotes an entire chapter of his book _Red
November, Black November_ to the influence of anarchists at the
founding convention, who included Thomas J. Hagerty, Lucy Parsons
(widow of one of the Haymarket martyrs), and William Trautmann.
     Of particular interest is Hagerty, a tall black-bearded
Catholic priest who had at one time been a member of the Socialist
Party, until he became disgusted with the "slowcialists," as he
called them, and turned to revolutionary industrial unionism.  In
a speech to miners at Telluride, Colorado, in 1902, Hagerty had
advised: "That railroad is yours; those large business blocks and
office buildings downtown that bring in big rent are yours; if you
want them, go and take them." [3]
     Father Hagerty's disdain for politics was made very clear in
his speech at the convention, when he declared that "The ballot box
is simply a capitalist concession.  Dropping pieces of paper into
a hole in a box never did achieve emancipation for the working
class, and to my thinking it never will." [4]
     It was Hagerty who composed the first draft of the IWW
preamble, which, predictably, did not include a role for politics. 
Rather, it emphasized the importance of the union as the center of
revolutionary struggle, contending that the proletariat should
"take and hold that which they produce through an economic
organization of the working class." [5]
     This draft of the preamble found strong support among left
wing socialists and militant trade unionists.  It was altered
before it reached the founding convention, however, after Daniel
DeLeon declared that it would be unacceptable to his delegation
unless the clause "and on the political field without affiliation
with any political party," was inserted.  Given the rivalries
between the two socialist parties and the need for a basis of
unification between anarcho-syndicalist and political socialist
versions of industrial unionism, the clause was accepted.   Renshaw
argues that DeLeon's overriding aim at Chicago in 1905 was to
prevent any close political identification of the IWW with the
Socialist Party.   Thus, by insisting on the "political clause" in
the preamble, he could keep the union unaffiliated and more easily
dominate it himself on behalf of his own SLP, all under the
pretense of _excluding_ political influence. [6]  Whether or not
this is an accurate assessment of DeLeon's motives is an open
question.  Nevertheless, the inclusion of the political clause was
cause for much heated debate:
 
     It seems to me that this paragraph of the Preamble
     particularly is intended, not to represent the principles of
     industrialism, but represents a toadyism to three different
     factions of this convention, and I am opposed to this
     organization toadying to any man or any faction of men~It
     seems to me that this paragraph could not have been more
     confusing if it had been written by the platform committee of
     the Republican or Democratic party. [7]
 
     The clause was ultimately ratified by the convention, but it
did not put an end to the controversy surrounding political action
in the industrial union movement.  In fact, the reference to
politics in the preamble did much to create the rift which split
the union just three years later.
 
DOCTRINAIRE vs. DIRECT-ACTIONIST
     The debate over the necessity and efficacy of political action
continued to rage within the union between 1905 and 1908.  An
amendment to the political clause to the effect that "the IWW does
not endorse nor wish to be endorsed by any political party" was
adopted by delegates at the second convention, but failed when put
to referendum vote. [8]  Meanwhile, IWW anarchists were busily
writing letters to the SLP's newspaper, _The People_, advocating
the dropping of political action altogether.  Most of these were
answered in print by DeLeon, who couched his rebuttals in the most
condescending language possible.
     It was against this backdrop that the Overall Brigade faced
off against the SLP in September 1908 to determine the future of
the union.  DeLeon's credentials were immediately challenged on the
grounds that he was enrolled in the wrong local, and after four
days of wrangling he was expelled from the convention.
     Recalling Father Hagerty's original preamble, Renshaw's
analysis of these events is that "After three years of flirting
with politics, the IWW had returned to its basically antipolitical
attitude of direct action on the industrial front." [9] 
Brissenden, writing in 1917, disagrees completely, arguing that
"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." [10]
     The Detroit and Chicago IWWs hated each other with a passion,
and each took advantage of any opportunity to defame the other. 
DeLeon referred to the Chicago group as "slum proletarians" and
"anarchist scum." [11]  Writing of the "Bummery," as the Chicago
IWW was pejoratively known, Detroit declared:
 
     This, then is the inspiring task of the IWW, 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.  The
     working class cannot "sabotage," cannot dynamite itself into
     possession of the plants of production. [12]
 
     For its part, Chicago  denounced the DeLeonites as reformist
politicians:
 
     [They] 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 which 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...Their only
     virtue is that they put their assertions into print, while the
     other wing of the politicians spread their venom in secret.
     [13]
 
THEORETICAL QUESTIONS
     Our discussion thus far has focused on the 1908 split of the
union and the historical background of that split.  But what of the
ideological context for the conflict?  What made the policy of
political action coupled with economic action so controversial? 
The best way to answer these questions is to review the exchange
between DeLeon and his anarcho-syndicalist opponents which went on
from 1906 to 1907 in the pages of _The People_.
     Explaining his view that politics is a futile exercise for
workers, John Sandgren wrote in November 1906:
 
     Political activity may justly be considered of little or no
     value for the overthrow of the capitalist system~Let us assume
     that a revolutionary political party carries a national
     election, and is allowed to take possession of all offices
     from President down.  What will be the result?  As has been so
     frequently demonstrated, that day of our political victory
     would be our political funeral.  The function of government is
     to make and enforce laws for the running of the capitalist
     system and to safeguard it against all comers.  Or in other
     words, the sole purpose and function of government is to
     regulate the relations springing from the private ownership of
     the means of production and distribution, and everything
     connected therewith.  But the new form of society, which we
     are preparing for, does not recognize this private ownership. 
     It proposes to recognize production and distribution on
     collective lines, a function which cannot possibly be filled
     by politicians.  Like Shakespeare's Moor, the politicians
     would find their occupation gone.  There would be positively
     nothing for them to do, unless they were to continue to run
     society on capitalist lines, the very thing they were
     supposedly elected to discontinue.  Neither can it be
     reasonably suggested that these men, thus elected, should
     instantly sit down and reorganize society on co-operative
     lines.  Society may be _reformed_ by decrees and resolutions,
     but a complete organic change, a _revolution_, as we
     contemplate, must begin at the bottom.  The so-called
     political organization does not occupy itself with this task. 
     It is left to the economic organization of the IWW. [14]
 
     In a similar vein, J. A. La Bille maintained that "It is
practically the same for the pioneer to attempt to be an Indian in
order to capture their war councils as for the worker to be a
politician in order to capture the war councils of the capitalist
class.  I wish to see my fellow workers quit wasting their time and
energy on an illusion, drop politics, and unite on a plan of action
which will bring about the results we desire." [15]
     DeLeon, on the other hand, considered the ballot to be "a
conquest of civilization," and "the peaceful method of social
debate and of ascertaining numbers." [16]  Those who advocated
direct action at the exclusion of politics were, to his way of
thinking, "physical forcists."
 
     How do you expect to recruit and organize your Industrial army
     if you begin by rejecting the peaceful method of solving the
     Social Question?  How can the ranks of the IWW recruit the
     necessary forces for that eventful and final act of the
     revolution, if it starts by rejecting the civilized method of
     settling disputes, offered by the political platform, and
     plants itself instead upon the principle of physical force
     exclusively?  He who rejects political action places himself
     upon the barbarian plane, a plane where the capitalist class
     would be but too glad to see him.  The capitalist class,
     however powerful, is not omnipotent.  It feels constrained to
     render at least external homage to the Genius of the Age.  The
     Genius of the Age demands free speech and a free vote.  So
     soon, however, as a Labor Organization were to reject the
     peaceful trial of strength, the capitalist class would be but
     too delighted to apply the system of Russian Terrorism.  The
     long and the short of it all is that the revolution could not
     gather the necessary recruits.  On the other hand, clad in the
     vestments of fully civilized conflict, the IWW may recruit,
     drill, and organize the physical force which it may need to
     demand the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class.
     [17]
 
DeLeon did accept the use of force to enforce a legitimate  victory
at the polls, however:
 
     ...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. [18]
 
     In response to the nave trust DeLeon put in capitalists~that
having been fairly defeated at the polls they will peacefully hand
over the reigns of power, Arturo Giovannitti asked:
 
     How can we believe that even with the most rigid logic and
     with the fear of a strong revolutionary organization we could
     convince the master class to give itself up into the hands of
     the rival class that knows no Christian charity and will not
     commute the death sentence of capitalism?  Are we to
     understand that capitalism will commit suicide rather than
     face the IWW executioner.  Is there an example in history that
     can justify such a sweet dream of peace and love? [19]
 
John Sandgren continues:
 
     The capitalist class has already chosen war.  Our blood has
     run in torrents, as in the Paris Commune, or bespattered the
     road to Hazelton and Cripple Creek; the rope has strangled
     some of our early champions and is in preparation for others. 
     To speak of the possibility of peaceable settlement between us
     and the master class is the same as the mutual agreement
     between the man flat on his back and him who holds the dagger
     to his throat.  The war has been going on these many years and
     is raging fiercely now.  How can anybody suggest a peaceable
     settlement, especially as we demand complete surrender? [20]
 
Ultimately, then, the message of the anarchists can be summed up as
follows:
 
     Politics is the game of capitalism; it is a flimsy shell game
     in which your very lives are the stakes played for.  As long
     as you workingmen are allowing yourselves to be bamboozled
     into pinning your faith to the ballot, the capitalist class
     does not want any better snap.  For no matter how you vote,
     capitalism is perfectly safe.  "Praise be to God," the
     capitalist class whispers, "the blamed fools are still
     voting!"  Therefore, throw away that old weapon of times
     bygone, the boomerang vote, and spring into the ranks of the
     militant industrial army, where shoulder to shoulder with our
     fellows we shall gain victory through organized strength. [21]
 
     In light of the tremendous battle between the anarcho-
syndicalists and the revolutionary socialists within the IWW, it is
indeed interesting to note the extent to which Daniel DeLeon's own
political philosophy evolved during the first years of this
century.  In 1892, for example, DeLeon had been convinced that the
"ultimate socialist revolution" would be won at the polls, when he
wrote:  "Thanks to universal suffrage, the revolution will be
achieved peacefully, in our day, by a mere expression of will at
the ballot box." [22]  By 1907, he no longer believed in reliance
on the ballot alone, but still held that the economic organization
of workers needed a political organ as well.  At the same time, he
recognized that a socialist victory at the polls _would have to be
backed up by physical force_ when the capitalist class refused to
honor the results of the election or resisted the peaceful transfer
of power to the working class.
     One wonders how DeLeon's theoretical perspective might have
continued to evolve had he lived to see the 1920s and 1930s.  Had
he lived to see police and soldiers open fire on peaceful strikers
time and time again, might his faith in the restraint of
capitalists have faltered?  Had he lived to see the election of a
Democrat to the presidency during the Great Depression, and the
efficacy of New Deal policies in doping the American public into
accepting paltry reforms rather than real change, might he have
abandoned his dedication to the "civilized plane" of electoral
politics?
     It is my contention, after all the reading I have done for
this paper, that DeLeon was moving very slowly away from his rock-
hard devotion to political action, and that at some point he might
have found himself closer to the anarchists than he (or they) could
have ever imagined possible.
 
 
                              NOTES
 
[1]  Brissenden, Paul F.  _The IWW: A Study of American
     Syndicalism_.  (New York: Russell & Russell, 1957), 232-233.
 
[2]  Renshaw, Patrick.  _The Wobblies: The Story of Syndicalism in
     the United States_.  (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co.,
     1967), 76.
 
[3]  Dubofsky, Melvyn.  _We Shall Be All: A History of the
     Industrial Workers of the World_.  (Chicago: Quadrangle Books,
     1969), 92.
 
[4]  Industrial Workers of the World.  _Proceedings of the Founding
     Convention of the IWW_.  1905.  Reprint.  (New York: Merit
     Publishers, 1969), 152.
 
[5]  Salerno, Salvatore.  _Red November, Black November: Culture
     and Community in the Industrial Workers of the World_. 
     (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 76.
 
[6]  Renshaw, 102.
 
[7]  _Proceedings_, 229.
 
[8]  DeLeon, Daniel.  _As To Politics: A Discussion Upon the
     Relative Importance of Political Action and of Class-conscious
     Economic Action, and the Urgent Necessity of Both_.  1907. 
     Reprint.  (New York: New York Labor News, 1956), 2. 
 
[9]  Renshaw, 102.
 
[10] Brissenden, 234.
 
[11] Thompson, Fred W. and Patrick Murfin, _The IWW: Its First
     Seventy Years 1905-1975_.  (Chicago: Industrial Workers of the
     World, 1976), 39.
 
[12] Brissenden, 253.
 
[13] _Ibid._, 248.
 
[14] DeLeon, 8-9.
 
[15] _Ibid._, 25.
 
[16] _Ibid._, 51.
 
[17] _Ibid._, 58.
 
[18] Brissenden, 251.
 
[19] DeLeon, 45.
 
[20] _Ibid._, 69.
 
[21] _Ibid._, 67.
 
[22] Renshaw, 80.
 
 
                         BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Brissenden, Paul F.  _The IWW: A Study of American Syndicalism_. 
     New York: Russell & Russell, 1957.
 
Brooks, John G.  _American Syndicalism: The IWW_.  New York: Arno
     Press, 1969.
 
Chaplin, Ralph.  _The General Strike_.  1933.  Reprint.  Chicago:
     Industrial Workers of the World, 1986.
 
De Caux, Len.  _The Living Spirit of the Wobblies_.  New York:
     International Publishers, 1978.
 
DeLeon, Daniel.  _As To Politics: A Discussion Upon the Relative
     Importance of Political Action and of Class-conscious Economic
     Action, and the Urgent Necessity of Both_.  1907.  Reprint. 
     New York: New York Labor News, 1956. 
 
Dubofsky, Melvyn.  _We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial
     Workers of the World_.  Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1969.
 
Industrial Workers of the World.  _Proceedings of the Founding
     Convention of the IWW_.  1905.  Reprint.  New York: Merit
     Publishers, 1969.
 
Kornbluh, Joyce L., ed.  _Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology_.  Ann
     Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964.
 
Renshaw, Patrick.  _The Wobblies: The Story of Syndicalism in the
     United States_.  Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1967.
 
Salerno, Salvatore.  _Red November, Black November: Culture and
     Community in the Industrial Workers of the World_.  Albany:
     State University of New York Press, 1989.
 
Thompson, Fred W. and Patrick Murfin, _The IWW: Its First Seventy
     Years 1905-1975_.  Chicago: Industrial Workers of the World,
     1976.