Short article by the GIC about the differences between the IWW and GIC and also a critique of the former. Originally published in two separate issues of the Pressedienst der Internationalen Kommunisten-Holland, March and April 1931
I.
For a year now there have been discussions in the American press of the IWW and in the AAUD's “Kampfruf”1 about a possible closer connection. The “Groups of International Communists” in Holland took the following position on the matter. (PIC)
In “Industrial Solidarity” number 601-604, IWW member P.M.2 wrote an article urging a link between the IWW and the AAUD. This link was to lay the basis for a new International of revolutionary class struggle. In a later article, published in “INO”3 , he himself put forward for discussion the proposal that the AAUD should simply constitute itself as the European section of the IWW, while the various groupings in the German Council Movement should join the German IWW. The ideal of the IWW, the “One Big Union” – “a large trade union”, would thus have come to a close.
The first article became the starting point for in-depth reflections by Josef Wagner4 , who formulated the IWW's position on the matter. He thus gave a clear presentation of the foundations on which the IWW is built. The IWW's response has not yet been published in full.
Although for the time being it is only a question of a connection between the IWW and AAUD, the real significance of a possible merger is much more far-reaching, because the new revolutionary Council Movement, of which the first beginnings exist in various countries, would be obliged to join the IWW as well. The discussion that is currently underway is therefore not just a matter for the AAU and the IWW, but an international question. The developing revolutionary Council Movement in Europe must not leave this discussion unnoticed; it too has a say in it. That is why we, as the Groups of International Communists (Holland), are also taking part in this discussion.
To say it in advance: J. Wagner's articles have clearly shown that there can be no question of an organizational fusion of the IWW and the Council Movement. Their basic views are so far apart that we can only speak of a superficial agreement.
So although we do not agree with the views of the IWW, one should not conclude from this that we are hostile to the “Wobblies”5 . On the contrary, we know that whatever revolutionary forces exist in America, they are concentrated in the IWW, and that the struggle for a new world order is being waged not only in words, but in deed and with full dedication as an ideal. In order to familiarize the Dutch comrades with the IWW, we translated its brochure “The IWW, what it is and what it is not” into Dutch and published it: in this publication we made the remark that we would not subscribe to the content and would go into the principles of the IWW when the opportunity arose. This has not yet happened because circumstances did not directly force us to do so. But the “unification debates” that have now begun have brought the principles of the IWW into the field of practical politics, and now we must give an account of the differences that exist between the revolutionary labor movement in America (IWW) and in Europe (Council Movement). The purpose of the following articles is therefore not to prove the correctness of our standpoint, but no more than to contrast the different views.
Structure and Objective
One of the differences between the IWW and the Council Movement that is immediately apparent is the difference in the form of organization. As Wagner has already explained, the councils were made up of representatives of the various enterprises, without taking into account the industry to which these enterprises belonged. They thus form a local workers' council, while the councils from the various cities were combined into district workers' councils. The district workers' councils then join together to form councils for the country. So there is no question of an organization by industry, as the IWW knows it.
The IWW finds this structure incomprehensible and stupid. What are these Company Organizations — loosely connected in the AAU, where absolutely no account is kept with industry — supposed to be able to do against powerful industrial capital? Does it not speak for itself that the steel trust, for example, can only be fought if the workers in the steel industry are firmly united as workers in the steel industry? How is it possible that the revolutionary workers in Europe cannot see such a simple truth? Why do they not follow our example? And form a strong weapon against the organized industrial barons through industrial organizations?
Although it may seem that this is an organizational question of the second order, it is not. On the contrary, it shows that the IWW and the Council Movement are completely at odds in their views on the class struggle.
The working class creates a tool, an organ, the organization, for its struggle. The tool, the organization, must of course be adapted to the task, its structure, its inner construction must be in accordance with the goal that is to be achieved. The structure is the visible manifestation of the objective of the fighting workers and their conception of the class struggle. The fact that the IWW and the AAU represent different forms of organization therefore says nothing other than that these conceptions are fundamentally different. In our further investigations we will see that this is indeed the case.
The real difference between the IWW and the Council Movement is therefore rooted much deeper than in the outward appearance of the various organizations. And when the IWW demands that the Council Movement change its organizational structure and transform itself into an industrial organization, it is actually demanding much more than an organizational restructuring: it is demanding a total revision of the objectives of the Council Movement.
II.
Structure and Objectives of the IWW
In the IWW, the connection between the structure of the organization and its goal is very clear. If the IWW is to be believed, then things are so simple that every worker can grasp them directly. “The worker does not need to know how to write essays on the class struggle,” Wagner says correctly. According to the IWW, it is enough for the worker to know that the level of wages depends on the power that the working class develops in the wage struggle. That is why the slogan is: organize yourself, then we can dictate wages with one hundred percent organization and revolutionary class struggle. According to the IWW, the working class has it completely in its hands to use the wage struggle to continually curtail the surplus value that is currently appropriated by the propertied class in order to eventually reduce it to zero. Wagner formulates this as follows:
“Surplus value: the source of capitalist wealth and capitalist exploitation, says Marx. And the IWW acts accordingly. It attacks capitalism at its root, it does not recognize the capitalists' right to this surplus value. Marx goes on to say that neither surplus value nor wages are fixed crystals, determined once and forever, but that they can be more or less, depending on the relationship between the forces of the two opposing forces in the class struggle. If the workers are weak and unorganized, surplus value grows and wages fall, while surplus value falls and wages rise (real wages) if the workers are organized and able to develop their own power vis-à-vis capitalist power. This is why the IWW says that the workers must organize enough power with the goal: to push surplus value down to the lowest possible minimum, to zero. When that is achieved, there is no more capitalism and there are no more classes.” (Ind. Sol. No. 617).
This is why the IWW rejects any political action. In its view, the economic struggle for the continuous improvement of working conditions is sufficient to achieve communism. But in this economic struggle, it will stop at nothing. And when the political power of the state and the mercenary gang of the owners try to crush the workers, the “Industrial Workers of the World” show an invincible spirit of resistance. But they reject an organized, armed defence for practical reasons, because they can never stand up against the military force of the owners. Tough resistance, despite deaths and prison sentences, is the watchword, and if it is possible, spread the strike to other industries. And it has to be said: The Wobblies have shown us various brilliant examples of how they knew how to resist the capitalist powers and knew how to win because the prisons were ultimately too small. (The campaign for the “right to the streets”).
The aforementioned wage theory is the cornerstone of the IWW. And that is why it speaks for itself that it is structured according to industries. Working conditions must be improved industry by industry, and therefore the organization must also be structured according to industries. The connection between the structure and the construction of the organization is in accordance with its task, with its function. The organization is perfectly adapted to the purpose it serves.
Structure and Objective of the Council Movement
The relationship between structure and goal is just as clear in the Council Movement as it is in the IWW. At least for workers in Europe. It may not be as clear for American workers because the Council Movement grew out of the practice of revolution... and American workers have not yet been in a revolution.
The Council Movement is not a “child of war”, as Wagner says, but a “child of the revolution”. When the revolution broke out in Germany in November 1918, the entire country was covered with workers' councils within a few weeks, which were then combined to form local and regional councils. With regard to this formation of councils, we must bear in mind above all that they were not the result of propaganda for new forms of organization. Although the Russian workers had seized power through the councils in November 1917, this fact was virtually unknown to the mass of German workers due to strict military censorship. That the German workers, without being familiar with the Soviet System, nevertheless followed in the footsteps of the Russian workers means nothing more and nothing less than that it was the “natural” form of organization of the workers in the struggle for the destruction of capitalism. We are convinced that it will be the same in America. The IWW will find this out very soon, when the masses themselves start to move across the board in America, that is, when a revolution breaks out.
Because what is a “revolution”? It is nothing other than the broad masses themselves actively intervening in social, economic and political life.
Psychic forces are roaring everywhere and spontaneously formed organizations are breaking through. Just as this self-activity ebbs away, just as the masses once again transfer the perception of their interests to “representatives”, the revolution is over.
This mass activity is of course particularly dangerous for the ruling class, which is why it intervenes as soon as it reveals itself. If the action has its starting point in the economic sphere, it is supposedly pushed into the political sphere by the power apparatus of the bourgeoisie. This forces the masses, whether they want to or not, to direct their forces against the state in order to destroy it. In the struggle, the masses are thus radicalized, and the further course of the struggle leads to the denial of the original starting points of the struggle.
The German revolution has shown us how the destruction of the capitalist state takes place. In order to set power against power, the workers were forced to occupy the large enterprises as strategic points in the class war. The occupation of the factories in Germany did not yet have the character of the abolition of private property; for the time being it was nothing more than a measure in the class war.
There could only be talk of abolishing private property, of continuing production under the management of the workers themselves, when the political power of the bourgeoisie had been broken, when the means of power of the capitalist state (and thus this state itself) had been destroyed. But it did not come to that: The workers were defeated.
It is therefore no coincidence that the workers did not form an industrial organization. It was also prevented [by] the political party (KAPD), as Wagner believes. The form of the council organization was determined by the preconditions imposed by the destruction of the capitalist state. The workers were forced to act as a class against the bourgeoisie, regardless of which industry they belonged to. That is why the structure of the Council Movement is in accordance with the goal. The events in Germany have shown in practice that the first principle of the proletarian revolution is the conquest of political economic and political power. They are inseparable, they are two sides of the same thing. When we have occupied the factories, we cannot use this economic power if we have not destroyed the proletarian [political] power of the bourgeoisie. And we cannot destroy the political power of the bourgeoisie if we do not have the factories in our hands. It is not good to conceal this disagreement with the IWW, which wants nothing to do with the conquest of political power.
Party and Council Movement
The conquest of political and economic power by the councils prompts us to say a few words about the role of the political party of the revolution. There is still no unified view on this question in the Council Movement, so we will only speak of the position taken on this question by the AAU and the Group of International Communists of Holland. Briefly summarized, it is that the Council Movement must be completely free of any political party and that political and economic power is exercised by the councils.
Without doubt, there will always be parties. The different parties are then the expression of the fact that different views on the implementation of communism arise within the working class. Now, the IWW may well assume that it has such a complete program that no difference in views is possible, but there will still be sizable groups of workers in America who have a different view of how communism should be implemented in a revolution. These, of course, will form a party (whether inside or outside the IWW, that is beside the point) to lead the struggle against what they believe to be the wrong views of the IWW. And if we are not mistaken, these differences of opinion are already present in the IWW today. The IWW includes at least syndicalists, Marxists, anarchists and probably others. The fact that all these groups can unite under the same IWW program only means that the IWW has not yet confronted the problems of social revolution.
So if we believe that there will be different parties in the revolution, we also believe that the councils should not give these parties any influence over their organization. The proletarian parties can lead the propaganda for their views, even in the revolution, independently of the council organization. The council organizations will determine their positions on questions of communism independently of the parties.
Can the AAUD be trusted on this point?
Unfortunately, Wagner believes that the AAUD cannot be trusted on this point, having closely scrutinized — what he believes is — a letter that Comrade Mattick addressed to an AAUD conference. In this letter, Mattick allegedly explained how a small group in Chicago was working to transform the IWW into a communist labor party. Wagner translated part of the letter in question, and yes, he found the clue! And instead of the AAUD speaking out against these attacks on the IWW, they didn't protest at all. According to Wagner, this clearly showed that a fox loses its hair, but not its tricks, and that the AAUD is in fact still maintaining the old party position.
When we read Wagner's translation, we immediately said: “That can't be right.” We know Mattick's opinion on this point too well to think it is possible that he should have said such nonsense. That's why we took note of the original script with the German text... and found that Wagner misread the whole piece... and therefore misinterpreted it. It is not true that the IWW is to be transformed into a KAP. It just says that various workers in Chicago want to try to form a nucleus that hopes to later give the IWW the character of the AAUD. And further, this nucleus will try to form a KAP in America. That's all the letter said, and it's very different from what Wagner reads.
What character does this [group] want to give the IWW? What is the character of the AAUD? It is the principle that the conquest of political AND economic power are inextricably linked and that the workers must occupy the positions of political power in the revolution. This group is convinced that the current purely economic orientation of the IWW, culminating in the IWW theory of wages, leads to a dead end. It obviously believes that the IWW as it is today is not up to the problems of the revolution, so that the revolution is outgrowing it. Essentially, everything revolves around the “revision” of the theory of wages, which the IWW believes comes from Marx, but which we believe completely contradicts the Marxist theory of value]. Now we do not want to argue at this point about whether the IWW's theory of wages is Marxist or not. Nor do we want to demonstrate the incorrectness of this theory. We simply want to point out that the Council Movement stands in direct opposition to these views. We reject the theory of wages, which is the cornerstone of the IWW, which determines its whole structure, which takes its views on the questions of the implementation of communism as a starting point. In our opinion, this theory of wages will lead the workers from defeat to defeat, and it will destroy the IWW if it does not abandon it soon.
III.
We are building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old one.
Finally, let us point out that the IWW wants to build the structure of the new society in the shell of the old, while the AAU has no such bold plans in its program; this is one of the basic principles of the IWW, as much as its creed; it is the short strong formulation by which it rallies the workers for communism; it is the central program point that is printed in every newspaper and is found in all articles and speeches. The IWW sees the formation of industrial organizations in all areas as an unavoidable precondition for the implementation of communism. Thus the IWW believes it can kill two birds with one stone: by uniting the workers in industrial organizations, they are a match for industrial capital, and at the same time they are building the organs that will continue production after the conquest of economic power.
It was actually quite superfluous for the IWW to include this point in its program. The fact is that every organization presumes to be called upon to take production into its own hands after the overcoming of capitalism. Every organization in the class struggle thinks that it is building the structure of the new society “in the womb of the old”. The fact that the different organizations have a different structure also expresses that they all have a different conception of the implementation of communism. The structure of an organization for practical class struggle and its conception of communism are directly related to each other. It is such a close relationship that one can deduce an organization's views on communism from its structure. In Europe, this phenomenon is very evident in the trade union movement (guild socialism and factory democracy) and also in the political parties (Moscow-type radical Social Democracy and the reformists of the Second International). The federal structure of the syndicalist trade unions also coincides with a conception of communism that gives it a distinctly federalist character. And that is why it was really superfluous to include this point in the IWW's program in particular. All so-called socialist or communist organizations believe that they are building the structure of the new society in the womb of the old. The Moscow communists, for example, intend to do this by creating a party with iron party discipline and “conquering” the trade unions. The party then becomes the core of the state apparatus under communism, while the trade unions must act as intermediaries between the workers and the state (the trade unions are to conclude collective labor contracts with the leaders of state enterprises). This is their view of building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old one.
So if the IWW has included this formulation in its program, this will not in itself make any difference to the Council Movement. It only depends on what the IWW understands by it. But it is precisely this more detailed explanation that forms a direct contrast to the views of the Council Movement. An organization with the views of the IWW in Europe would be fought here with all severity, because this view stands in sharp contrast to the revolutionary development in Europe.
The IWW does have the social revolution on its programme, but it makes it dependent on the organizational power of the IWW. It translates Marx's well-known statement that the new society is born in the womb of the old, in the sense that the working class builds up the apparatus over time in the organization of the IWW with which it can continue production. “Only when the proletariat has developed a form (meaning an organizational apparatus - GIC) that can take the interests of the people to heart will the social revolution become a fact of history.” (The IWW, what it is... page 29). As long as the IWW has not organized enough industries, there can be no question of a social revolution, “When the organized power of the proletariat becomes greater than the organized power of the other class, then the social revolution will come.” (25 Years... page 12)
The organization that is to bring about this organized power, which encompasses all workers, whatever work they do, is to be the “One Big Union”, the IWW. It is building its organization in such a way that, in its opinion, it can easily take over production from the companies.
To this end, the organization is grouped into six departments (for example, the departments of agriculture, transport, public enterprises, etc.), in which the associated industrial organizations are grouped together. The more industries the IWW is able to organize, the more complete it is in the departments.
If the majority of workers are finally united in this sense, then only the profit interests of entrepreneurs and capitalists stand in the way of the organic functioning of production. Therefore, at this stage of organic development a revolution is inevitable, for both in theory and in practice the IWW begins and ends with the idea that if the workers of the world control the industries of the world, they must own and control them.” (The IWW in Theory and Practice. page 5).
The IWW is therefore also an opponent of armed insurrection in the class struggle. It is convinced that it will never be a match for capital in military terms, which is why it leaves violence to the ruling class. But it never shies away from the machine guns and gas bombs of the bourgeoisie; it accepts them as the necessary “costs of war”. An unshakeable idealism gives the Wobblies the strength to calmly confront the murderous gangs of American capital unarmed. The victory of the working class is not the armed insurrection successfully carried out, but this victory, the social revolution, falls as a ripe fruit into the hands of the working class when the workers everywhere are united in industrial organizations. That is why the IWW sees the growth of the social revolution in the growth of its organizational apparatus. The wage struggle is the lifting tree of communism. The wage struggle should continue to attack surplus value so that it is brought to “zero”, while at the same time the struggle for control of production brings communism closer step by step. When we are organized, we, the working class, will have the power. With this power we will take back what is stolen from us. We will always demand more pay from our companies. We are always demanding and enforcing fewer working hours. If we enforce these demands, we reduce the profits of the employers. We take power away from them and gain it for ourselves. We become more and more disciplined and more and more self-confident.” (The revolutionary IWW, page 11)
“Industrial power is the irresistible force that will bring the IWW onto the plan of struggle. When the power of labor, which is necessary in every industry and in all industries, is controlled by an organization embracing all workers, whatever work they do, it will not only be possible but even certain that this control will be applied in the direction of the attainment of a higher standard of living, as milestones on the road to industrial freedom.” (The IWW, what it is, page 37)
In reality, “building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old” is a revolutionary process according to the IWW. We are slowly growing into communism. We are slowly hollowing out the fat cheese of surplus value from the inside, so that the shell will later be discarded as a superfluous thing, coveted by no one.
In the steady development towards communism, the IWW thus shows a wonderful agreement with the views of the reformist trade union movement in Europe. The difference between the two is that the trade union movement believes it can achieve this state through cooperation between capital and labor (collective labor contracts), while the IWW is aware that the growth process must irrevocably take place against capital. (An IWW organization in Montana was expelled as an organization from the IWW because it had signed a contract with the employers. See: The IWW in theory and practice, page 78).
It is obvious that the Council Movement cannot share this view of “building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old”. In our view, the emergence of a revolution is not tied to the “organized power” of the proletariat. Revolution knocks at the door of history when the illusion of democracy and improvements in living conditions within capitalism is broken and the continuing pressure on the masses has become so enormous that there is not the slightest hope of a way out. Then the physical tensions are discharged in self-activity, without first asking the headquarters of the IWW Chicago or even in Berlin: Are you ready with your industrial organizations?
Experience has taught us that the masses only organize themselves in the revolution, but not according to the principles of industrial organization. And that is why the Council Movement cannot recognize the preamble (declaration of principles) of the IWW: Not because of what it says, but because of the more detailed explanation as laid down in the writings of the IWW.
The Council Movement and Communism
How does the Council Movement view the implementation of communism? Can its view of communism be deduced from the structure of the Council Movement? That is certainly the case. It is true that it does not build the new society in the bosom of the old, it is true that it builds its apparatus in reality only in the revolution, but nevertheless its views are determined by its views [on] its structure, because we are of the opinion that factory life continues under the administration of the factory organization.
It is actually not quite correct to speak of the views on communism in the Council Movement. Their views do not go beyond the slogan: “Take the forces of production into your own hands through the factory organizations.” It speaks of the abolition of wage labor, but it does not say how this is to be done, it does not say what conditions are attached to it. In other words, it has no idea of the laws of movement of communist factory life. The French comrades seem to go a step further by demanding the abolition of wage labor through the abolition of the market and money, while factory life should take place “without the compulsion to work”. But this is only seemingly a step further, because it only indicates how it should not be, without a market, without money and no compulsion to work. But we can do very little with this, because we need to know how it should be. On this question the council organizations are silent in all languages, which says no more than that in reality they have no idea of the concrete task of the social revolution.
This is of course an untenable position for a movement that has written the implementation of communism on its banner. The Council Movement calls on the workers to destroy the wage system, but it has no idea of the conditions involved. Part of the Council Movement is well aware of this lack, while another part is of the opinion that this will find itself. Wagner's words are in the right place here: “The AAU is moving, but it doesn't know where.” It doesn't know where to go because “things always find themselves”. However, this does not always mean that the path found leads to communism. Russia has provided an excellent example of a situation in which private ownership of the means of production in industry has been abolished, while the workers have remained wage laborers. That is why two sides of the Council Movement have attempted to present a clear, concrete program to the masses, so that we can say: Here you have our views on communism. And this is how we must implement it. One attempt was made by the AAU (Frankfurt) with the publication of the pamphlet “From Manifesto to Law”. The other attempt was made by the “Group of International Communists (Holland)”, which clarified its view in the “Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution”.
So far, these attempts have not led to a unified view. However, the Council Movement is in a more favourable position than the IWW with regard to the implementation of the social revolution, because the Council Movement leaves room for the development of the self-activity of the masses, whereas the IWW wants to press them into its organizational apparatus. Of course, this must end in a fiasco. What is important is to organize and direct these psychic forces and give them the same direction. However, order is not primarily an organizational matter, but of an economic nature. This order comes about through the introduction of general rules for production, according to which the workers can manage and administer the factories independently. This means that all workers participate in factory life under the same economic conditions and thus become equal producers. At the same time, the Council Movement must provide general rules for consumption, i.e. it must implement working time as a yardstick for individual consumption. In this way, everyone will participate in consumption under the same conditions, i.e. the workers will also be equal as consumers.
On this basis, the workers can manage the enterprises independently and are then free producers, while the links that enterprises create among themselves lead to the “association of free and equal producers”.
Postscript
Comrades of the IWW and AAUD.
It is clear from the above series of articles that the Groups of the International Communists (Holland) are of the opinion that the views of the IWW and the AAUD regarding the social revolution diverge to such an extent that there can be no question of an organizational fusion. But even if we differ in our basic views, we are not enemies. That is why, at this stage, we are dependent on “marching separately” and acting together where possible. The practice of the international class struggle must bring about the formation of unity.
Attachments
IWW Critique.pdf
(208.05 KB)
Comments