THE question "What is industrial unionism?" may be said to be, in its essence, the most important of social questions. For industrial unionism is, in its final analysis, a method of social reconstruction. It is a means by which the basic activities of society may be continued when capitalism shall have been overthrown by its own failures and class conflicts. Industrial unionism seeks to inaugurate a system of industrial democracy in place of capitalist autocracy and control when capitalism shall have demonstrated its own impossibility. Industrial unionism is constructive unionism, taking the place of self-destructive capitalism.

Industrial unionism is the highest development in unionism. It seeks to organize the worker according to industry, instead of trades, not only for the everyday conflict for more wages and less hours with employers, but also for the day surely coming when capitalism shall have outgrown its usefulness and must be supplanted by a system of greater stability and value to society as a whole. Industrial unionism is far-sighted unionism. It is social unionism.

Industrial unionism not only seeks greater unity among the workers, but believes that the abolition of craft lines in industry compels such unity. It views industry, 1n0t as a collection of trades with separate interests but as a series of continuous activities that tend to a general standard and are more affected by general conditions that permit of general movements.

How Craft Lines Disappear.

In the metal and machine industry large subdivisions of labor, formerly called, trades, are now classified on a uniform hour pay basis, and have their wages determined in arbitration proceedings by the rise in the cost of living, instead of their craft skill as formerly. In the transportation industry, to cite still another instance, the four large brotherhoods combine together to wage the 8 hour fight and to secure wage classifications that are of a general character. It is this tendency to put hours and wages on a general basis that makes industrial unionism both possible and necessary, and that also makes of industrial unionism large scale unionism, instead of the petty scale unionism, required by the trades 50 years ago.

Industrial unionism is alive not only to the general tendency to wipe out trade lines in industry, but also to the very close relation that exists between all industries. Industrial unionism, for instance, recognizes the close relationship that exists between the textile industry, in which the raw material for articles of wear is made, and the clothing industry, in which this raw material is made into the finished products. Industrial unionism recognizes the fact that these two industries practically form one whole industry, and organizes them accordingly. Industrial unionism embraces, accordingly, not only all the so-called trades in an industry, but all the industries engaged in the production and distribution of commodities. It is one big union of all industrial workers.

Interrelationship of Industries.

Industrial unionism, further, recognizes not only the very close relationship that exists between industries, but so also the financial ties that bind them still more closely together. In the clothing industry, for instance, it recognizes that woolen trust capital is invested in large establishments, and governs it self accordingly. Industrial unionism is alive to the fact that such is the interrelationship of all industries that the capital invested in them must become interrelated, too. That capitalism is in fact, one big combination of capital and capitalists, because industry itself is one big combination of activities, created by man's necessity to feed, clothe and shelter himself, and not by the alleged superior ability of the capitalist class. And thus it comes that industrial union organizes all industries together in one big union just as capitalism binds them together in one big combination for capitalist profit. Industrial unionism is parallel unionism, growing out of capitalist combination and living side by side with it.

International Unionism.

Industrial unionism arises out of and is modelled after modern capitalism. Unlike trade unionism, it is not born of the capitalism of 50 years ago. Industrial unionism recognizes that capitalism is not only interindustrial, so to speak, but also international. That just as it binds industries together by means of machine processes and financial investments, so also does capitalism tend to bind nations together. Industrial unionism follows the same trend. It too is not only interindustrial but also international. Industrial unionism seeks to organize the industrial workers of the world just as capitalism seeks to exploit them. Industrial unionism is spreading wherever international capitalism exists. Like international capitalism industrial unionism knows no boundaries, color, race, creed or sex. As international capitalism knows only profit, industrial unionism knows only the industrial exploitation by which profit is possible. Industrial unionism organizes to make industrial exploitation an impossibility. And capitalism is its most valued assistant.

Industry the Basis of Society.

Industrial unionism believes that industry, in its broadest economic sense, is the basis of society. We work in and are dependent for our very lives, art, culture, law and institutions of all kinds, on in- [here some text is missing from the original] dustry ceases, society closes. Every snow storm that ties up industry, every general strike, every shock of war, that paralizes and destroys industry, proves the depedence of all society on industry. President Wilson, when appealing to the A. F. of L. convention, declared that winning the war was impossible without the aid of labor. So that even international issues and the state depend on industry. Without industry, without the active cooperative labor of millions of men, women, and children, the state is unable to generate the force on which its very existence depends. Recognizing the dependence of society and the state on industry, industrial unionism urges the workers to organize industrially so that both society and the state may become so transformed as to lead to the greater freedom and progress of the race. Industrial unionism holds to the belief that he who controls industry, controls the means, not only by which peoples live, but also by which their interests and ideals are protected and advanced. To get control of industry for the benefit of mankind instead of capitalism is the object of industrial unionism.

The Wide Scope of Industrial Unionism.

Industrial unionism is not merely unionism in the old sense of getting more wages, less hours and better conditions, but also in the sense of getting more social power and a more perfect social status for the workers. It is a means of solving social problems for the workers, and of making the workers themselves representative of a new society working for the good of all and the profit of none. Industrial unionism, through its social vision, tends to make the workers more intelligent in the grasp of conditions. It tends, in its practical outworkings, to make them more self-reliant and competent to run affairs for themselves instead of for others. Industrial unionism, in scope and plan, fits the workers for the cooperative management of society. Industrial unionism is industrial democracy in the making.

Industrial Unionism is Industrial Democracy.

Industrial unionism is the great foe of capitalist materialism, with its degradation and destruction of manhood. Industrial unionism is the social idealism of the workers operating through industrial means to insure their own free development, and through that development, their own liberation—the liberation of society, for the workers are society, in fact and numbers. The capitalists are a class, a useless, dangerous, parasitic minority that can be dispensed with. Industrial unionism is unionism of the workers according to industry and for the advancement and emancipation of society, through their own intelligence and efforts. Industrial unionism is non-bureaucratic. It is non-autocratic. It is non-capitalistic. Industrial unionism is industrial democracy, by, for and of the workers, first, last and all the time.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield. Taken from page no longer on iww.org but found on archive.org

YOU have all heard of it. The great events in the Socialist Party. The average S.P. man thinks that the world has nothing else to talk about. We mean the expulsion of the “Left Wingers” from the Socialist Party, 40,000 of them it is said, comprising the Slavic language federations as well as 3,000 mixed members in Michigan.

The cause of expulsion was the advocacy of “mass action” and the consequent fear of the conservative officials of the Party “that the left wingers would bring them all in jail.” (Perhaps also a fear that they would lose their jobs.)

So there they stand, the mass actionists, isolated from political mass action. The majority of them endorse “industrial organization,” but so far there has been no violent rush for membership in any existing industrial organization nor any attempt to form a new body.

Numerous left wingers are taking a friendly attitude towards the I.W.W., but it generally stops with the attitude. The endorsement of industrial unionism is more to be considered as a plank in their political platform.

In view of this “endorsement” a number of them seem to be mildly surprised at the I.W.W. for not doing them the same favor back, i.e. of endorsing Left Wing politics. The idea of barter and compromise in inherent in all political movements.

This expectation of the Left Wingers shows that they have not studied and understood the I.W.W.

Ever since 1908–that is for 11 years– I.W.W. has been non-political. To become a member it is not necessary to abjure politics. In fact that question is never raised. Members can vote for any party they please. But the program of the I.W.W. is such that it leaves no room for political action, and a member who has fully understood our philosophy is not a political worker.

Our program is to create a new society by organizing the workers in industrial unions, by means of which they can take over production and distribution, thus abolishing private ownership. We have dropped everything else and centered our activity on this point. As a matter of fact there is no difference of opinion on that score in the I.W.W.

If you go out among the agricultural workers, the construction workers, the lumber workers, the miners, the marine transport workers, the metal and machinery workers, etc., who form the majority of the I.W.W., you will find that they will not for a moment countenance political agitation among the members or by any of the representatives of the organization. We simply are not in that line of business.

The 11th General Convention just closed, again unanimously went on record endorsing this stand. We continue to be non-political.

The left winger pleads in vain for a compromise that would let him into the I.W.W. on his present program of mixed political and industrial “mass-action.” The only kind of mass action the I.W.W. action, as specified in its preamble and literature endorses is industrially organized mass-action.

A considerable part of the left wingers are not wage workers. These we cannot absorb. Another large body is working in industries that we have not so far been able to organize. If they want to become I.W.W. members they would have to organize unions of those industries in accordance with our program. The others would have to enter as individuals the unions they properly belong to.

Where there is not a sufficient number to organize an industrial union, they can organize themselves into locals of the General Recruiting Union of the I.W.W.

But in neither case could they be admitted with any understanding about endorsement of their political program.

The left wingers are repeating the pretended concern of their leaders that the I.W.W. by excluding political activity has made no provision for the actual taking over of the industries.

We hold on the other hand that this “concern” is uncalled for. We are very much in the same position as the chicken in the shell or the embryo of any animal in its mother’s womb.

When the chicken is ready, on the 21st day, he just picks a hole in the shell by his own inherent power. No external help, no “political action” is needed to release him. His own life force is sufficient. The same with the calf or the colt about to be born. When it is ready, the very bones of the mother relax to let it pass into independent life.

So it will be with the taking over of the means of production. When the working class organization is ready to take over society, the taking over will be a perfectly natural process. To attempt the taking over before that time thru “mass action” would be equal to social abortion, which would either result in disaster or require some sort of social baby incubator to raise the prematurely born child.

Go ahead and organize industrially. That is the advice we have for the now homeless left winger. The “taking over” will take care of itself when that time comes.

Transcribed by Revolution’s Newstand

“A good soldier never looks behind him,” is an old saying. However it might not be amiss to throw a glance backwards over the life of the I. W. W. in the year of 1919.

The year of 1919 has for the I. W. W. been a year of open class warfare from the beginning to the end. The life of the I. W. W. has been a continuous battle from its very inception for that matter. We have never been allowed to sit down and rest for the last 14 years, but in the year of 1919 are crowded more of startling and important events than during any previous year of its existence.

As the ability to give battle to an enemy is a sign of strong life, we are justified in concluding that the I. W. W. never was stronger than in this year.

“The I. W. W. is dead,” “the I. W. W. is crushed,” is the howl that our enemies have raised time and again. They are raising the same howl now, but with the knowledge we have of the foundations upon which the I. W. W. is built, we can assure our enemies, that at the end of next year we shall have a story of much fiercer struggle and of much stronger life to tell.

The concrete signs of the activities of the I. W. W. during the past year may be divided in internal organization work, educational work, the economic struggles, the judicial defense work, all of it carried on under the most severe persecution, official and unofficial.

The Internal Organization Work

One sure sign of vigorous life is the necessity of holding conventions and the ability to hold them. The I. W. W. has held many conventions this year. There was the general convention that met on May 5 in Chicago, lasting for 11 days, and resulting in an immense lot of work being done. In addition there was a convention of Lumber Workers in Tacoma March 2 and in St. Regis, Mont., in the fall; a convention of Agricultural Workers in Sioux City, April 21; a convention of Metal and Machinery Workers in Cleveland, April 15-16; a convention of Construction Workers in Chicago April 24; a convention of Marine Transport Workers in Philadelphia May 24-29; a convention of Agricultural Workers in Sioux City, Nov. 3, and several other conferences.

The I. W. W. emerges out of the battle of 1919 with 21 Industrial Unions, three new ones having been added during the year, namely No. 1200, 1300 and 1500.

Its present structure is as follows:

Marine Transport Workers’ Industrial Union No. 8.
Bakery Workers’ Industrial Union No. 46.
Metal and Machinery Workers’ Industrial Union No. 300.
Shipbuilders’ Industrial Union No. 325.
Agricultural Workers’ Industrial Union No. 400.
Fishermens’ Industrial Union No. 448.
Oil Workers’ Industrial Union No. 450.
Rubber Workers’ Industrial Union No. 470.
Furniture Workers’ Industrial Union No. 480.
Lumber Workers’ Industrial Union No. 500.
Construction Workers’ Industrial Union No. 5738.
Railroad Workers’ Industrial Union No. 600.
Shoe Workers’ Industrial Union No. 620.
Metal Mine Workers’ Industrial Union No. 800.
Coal Miners’ Industrial Union No. 900.
The Textile Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1000.
Hotel, Restaurant and Domestic Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1100.
Printing and Publishing Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1200.
General Distribution Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1300.
Foodstuff Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1500.

In round numbers 50,000 new membership cards have been issued, but, due to the severe persecution, the growth in membership has not been startlingly large. In this connection may be added that our organization spontaneously is spreading to other countries, making it necessary to maintain offices in foreign ports or leading to direct co-operation with workers in foreign countries.

Our international connections during the year have assumed very promising proportions. Our ideas and our program are being to a greater or less extent endorsed and adopted by the workers of Russia, England, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Mexico, South America, etc., not to speak of Canada and Australia, where the One Big Union movement has got considerable headway. The I. W. W. is at present better buttressed up internationally than ever before.

One of the most important tasks of the coming year will be to further develop international co-operation and organization.

The General Executive Board of the I. W. W. has adopted a recommendation for the joining of the “Third International.” This has, however, never been acted upon by the convention, and as the third international is largely a political one, more or less sincerely endorsing industrial unionism, the probabilities are that a purely industrial international will develop out of these international connections in the near future.

The I. W. W. is neither asleep nor dead. It is right now about to engulf the whole world. In fact, the world is just beginning to discover that its only salvation from economic destruction lies in the I. W. W. program, which calls for the turning over of production and distribution to the people, organized industrially. These are facts. Do not be deceived by false reports or obituary notices in the kept press.

The Educational Work.

The educational work of the I. W. W. during 1919 is to a large extent depicted on the last two pages of the One Big Union Monthly, in the advertisements of its publications. From these it appears that the I. W. W. publications now number 22 as against 7 at the beginning of the year. Not the least important of these additions is The One Big Union Monthly.

Considering the rough treatment usually accorded to I. W. W. editors, which treatment tends to keep all but “rough-necks” away from us, it is undeniable that the I. W. W. has done very well in this line during 1919.

The list of books and pamphlets is long enough, but it is not what we wish it to be. For lack of financial resources we are at present holding back the publication of “The I. W. W. Handbook,” by Justus Ebert, a very important book, designed as an introduction to a series of handbooks for all industries under the comprehensive name of an “Industrial Encyclopedia.” The Agricultural Workers donated $500 for the latter work at their last convention, and as time goes on the General Office will be able to take it up.

The educational work of the I. W. W. is bearing fruit, as witness the endorsement of our principles by workers all over the world.

As for the results of this work inside the borders of the U. S. we have every reason to be gratified, considering the obstacles we meet. During the year the political socialist movement has gone to pieces, resulting in 3 factions, all of which embrace industrial unionism more or less devoutly, or rather adding it to their arsenal of weapons for capturing political power. As a result of our activities the One Big Union idea has been adopted by the advanced elements among the Negro workers of the country in the course of this year, and as for the A. F. of L., it is cracking all over as a result of the educational work carried on through our press and our books and through the spoken word of our orators, delegates and individual members.

Has there been progress during the year? We should smile! For corroboration of this statement we refer to the “patriotic” leagues and the “American Legion.”

In this connection let us call attention to another feature of our educational propaganda. We have to acknowledge the great assistance given us by the kept press. Through the most lurid misstatements about us they have called the attention of millions to our existence. It is from these deceived, and later undeceived, readers of the kept press that our ranks are recruited, and it is among them that the number of our friends and sympathizers is increasing by the millions.

The Battles of 1919.

During the past year the I. W. W. has conducted several strikes and taken part in several others.

The great general strike in Seattle, which began Jan. 21, was in the capitalist press called an I. W. W. affair, and 31 of our members were later arrested for “criminal anarchy” in connection therewith. But the strike was essentially an A. F. of L. affair with I. W. W. co-operation.

Then there was the great strike in Butte and other Montana cities. This strike was conducted by the I. W. W.

Both of these strikes were of sufficient size and importance to deserve a permanent place in the records of labor’s struggles together with the almost contemporaneous general strikes in Belfast and Winnipeg. All of them were “lost,” if it may be said that a strike is ever lost. Strikes are really the Chautauqua courses of the workers.

Next the Textile Workers were engaged in a big strike for the 44-hour week. The strike was a long one and a bitter one. Through A. F. of L. treason the workers lost, but what they gained in knowledge was worth much more than any concessions would have been.

The Furniture Workers next went on strike, on April 1. They wanted the 8-hour day and increased pay, and staid out for over two months, but did not get it. Still they gained some concessions. The importance of this strike is, that it has aroused a group of workers that seemed almost lost to the cause of the workers.

The I. W. W. Lumber Workers won a strike in the Fortine District in the Northwest in short order. It was a strike for 8 hours and $5 a day. In the fall they have practiced the intermittent strike in the Northwest against an increase in charges, etc., with varying success.

To us the strike is an educational asset, which acts as an auxiliary to our propaganda by word of mouth and writing, much as an excursion to the meadows is an auxiliary to the teacher of botany.

What with the other tremendous strikes of the year, the stockyards’ strike, the railwaymen’s strike, the steel strike and the coal strike and the printers’ strike, this has been a prosperous year for those who rejoice in the awakening of the masses. All these workers have learnt much themselves that they did not understand before, and all other workers have learnt an immense lot by merely observing the strikes.

All hail those strikers, whether I. W. W. or not! They are breaking ground for a complete industrial organization.

The Business Affairs of the I. W. W.

The financial condition of the I. W. W. at the end of 1919 is far from good. The general office has about half a million dollars to its credit with the industrial unions, but not a cent in the treasury. On the contrary, the general office has a deficit of nearly $10,000. This deficit is partly due to the purchase of a new printing press for $5,000 and of a new linotype machine for about $4,000, as well as a large stock of printing paper; also to the printing of a large stock of literature. But this unfortunate state of affairs is mostly due to the slowness of the industrial unions in paying for supplies and stamps, the money having been used for the purposes of organization expenses instead of for payment of bills. Unless this matter is quickly attended to by the unions through immediate payment of all bills and a forced sale of the organization stamp of $1.00, there is apt to be a real obituary notice in the kept press one of these days, stating: “I. W. W. is dead. General office is bankrupt. Doors closed. Rats are leaving the sinking ship.”

As a matter of fact we know that it is enough to call the membership’s attention to this matter in order to have it remedied. For the future great care should be taken that the experience is not repeated. By crippling the general office members stop the educational work of the organization and bring organization to a standstill.

We are confident that the coming year will see these shortcomings corrected. They are partly due to the numerous raids and arrests which have a tendency to upset the work as well as the inexperience of the members. In the future we are better prepared for such experiences.

So much for the positive and constructive work carried on by the I. W. W. during the year of 1919.

We now come to another chapter of our activity, which does not properly belong to the domain of an organization which proposes to organize the workers into industrial unions, but which has been forced upon us, and at the present moment is assuming tremendous proportions, namely the persecution and all that is connected with it. The Persecution Against the I. W. W. and the Legal Defense Work

The persecution against the I. W. W. has reached enormous’ proportions during 1919, and is at an unprecedented height at the closing of the year.

This persecution can all be traced to a common source, i.e., the machinations of the capitalist class for a plutocratic dictatorship, but in its exterior manifestation it has a two-fold character: the “‘legal”’ persecution and the extra-legal persecution. We will take up the extra legal persecution first, the one that is not camouflaged with the insignia of law and order.

The Extra Legal Prosecution

The extra legal persecution has been in the making for years past, but it is only during the last year that it has sprung into full bloom and dared to claim for itself a semblance of moral justification.

It is manifold in its nature, but the forces participating in it are Wall street, general director and provocateur and secret government of U. S.

The kept press.
The “high tone” clubs.
The “patriotic” societies.
The American Legion.
“Citizens” leagues.
Chambers of commerce and other profiteers.
Priests and ministers.
Politicians.
“Detective agencies,” gunmen.
“The under world.”
Labor fakirs.
Knights of Columbus.
Stools, finks, and ignorant and deluded people generally.

It is a tremendous apparatus of iniquity, always operating under the cover of the stars and stripes. Its chief weapon is lies and misinformation about the I. W. W. This side of the campaign of persecution is attended to by the kept press, partly through warped news items, partly through venomous and “inspired” editorials, partly by flaring advertisements, which of late are to be found in all big capitalistic sheets. This feature alone must cost the promoters millions of dollars, but it is necessary in order to turn the masses of the people against us, and besides, there is more money where these millions come from, for more wealth is constantly created by the workers. Contemporaneously the promoters carry on an “educational” campaign through the patriotic societies, who approach the people with tens of millions of letters and pamphlets and support same with the hell-slush of blood thirsty orators or hired liars, sometimes with the additional aid of framed up films.

The miners in Park City, in Coeur d’Alene, in Tonopah and a dozen other places have also been striking, sometimes with winning, sometimes “losing.’’ But no matter what the outcome, the I. W. W. always is the winner, for the workers think and learn while they strike and rest. And when the worker begins to think he becomes an I. W. W.

The last strike of the year in which I. W. W. has taken part with any considerable numbers is the strike of the Marine Transport Workers of New York. The strike was “‘lost,’”’ but, as usually, the I. W. W. won, coming out with its membership trebled.

The moving picture theatres offer these campaigners a great possibility, that is taken advantage of to its full extent.

Ministers and politicians and thousands of other mental prostitutes repeat the slander and the lies and the provocatory rantings, each one to his little crowd, out of cowardice, greed or general cussedness.

Thus the people of the country are being incited against us by these “‘respectables,” and the fruit of it is now ripening and is being harvested. By patient work along this line they have brought it to the point where the public is about ready to condone any outrage against us, even if it is the most dastardly infraction of the law and the constitution of the country. Taking advantage of this artificial public opinion, created by the secret government, these spurious patriots don the U. S. uniform and raid our halls, wreck our pianos and_ typewriting machines, destroy our records and burn our literature, and finally club or murder our members and turn them over to the waiting police to be arrested for “trying to overthrow the U.S. government”. Thus is being gradually built up a dictatorship of the plutocracy and a reign of terror by its servants, designed to crush forever whatever democracy has hitherto existed in this country.

We have before us a list of the I. W. W. halls raided during the year of 1919 with particulars, but it would take up too much space to enumerate them. Be it enough to state that this extra-legal persecution is country-wide, and in some parts, as in the Northwest, it embraces every important city and town, and some that are not so important.

The Centralia affair, where 4 “American Legion” men were killed while in the process of raiding the I. W. W. hall, is a typical example. Here these “‘patriotic’ raiders, inspired by Wall street and more particularly by the lumber trust, lynched one I. W. W. member, an ex-soldier from overseas, Wesley Everest, and completely destroyed the hall, and afterwards established a complete reign of terror which still continues in full force.

Through the expenditure of millions of dollars for sinister purposes there has been created an artificial and hysteric public opinion which gives absolution in advance to brutal and rowdy elements who are being manipulated by the hired tools of the secret government for the purpose of extinguishing liberty and making all the people willing and submissive servants to the secret government. It has gone so far that people no longer dare speak their mind on any question for fear of being blackmailed, bullied, clubbed and persecuted by the crazy or malevolent ruffians, who, like the black hundreds of Russia, drape themselves in the flag of the country, in order to disguise their foul deeds against the workers.

It will take years for the American people to free themselves spiritually and socially from this extra-legal reign of terror and regain their balance of mind and freedom of thought, speech and action.

The Legal Persecution

The legal persecution may be traced to all the three branches of the government, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive, which all three are under the iron heel of the secret government. As far as the legislative branch is concerned, it has busied itself in a great number of states with the framing of “Anti-syndicalist” laws which on the surface are directed against certain acts of violence or conspiracy against the U. S. government. These laws are framed with the secret understanding that they are to serve against the I. W. W., the courts and the police being depended upon to conspire to bring us within that law. At the present time the congress has under consideration, it is said, 52 federal bills, all aiming at our extermination. It is in order to get a semblance of justification for such laws that all the rioting is being staged, all the perjury suborned, and all the lies in the press manufactured against us. The secret government is thus preparing to turn a dastardly trick on the American people, designed to throw them in the chains of brutal tyranny for generations.

The part of the judiciary in this legal persecution is to do the bidding of the secret government. The trials given our members are outrageous, scandalous and farcical, the judges in nearly every case being unreservedly partial to the prosecution, and, finally, imposing sentences which are plainly acts of oppression and not acts of justice,

The executive part of the persecution is openly in defiance of the law. Arrests, raids and seizures, are in most cases being done without a warrant, the raids generally being more like acts of warfare than peaceful acts of law and order. We call attention to the photo herewith of the raid of the I. W. W. hall in New York by a department of the police.

Another feature of this activity is the brutal treatment invariably accorded our members when they happen to come in the road of these executives of both the secret and the legal governments. Clubs and other weapons are used without provocation or cause, and thousands of our fellow workers have been seriously injured by these clubbings and large numbers have been taken to hospitals and have been seriously injured for life.

The latest instance is that of Fellow Workers Kohler, manager of our printing plant, and Cascaden, a newspaper man, who both were present at the recent trial in Kansas City, Kohler as a witness and Cascaden as our press correspondent. Both were foully dealt with. Kohler was taken by court officials to one side, right in the court house, and terribly beaten up. As for Cascaden, a city detective came up to his room and beat him up, breaking his leg, in the brutal assault. The latter assault is admitted by the police, but they falsely state in the papers that the detective ‘acted in self-defense.” Lies are used to bolster up a deed over which they and the other tools of tyranny are openly gloating.

These two instances could be multiplied by the thousands.

As a result of the co-operation between the legal and extra-legal persecution there are now about 2,000 I. W. W. men in jail, of whom several hundreds already are sentenced to terms of up to 20 years. The rest are being held as long as possible without trial, and all our prisoners are in most cases being tormented in a fiendish manner.

One feature of this persecution is the deportation of hundreds of our members. But as deportation alone has little terror, the members are wantonly and illegally being held in jails for months and years before deportation, in order to inflict punishment outside the pale of the law. In fact, the secret government is not anxious to deport the workers in mass. They want to keep them here, if possible, and crush them into willing slaves.

The Defense Work of the I. W. W.

Under these circumstances it is easy to understand that the defense work for the organization has assumed large proportions. The General Defense Committee was about to collapse under the burden of its tremendous task, when William D. Haywood was finally released on bail and put to work as secretary and later as treasurer of the General Defense Committee in Chicago. Special defense committees have been active in the Northwest and California. It has been the task of these committees to secure legal aid wherever possible, but we must admit that many fellow workers have been victimized by our fiendish enemies for lack of proper legal defense. However, many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised for bail, and a number of the imprisoned fellow workers have thus regained liberty, pending the appeal of their case. Tens of thousands of dollars have been raised for defense purposes, partly through subscription lists, partly through collections at meetings and partly through the sale of stamps to members. We have been put to the utmost to secure funds, and at the present time the means on hand are entirely inadequate, while many of our resources are being exhausted. Help is beginning to come from the workers in foreign countries, systematic agitation and collection being now carried on in Sweden and Norway and perhaps in some other countries, showing that international solidarity is something more than an empty phrase.

Protests from labor organizations are also pouring in from England and Holland and other countries.

However, in order to keep the defense work from breaking down entirely, the buying of defense stamps by members will have to be made our special order of business for a long time to come, not forgetting the organization stamp for the upkeep of the organization in these trying times.

Unless the defense funds are kept up our fellow workers will have to resort to the dismal tactics of “silent defense” used by our 50 fellow workers in Sacramento with disastrous results.

Such is the terrible, almost incredible story of the I. W. W. in 1919. Never in the history of the labor movement have the efforts of the workers to organize been met with such sufferings.

Freedom is dead in the United States at present and raw-boned tyrants rule.

But it is easy to understand that a society that can maintain itself only through such moral degradation cannot have many days to live. Some day the sufferings of the people will have reached a limit over which they cannot go. Then comes the dissolution like a cataclysm. We foresee this day and in order to save ourselves, our class, mankind generally and whatever is worth saving of our “‘civilization,’” we are against tremendous odds going ahead with the work of organizing the workers industrially, so that we may be able to continue production and distribution and keep society going.

That responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the working class.

Watch the I. W. W. in 1920! Our principles are immortal, and no human agency can destroy them, whatever they may try to do to our organization and our members.

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand

The great massacre that broke out in August 1914 on the European continent swept away all pretense and hypocrisy from the revolutionary labor movement. It produced the high treason of German Social Democracy and the connivance of French Syndicalism, as represented by its officialdom, to the shameful “union sacrée,” the emasculation of the working class for the benefit of its age-long enemy—the exploiters.

The war was a stunning blow to all revolutionary groups and only very few of the militants of the labor movement were immune to this scourge that raged and still rages in the ranks of the working class. The honor of revolutionary stability belongs to the Russian Bolsheviki and the Bulgarian revolutionary Socialists, “the narrow,” who as bodies can claim it. In Italy a more or less anomalous situation produced the “intransigency” of the “official socialists,” of whom only a small minority is revolutionary and class conscious. “The Italian Syndicalist Union,” a small body of insurgents from the conservative Confederazione del Lavoro, who separated themselves from it before the war, was also demoralized by the treason of its most able and prominent militants, Rossoni, De Ambris, Corridoni, Massoti, Maia, Bacchi and their followers.

This cleavage demonstrated clearly on whom the proletariat can rely in its arduous struggle; and the war, with all its monstrous consequences, has rendered us a great service, taught us a unique lesson: THAT WARS CANNOT BE PREVENTED UNTIL CAPITALISM IS DONE AWAY WITH and that the old slogan—the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves, must literally be carried out.

In the Confédération Générale du Travail confusion reigned supreme after the declaration of war. Its officials had attempted to secure a promise and definite engagement from Legien and the other leaders of the German Trade Unions for a general strike in case of war and were bitterly disappointed with the openly imperialistic attitude of those “Marxians.” To recite the story of Jouhaux’ speech on the grave of the assassinated Jaurés, the trip to Bordeaux in the ministerial train and the acceptance of the governmental office by him and his cohorts, will only add to the revolting memory of the past and our disillusionment.

However, there was one man, who formed a nucleus of tempered and tried militants, who held the torch of revolutionary syndicalism high above the foul breath of jingoism; who kept the red banner of the working class undefiled by the hands of Judas. And if France holds the record with Germany for having produced many Judases, it has the honor of having given birth to the first Liebknecht of the world, Pierre MONATTE. To him, Lenin and the Zimmerwald Conference paid tribute as the true son of the working class, who remained faithful to it and its traditions.

His bi-weekly little review “La Vie Ouvriére,” published for many years before the war, had in its folds the names, brains and hearts of the most brilliant fighters in the C. G. T. In its annals you will find the classic blow to the Taylor system, written by a powerful intellect of a simple working man, Albert MERRHEIM; the story of the life and work of the coal miners, brilliantly written, illustrated and full of statistics, by the pen of another working man, Georges DUMOULIN; the history, illustrated, of the heroic battle of the Cheminots (the railroad workers) in 1910; the famous accusation, which turned to be prophetic, against the German Social Democracy, by Andler, the thorough and scientific analysis of the “Imperialistic Tendencies in German Socialism,” which brought a shower of denunciations against Monatte, from the pen of Kautsky, Bebel and the now infamous Grumbach, “Homo,” who used to write for L’Humanité from Switzerland 1 ; the elaborate studies of syndicalist economics by Francis DELAISI.

In “La Vie Ouvriére” appeared the story of the General Strike in Belgium and many others, with spicy editorials, by Monatte’s faithful co-worker Alfred ROSMER; there the burning questions of education, carried on by syndicalist teachers, were directed by George AIRELLE, women in industry and what not. La Vie Ouvriére was the workshop where the very best of the syndicalist movement was extracted. It was a school for the young and old alike. And in that school Monatte was the teacher, humble, modest, a man that cannot be replaced.

When the bloody thing came, Monatte and “La Vie Ouvriére” remained the only oasis in the jingoistic maelstrom where the ideals and traditions of the Syndicalist movement were faithfully adhered to. At 96 Quai Jemmapes, its headquarters, gathered the remains of the once formidable organism, and now dispersed, revolutionary battalion. Here came even the Marxian Socialists Ferdinand LORIOT, LOUZON, Louise SAUMONEAU, and Leon TROTSKY. This group sent MERKHEIM and BOURDERON to Zimmerwald and published the now famous documents, “The Open Letters to the Subscribers of La Vie Ouvriére,” the work of Rosmer, Rakowsky’s biting pamphlet, the resolutions and proceedings of Zimmerwald, etc. They were printed by the great Metal Workers’ Federation, whose secretary was Merrheim, and which as a body opposed the war and issued the famous manifesto for May Day, 1915, calling: “Let us sabotage the war.”

Monatte was silenced. He was taken to the trenches, in the hope that a German bullet would put an end to such an obnoxious enemy of the capitalist regime. In the meantime, others took up the battle and the revolutionary workers were again solidifying their ranks. After the Russian Revolution of March, a wave of strike epidemy sapped the rear of the French army. Revolutionary demonstrations took place in Paris, St. Etienne, Lyons and other industrial centers. The red flags of the many thousands of girl strikers in Paris could not fail to infect the soldiers on leave, who now understood that the strikes were not treason against them, but that they were trying to end the bloody slaughter.

Mutinies happened at the front, in which 75 regiments of infantry, 22 battalions of chasseurs, 12 regiments of artillery, 2 regiments of colonials and other military detachments took part. These are the figures furnished by M. Gaston Bruyant, director of the Moral Service of the army headquarters. Then America came to the rescue of the French bourgeoisie. The revolution was averted.

Next May, 1918, we witness a still greater strike, that of the metal workers, and munition workers, of which 200,000 in Paris were out demanding the end of the war. But this time the French bankers and financiers found an ally in the face of Merrheim, the Zimmerwaldian, or as Lenin called him in his paper after that conference, “the symbol of the class struggle in France.” Merrheim assumed upon himself the role of saving the imperialists and war gods. He practically consented to the wholesale arrests made by the military, which included our valiant Fellow Worker Raymond Péricat, once secretary of the Building Workers’ Federation.

The revolutionary syndicalists then represented a formidable minority in many powerful unions, especially the metal workers, railroad workers and excavators. But these savage jailings and expeditions to the trenches of “undesirables,” weakened their ranks, especially after the shameful desertion of Merrheim and Dumoulin, who wielded a tremendous influence over the workers, thanks to their revolutionary past, Dumoulin having been 13 months in jail during the war, and Merrheim’s pilgrimage to Zimmerwald.

A few months later Péricat was released and so were many others who were arrested with him. He started his brilliant weekly “L’Internationale,” and it played the role of a magneto. In a few weeks again the shattered forces of revolutionary syndicalism were getting together. We must not omit to mention the splendid work of “Le Libertaire,”’ the anarchist organ of the revolutionary railroad workers, metal workers and excavators, whose four contributors served sentences in prison for clandestine issues of the paper during the great mutinies. Many of its collaborators are still in prison. That paper is one of the most influential weeklies in the country.

Few months after the armistice, Monatte was demobilized and on May Day this year, he again published “La Vie Ouvriére,” this time as a weekly paper. Two weeks later, the railroad workers’ federation, counting 245,000 workers, had its first convention since the beginning of the war and the revolutionary syndicalists, led by Monmousseau, Sirolle, Dejonkére, Midol (the man who called the one minute strike in January on the Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean Railway and was sentenced to one year in prison and immediately reprieved), scored a singular victory when 108,000 railroaders voted the revolutionary motion of Monmousseau, repudiating the officials and their collaboration with the government and masters, and calling for the abolition of the wage system.

Monmousseau is heart and soul with Monatte and contributes stirring articles to “La Vie Ouvriére.” Monatte and his nucleus of excellent organizers, orators and writers, started the big campaign for the coming conventions in September. The Metal Workers had their convention just before that of the Confederation of Labor, and here Monatte’s Fellow Workers Verdier, Coron, Vergeat, Andrieux scored a great success. One third of the unions completely repudiated Merrheim and Lenoir, their federal secretaries, and as Fellow Worker Coron says in “La Vie Ouvriére: “The vote of confidence to our officials was rather a vote of sympathy.” Sympathy and regret for their heroic past.

When the great confederal congress came in the middle of last September, the eyes of the French workers as well as capitalists were trained on Lyons, says “The Irish Statesman.” And it was true. Even Russia, struggling and bleeding for the world proletariat, was aware of this congress and sent its greetings to the assembled workers’ delegates, which was read by Fellow Worker Coron, and greeted lustily.

Over two thousand delegates, seated in the great hall of the Exposition in Lyons, were quite nervous and agitated over the plans and intentions of the formidable minority, which had called a whole day meeting of its ranks on the eve of the congress and decided on some method of procedure and systematic work.

MILLION opens the congress with a short historic sketch of the growth of the C. G. T. “In 1901 we were only a handful of militants meeting again in Lyons, in the Labor Exchange. Now we represent two million organized workers.” Then he pays tribute to the memory of PELLOUTIER, “the most representative man of French Syndicalism.” He examines the task of the congress and predicts many passionate and violent battles but counsels calm judgment so that positive results should come out of these deliberations.

The congress sends greetings to all peoples in revolution, to the military and political prisoners, and demands amnesty for all.

In the afternoon session the battle starts over the moral report of the confederal bureau. TOMMASI, the revolutionary delegate of the Aviation and Vehicle Workers, starts the fire. He is a young and powerful orator. Even the bourgeois press pays tribute to his able discourse. He denounces the members of the administrative council for their insidious manoeuvres during the fateful July 21 deliberation and the shameful abandonment of the Russian and Hungarian struggling workers. He says that the officials did not desire the strike and they sabotaged the rank and file by sending it off.

Jouhaux then announces that the congress will discuss the whole confederal politics during the war. Monatte demands the reason for the absence of all the proceedings and official documents of the Confederal Committee.

Louis BOUET, the secretary of the Teachers’ Federation, declares that ever since the beginning of the war, his federation has joined the minority and has remained true to its attitude. He repudiates the actions of the confederal bureau. He shows the deplorable effects of the abandonment of the July 21st general strike. The organization is now completely disqualified to speak in the name of the proletariat.

When the Credentials Committee reported, they found only one contest: Perrot, the secretary of the Union des Syndicats of the Seine department, allowed only one vote to the 20 railroad workers’ unions. The reason was that they represented the revolutionary rank and file and would vote for the revolutionary minority. But Perrot’s pretenses were too paltry and the minority scored a victory by compelling the congress to accept the 20 unions.

The next morning the congress opens with a hot critique of the attitude of the C. G. T. during the war, by Meric. But the animation starts with the mounting of the tribune by Fellow Worker Gaston MONMOUSSEAU, the spokesman of the militant railroad workers. He said that he was one of those who in 1918 voted the resolution for unity. He had expected that the C. G. T., pushed by circumstances, would enter again the road of syndicalism. “I gave my confidence to Dumoulin. I thought things would change. But since then, nothing has changed. The same politics continue. Jouhaux we saw sitting next to Loucheur at the Peace Conference. The working class had other things to do: it ought to have exerted pressure on the peace conference from without. Syndicalism has nothing in common with the League of Nations.”

“But the revolutionary forces are growing. They are growing among the railroad workers and the metal workers. And the revolutionary spirit is a fact.” The congress is warmed up. One feels that the blows are falling on the right place and taking effect. The majoritaires are attentive; the minoritairies applaud warmly their orator.

Then he comes to July 21: “We thought,” says he, “that it will mark the beginning of syndicalist action. But once more we were deceived…When the C.G.T. had only 400,000 members it could liberate Rousset (a victim of military injustice in Africa) and now we count two millions and still the sailors of the Black Sea mutinies are in prison. As for the Russian revolution, whenever it was mentioned, it was to desolidarize yourselves from it. There was a conspiracy of silence everywhere. And we accuse the C. G. T. of having been, by its silence, an accomplice of the strangulation of the Hungarian revolution.

“Once Dumoulin ridiculed the yellow Internationa] and said that on that road to Damascus we shall meet Karl Legien, Sam Gompers and Ben Tillet, in company with the agents (men of affairs) of the international bourgeoisie. We shall go to the workers of all countries and rebuild the Workers’ International. But Dumoulin went to Amsterdam. And he met Gompers, Legien, Appleton. Together they rebuilt the International of collaboration of the classes. For us there is only one Internationale, THAT OF MOSCOW.”

This brings a thunder of applause. Monmousseau ends his speech with an exposition of the minoritaires’ conception of the revolution: “Yes, we are revolutionists, but not rioters…They tell us always that the masses are not ripe for a revolution. What have you done to enlighten it? Those who have lost faith and have become skeptical, let them get out from the movement. We repudiate the C. G. T. for its attitude during the war, for its new methods which sidetrack syndicalism from its historic mission. We denounce the C. G. T. for failing to pit the working class against our capitalist class and those of other countries, which are trying to strangle the Russian revolution, after the Hungarian, so that they could easier crush our own revolution.”

Monmousseau descends from the tribune amidst the cheers of a great part of the congress. After him Le Troquer defends feebly the officials. The majoritaires have a strong card in the person of BOURDERON, ex-Zimmerwaldian, a member of the Socialist Party. But he hardly touches the moral report of the bureau. He speaks of the different periods of the war. “I do not retract a word from what I have said in 1915 and 1916.” In 1918, he says, he thought it was his duty to make the two factions approach each other. He recognizes that the hopes he laid in Wilson have deceived him. “One must say whether he is for unity or separation. I do not know whether I.am a majoritaire or a minoritaire. Minoritaires, if you are men of action, I am with you.”

Fellow Worker VERDIER of the metal workers of Aveyron then takes up the battle against the renegades. “We must go further than Proudhon’s formula: “The workshop must displace the government.” The inside government of the shop must be assured by the union against the master.” Then he attacks the National Economic Council and says: “Not this we need, but the dictatorship of the workers’ organizations. And this dictatorship cannot be secured but through the general revolutionary strike.” Verdier had just come from the metal workers’ convention, where he fought the majority to exhaustion and his voice is very low.

Then JACQUEMIN, who by the way belongs to the confederal bureau, mounts the tribune and declares that he does not share the opinions of the majority. ‘I was an anarchist, and anarchist I remain. I have tried to find out why do men change, but I have not found the explanation yet.” He believes, however, that the differences are not so great and it suffices only to come again to the old methods of direct action and anti-militarism, in order to bring about revolutionary unity.

Fellow Worker DEJONKERE, of the railroad workers, is one of those who last year voted against the unity resolution. Unfortunately, he says, I have nothing to regret on account of my vote. The same politics of class collaboration and abdication continue.

At this point, the congress decides to limit the number of orators on the moral report to five for each tendency, while in fact the majority had seven, for Jouhaux and Dumoulin concluded the deliberations.

Rougerie, a member of the Socialist Party, acts as the great conciliator. Last year at Clermont Ferrand he prepared the rapprochement of the two tendencies. It took him a long time, he says, to decide whether he was a minoritaire or a majoritaire, for he has taken in the Socialist Party a position that does not coincide with his position in the C. G. T.

After this manoeuvre of the astute politician Rougerie, comes the first orator of the minority, our valiant MONATTE. He reviews the attitude of the officials ever since the first day of discord, which was caused by the jingoistic speech Jouhaux delivered on the grave of Jaurés. Then he mentions the trip in the ministerial train to Bordeaux. On this point Gauthier, of St.-Nazaire, says that this is not true. “It is true,” says Bourderon. The congress is on its feet. Arguments are started. One feels that Monatte’s critique touches the essential, the sensitive points and he will be without mercy.

Monatte reminds the congress of his letter of resignation from the Confederal Committee and the reasons thereof: Jouhaux commissaire of the nation, his lecture tour on behalf of the government. He reads the letter he had received from Million, the secretary of the Union des Syndicats of the Rhone district, which admirably analyzes the effects of the traitorous attitude of Jouhaux and his clique. “In this period, we are looking at the sabotage of the ideas that were dearest to us and of the working class organism in which we had placed all our hopes and for which we have sacrificed our freedom and our lives. However, I believe that this is only a momentary departure and that the clarity of our international thought will dissipate all confusions brought about by the ‘revolutionary neo-nationalism.’

“This letter has its importance and shows that, in the first months of the war, the panic was not general.

“The war was the condemnation of the capitalist régime and its greatest crime. It has no more right to lead the world after it has brought it to the slaughter. What bitterness, in this moment, to see Jouhaux on the side of the governments and the co-responsibility charged to our central organism.” And Monatte cries: “The men that have done that are not worthy any more to interpret the thought of the French labor movement.” The congress applauds him warmly. This part of his speech produces a profound impression. He then goes into the reorganization of the administration of the C. G. T. He accuses the officials of having atrophied the function of the Bourses du Travail (Labor Exchanges), in order to secure them the hegemony over the central organization. He blames the officials of having transferred the direction of the movement from the rank and file into their own hands.

After a skillful blow at the confederal bureau, whose climax was the malicious statement of Marcel Laurent, a joint secretary of Jouhaux, the congress is again in turmoil. Laurent attempts to answer, but the delegates hoot him and he sits down.

“The confederal leaders have associated themselves with the government in its need of peace. We do not desire to help the bourgeoisie to save itself. It has condemned itself and we condemn it.”

Some one shouts: “Then this is disorder.”

Monatte replies: “Disorder, the capitalist regime is disorder. There is the abyss. We must jump over it. Some people, who like us, know that the bourgeoisie cannot save itself, still hesitate. This is the case of Merrheim.”

“We shall follow the wave and will try to be what true militants ought to be. Renan, in ‘The Life of Jesus,’ studying the psychology of Judas, writes: ‘In him, the administrator had killed the apostle.’ The administrator and the apostle ought to make one body. Too often does the administrator kill the apostle.”

The congress, which follows the discourse with great interest, applauds long. Monatte concludes with the following: “At present we have a great duty: it is the salvation of the revolution which is already in the world. Amongst you has been distributed the appeal of the Central Soviet of the Russian labor unions. The answer that we must give them ought to be the practical conclusion of this congress. For as Robert Smillie, the president of the miners federation of England, has said, at the present moment there is no greater labor question than the intervention in Russia.”

Monatte ends. Long applause resounds in the tremendous hall. And then, spontaneously, THE INTERNATIONALE rings out. All the delegates arise, the majoritaires follow reluctantly; only the confederal secretaries remain seated. Whatever the congress decides, says Rosmer in “La Vie Ouvriére,” we have scored a great victory.

The Socialist and Bourgeois press pays tribute to Monatte also. They say that no other delegate ever received such an ovation as Monatte. His career, his spotless past and his uncompromising attitude ever since his entrance in the labor movement contribute to the respect and confidence he inspires in the hearts of the workers. Even Dumoulin pays him homage by saying that he has felt the beauty of his discourse. “What you have suffered, I suffered also. What you just did now, I did in 1918.”

Marty-Rollan, a majoritaire, does not dare to speak right after Monatte, for his talk will be ineffective, so the congress adjourns for the next day, when he speaks and then Ferdinand LORIOT, of the teachers federation, Lenin’s friend and one of the few true Marxians who is a Bolshevik. After him Bidegaray, the conservative secretary of the railroad workers who makes a naive and humorous speech. Then Fellow Worker Raymond PERICAT mounts the tribune and delivers a philippic against the renegades, accusing them of abandoning him and his co-workers, when they were persecuted by the government.

Bartuel, the miner’s secretary, defends feebly the confederal politics. After him comes the young and fiery LePETIT, of the Parisian excavators’ union, who had served, until last April 10, a two years sentence in Clairvaux. He animates anew the debate. He says that he was one of those who, in the beginning of the war, answered the call of Merrheim and Bourderon. He had worked with Merrheim, who for a given moment incarnated French syndicalism. “I asked him, on my part, why he had repudiated his ideas, why did he repudiate Zimmerwald, and why he deserted his friends of the minority.” “Bourderon demands to know if we reproach him with having gone to salute the great democrat Wilson at Brest.” Yes, we accuse him of having saluted the man that Lenin calls “the greatest hypocrite.” Lepetit finishes his live speech as follows: “We refuse to bring our stone to the capitalist edifice. We desire to create the worst difficulties for the capitalist regime.”

The majoritaires have one great trump card in the face of MERRHEIM, whose past role and the beautiful traditions he had left in the C. G. T. make him quite an impregnable fortress. He is, or rather was, the most probable leader of the coming French revolution. Lenin, Trotsky and Tchicherin played him strong, but he proved to be a timid and calculating labor leader, who has no prototype in any other country. If he had remained with the minority, as well as Dumoulin and a host of other younger militants, Clemenceau might have sung his swan song a year and half ago, during the great strikes and mutinies. But Clemenceau was shrewd, and though he hates and fears Merrheim more than any other man and threatened to imprison him while still in opposition, he switched around and left him unmolested. A better policy could not be applied: a Merrheim in prison would have been worth 10,000 Merrheims out of prison.

His defense is remarkably sincere. After Zimmerwald, where he met Lenin and had an eight hour private talk with him, he says: “I did not betray the working class; the working class betrayed me, by following the jingoes and renegades.” He accuses the working class of having fallen in materialistic immorality, which is manifested by the demand for wages and more wages, instead of more fundamental principles.

Fellow Worker Henri SIROLLE, the much heralded one by the American yellow press, then, as the last of the minority orators, resumes the attack upon the officials’ citadel. He is a young and able orator, an incomparable organizer of the Left Bank railways of Paris, a man that has done a great deal for the mustering of the revolutionary forces of the railroad workers.

Dumulin and Jouhaux, almost in tears, apologize, equivocate and shrink under the leashing of the militants of the minority. The defense, however, is quite effective, because through a manoeuvre and a trick, they steal the program, a valuable portion of it, anyway, of the minority, and put it to a vote before putting to vote the moral report, so that the delegates will think that they have become revolutionary. The deception is quite successful, for few delegates, like Marchall of the railroad workers, though instructed to vote against it, approve it by a large vote.

The resolution of the majority recognizes the class struggle and is for the expropriation of the capitalist class and establishment of the communist order. These are pretentions but very effective for the time being. They defend the Russian revolution and engage themselves to stop all ammunitions and arms for Koltchak and Denikin and condemn in the strongest terms the imperialistic designs of the Entente.

Five hundred and eighty-eight of the largest unions of the most strategic industries vote against the moral report of Jouhaux. The vote stands 2 to 1.

Monatte, Rosmer, Monmousseau and Sirolle think it was a great victory for the minority. Numerically, their victory is much greater than it appears. Our syndicalist friends do not believe in the proportional representation system and thus their strength is not so evident. Judging from later developments, they can claim greater numbers,

Since then their ranks have been flooded with new recruits. Jouhaux and Dumoulin have lost the last vestige of confidence, because they betrayed the workers again by coming to Washington and not keeping their solemn engagements to save the Russian revolution.

The minority have 9 delegates in the Confederal Committee, which is composed of 30. Their delegates are: Marthe Bigot, a girl teacher, good rebel and brilliant writer, Bouyé, of the metal workers, Lepetit, of the excavators, Loriot, of the teachers, Monatte, Monmousseau, of the railroad workers, Roux of the postal, telegraph and telephone workers, and Tommasi, of the aviation and vehicle workers They have started a live agitation for a general strike to save the Russian revolution and demand complete amnesty (which was voted but did not include the sailors from the Black Sea mutinies).

Already the “Union des Syndicats of the Seine” (Paris) district has begun that agitation and compelled the whole C. G. T. to consult its members on the question.

The minority is doing a remarkable work and feverishly increasing its effectives.

We can rest assured that they will do their duty by the Russian revolution by, as Monatte says, making one at home.

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand

• 1In February and March 1913, Monatte publisheda lengthy article written by Charles Andler, the able historian and student of Marx, author of a “Commentary on the Communist Manifesto” and a volume on German Social Democracy, an article which most astonishingly predicted the shameful betrayal of the working class by the so-called Marxians of Germany. The article bore the title “Le Socialisme Imperialiste d’Allemagne Contemporaine” (Imperialist Socialism in Contemporary Germany). Jean Longuet, grandson of Marx, leader of the fenceriding center of the French Socialist party, a man who voted all the credits of the bankers war, indignantly asked Monatte to publish “the crushing reply” (la reponse ecrassante) of comrade Grumbach which appeared in Neue Zeit, together with some vile attack by Kautsky and Bebel.

  Grumbach’s “crushing reply” reads in part as follows: “German Social Democracy is done for! Bebel becomes chancellor of the Empire, Scheidemann minister of Foreign Affairs, Gerhard Hildebrand, perhaps anew received in grace by the party, to direct the administration of the Colonies, Noske in charge of the Ministry of War.

  The military, colonial and naval credits shall be voted by the socialist deputies without hesitation and with glad heart; Kautsky is charged to justify the necessity of it in theory, etc. All in sarcastic tone.

  This remarkable prophecy, made as reproach to Monatte and Andler, is now almost pathetically true. They went so far as to call Monatte’s “Vie Ouvriére” “a monarchist review.” Albert Thomas defended the German Social Democrats in the Chamber of Deputies. They all, Grumbach, Kautsky, Longuet, Thomas, went on the other side of the barricade, Monatte remained true to the working class.

Characteristics of Industrial Unionism

One of the most important unions in the Industrial Workers of the World is the Bakery Workers' Industrial Union No. 46, with headquarters in New York. From the viewpoint of industrial union education, not to say as information matter, it will be interesting for all readers of the One Big Union Monthly to know something about the workings of that union as an agency of industry, and how considerable improvement has been won on the issue of wages, working hours and conditions, and especially about the high degree of protection and control attained by the I. W. W. bakery workers in New York through a wise and consistent application of industrial union tactics and policies. One should not think that to induce a number of workingmen in a given industry to get together under the statutes of the I. W. W. and with red cards in their pockets would really mean that they had built up an industrial union. While it is a highly commendable and noble thing for every conscious and faithful member of our organization to look upon the red card and the preamble of the I. W. W. as inspiring symbols of our struggle in the labor movement, we should not altogether be so dogmatic as to expect by the mere influence of these symbols some sort of industrial miracles. The creation of an industrial union capable of affording its members an effective and efficient protection on the job, and to preserve such standards of wage and conditions as would compare favorably with all other sections of organized labor, is not such an easy task. Working class devotion and idealism should undoubtedly be welcomed on this field of endeavor; although they would bring little or no practical result unless coupled with a sound knowledge of industrial union process; that is to say, of that complexity of tactics, discipline and union policies which after the age-long experience of labor's history, is to be considered as the most trustworthy condition of success in the workers' struggle. Industrial unionism is to a certain extent a faith, yes; but more than that, it is a struggle to be carried on along scientific lines. These studies on the technical problems related to the existence and development of our industrial unions are paramount in the I. W. W. literature, inasmuch as they do not con template some abstract and cultural conceptions or side issues, but the very subject of our daily struggle, the thing for which our best fellow workers have fought, suffered and died: The conquest for the I. W. W. of an influential position in the industrial life of the country, as the first step or the condition of departure toward the establishment of a proletarian commonwealth.

History of Bakery Workers' Industrial Union No. 46

The history of the bakers' union of the I. W. W. stands as a convincing proof of the great efforts that a body of workers must face in order to secure for themselves a position of comparative prosperity and job control. The union membership is about one thousand (1,000), most of the members being residents of New York City and nearly all employes of the French bakery shops. There are several Italian branches besides one German and Polish branch. The bakers' union was organized about fifteen years ago, and joined the I. W. W. some six years ago.

The wages are the highest paid in the bread industry within the boundaries of New York state, viz., first class bakers, $42 a week; second class, $38; third class, $36. The bakers in the French bakery shops controlled by the I. W. W. union have brought about the end of the night work system, while the unhealthy condition obtains everywhere else in the bread industry throughout the United States. It is a fine piece of "industrial legislation" enacted in the union hall of the I. W. W. and in force since the month of July, 1919, without any attempt having been made at consulting the politica1 wisdom of the house of representatives in Albany. The Bakery Workers' Union No. 46 of the I. W. W. was the first union in the bread industry to declare for a forty-four hour week. So the members of that union are actually working seven hours and a half a day, and before long they will ask for a seven or a six hour work day, and they will get it. A great effort has been made by active members of Industrial Union No. 46 with the co-operation of several English speaking fellow workers of the I. W. W. Recruiting Union to spread the agitation among all bakery workers in New York City, encouraging them to fall in line far better sanitary conditions, higher wages, forty-four hour week and the day work system. German, Polish and Jewish branches are in process of organization.

Far from being the product of momentary enthusiasm, all these thousands of successes have been brought about through a long record of per severance and stubborn struggles. Out of a fifteen years' existence of Bakery Workers' Industrial Union No. 46 (although the union itself was known under other names before being incorporated in the I. W. W.), it springs into light the old commonplace truth that it is rather difficult and almost impossible for a union to win at one blow, by means of a victorious strike, or by the mere spirit of enthusiasm such a thing as an influential position in industry. Industrial conquests are comparatively slow, and they seem to be the conclusion of persistent, systematic efforts for the capture of power on the job, rather than the result of some kind of master stroke.

What Industrial Control Means

The act by which an employer takes into his service a wage worker or employe is known as a "con tract. " Since labor contracts are the commonest form of intercourse in our present industrial life, they most frequently occur under the seal of silent conventionalism. This sort of labor selling between employers and employes may take the shape of an individual or collective contract. 0f course, a true union man, whether he is an I. W. W., an American Federationist, or an independent unionist, is necessarily opposed to the proposition of individual labor con tract. Why is this so? Because from a long series of experiences the workers have learned that any direct agreement between individual workingmen and employers turns out to be detrimental to the former contracting party and it effects also an extremely demoralizing influence upon the collectivity of labor. Individual bargaining affords no protection' for the working man, surrendering the latter to the employer with hands and feet solidly tied.

The Industrial Workers of the World is by no means against the proposition of collective bargaining and union contracts, but they are decidedly hostile to timed contracts, a1 well as any specific contract, between the employer and the members of a trade or other particular section of' an industry, when it might endanger the general interests and solidarity of the workers of the whole industry. One of the main points of difference on the questions of tactics between the American Federation and the I.. W. W. is to be identified in this manner of conceiving and carrying out the policy of conceiving and carrying out the policy of collective bargainings and union contracts. The I. W. W. repudiate all timed agreements with the employers on the question of wages and other conditions affecting the workers in the industries, and they conceive the idea of collective bargaining on the basis of the general interest and solidarity of all workers employed in the industry while in a good many unions of the A. F. of L. organized along trade lines, the workers are engaging themselves in sectional forms of contracts to such an extent as to divide them and make them scabs against each other in time of strike.

Except for these differences the I. W. W. should be as much insistent as any other labor union on the question of enforcing the "closed shop" and collective bargaining in all transactions between the workers and the employer. These, at least, have always been the policies of the Bakery Workers' Industrial Union No. 46, and the members of that I. W. W. body are firmly clinging to them as a solid ground for practical and successful industrial unionism. Experience has taught also that every industrial union which does not recognize the principle that all men on the job should be made members is bound to fall quickly into disintegration. There is a spirit of class discipline in our conceptions and tactics of industrial unionism, and that spirit springs logically out of the economic fact that the interests of the individual worker are tightly bound with the interests of the whole body of his fellow workers employed in the industry, so that for the sake of the common good he ought to solidarize and fall in line with them. The industrial unions are the medium of this working class solidarity and discipline.

How the Shops Are Controlled

To understand the tremendous power exerted by Bakery Workers' Industrial Union No. 46 in its struggle against the bosses and the large share of protection afforded to its members on the job, one should visualize that union not merely as an institution stranger to the industry, but as an auxiliary of the highest import in the working of the industry itself. There is great meaning conveyed in the proposition that a true and well organized industrial union ought to function right on the job, rather than in the union hall. However, let us illustrate this idea by the aid of facts.

All bakery shops controlled by the I. W. W. in New York City are running with full crews of union men. None of the members of the crews are allowed to remain out of the union ranks. The drivers themselves are members of the union. The question arises: How did the union succeed in compelling the boss to engage members of the I. W. W. exclusive of all other classes of workers? One of the most effective instruments that helped the bakers' union in tightening its grip over the jobs is the employment bureau. Nobody, including the members of the union, is allowed to go and ask a boss for a job. All jobs are disposed of by the Union Employment Bureau. Even the right of a boss to supervise the crews on the jobs is ;restricted to a considerable extent. There is common understanding that the workers under the guidance of the union foremen are bound to turn over a production according to some conventional standards; there ceases the :right of interference on the part of the boss. In the case of a man refusing to pay his monthly dues or having made himself responsible for some offense against the union, the committee and the assembly are invested with full judicial powers to admonish or to punish him. Some times the union required that the guilty man be .dismissed from, the job, and the boss had to comply with it. There is' not a boss that dares to resist such requests, realizing that he couldn't possibly run the place without the consent of the union men. On the other hand, in order to prevent the bosses from complaining to the police against such union tactics they have been made to sign an agreement to the effect of securing their crews at the Union Employment Bureau to the exclusion of all other agencies.

The actual bakers' union of the I. W. W. in New York is built upon such strong foundations as to give assurance for tremendous successes in that line of organization work. It is to be noticed that all that has been done hitherto comes directly from the initiative of the membership of that body, without any outside help. Taking into account the lack of English speaking elements in the ranks of Union No. 46, it would be utterly absurd to expect great results under actual conditions. So it is high time the General Headquarters of the I. W. W. extends its powerful hand and help in bringing about the propaganda, agitational and organization work among the slaves in this industry.

To train the workers in the responsibilities connected with the running of the industries so that they shall be prepared to solve the revolutionary crisis which is so near, and that they will be able to build up a new commonwealth founded on the possession by the workers of all instruments of production, and of the wealth of the world, this is undoubtedly the most compelling task, both of an educational and of an industrial or technical character that the Industrial Workers of the World is confronted with. These qualities for industrial government, that is to say, these capacities on the part of the workers to take care of all processes of production and to discipline themselves on the job, so as to eliminate all reasons for capitalist patronage, find the best conditions of development in the practice of industrial control.

This is also the plan that we should carry on and make effective through all the educational and organization activity of the I. W. W., if we really expect to play an actual and dominant role in the future of American industrial life.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield. Taken from iww.org no longer online. but found on archive.org

Transcriber’s Introduction

This article appeared in the June issue of The One Big Union Monthly, during a time of growth and turmoil for the I.W.W. Thousands of Wobblies, including the most experienced organizers and best administrators, were in prison or under indictment for "criminal syndicalism" or alleged violations of the Sedition and Espionage Acts. Under the stress of relentless government persecution, internal conflicts of personality, ideology, and practical strategy would soon cause a split in the union from which it has not yet recovered. The union’s membership saw a clear need for structural change, as well as for a change in rhetoric and tactics. The following article is one example of the proposals for change that circulated at the time. For the existing structure of the I.W.W. in those days, see the 1919 Constitution. Many of Hardy’s recommendations were later adopted.

This article is presented here for its historical interest, and also as a basis for discussion towards the I.W.W.’s reconstruction—though much of it will certainly be unacceptable to a generation of workers who know the history of the Russian experiment with Communism, and consequently know the dangers of centralized bureaucratic administration.*

George Hardy joined the I.W.W. in Vancouver, B.C. in about 1909. He served as General Secretary-Treasurer in 1921. In 1925 he was in England as a representative of the Comintern, and in the 1930s he represented that organization in South Africa. His autobiography is Those Stormy Years. Memories of the Fight for Freedom on Five Continents (1956).

In the following transcript from The One Big Union Monthly I have corrected obvious misprints but left Hardy’s ideosyncratic punctuation and spelling unchanged.

Shop Organization the Base of the I. W. W.

British Shop-Stewards

Much discussion is going on in the ranks of labor, as to what is the best form of organization to give power to the workers in industry. This is an indication of discontent with the American Federation of Labor, and all other craft forms of unionism, which in reality is not unionism at all. The primary cause for discussion can be attributed to the advent of the Shopsteward Movement in Great Britain, which was brought about during the war, because the officials of the great trade unions pledged labor’s support to the Government, and who afterwards were prevented from participation in strikes, by the Defense of the Realms Act and the Munitions Act, thereby forcing into existence the unofficial movement, due to the abnormal conditions prevailing.

There has been a desperate attempt to make this shopstewards’ system fit American conditions by all and sundry. Especially is this true of some of the bourgeois and semi-bourgeois minded people, who claim to be revolutionary; while on the other hand, the members of the Shopstewards’ Movement in Great Britain state frankly, they would be in the I. W. W. if resident in U. S. However, the Shopsteward Movement does fit British conditions, because of tradition etc.

Reason for Continuity

The above position of the British militants is absolutely correct, because the "Industrial Workers of the World" is thoroughly in harmony with capitalist development and the labor conditions prevailing in America. There are less than ten per cent of the workers organized in this country, as against fifty per cent in the British Isles; with considerably weaker unions existing amongst the American workers, than those of the British workers. The I. W. W. has stood the battle for fifteen years—this alone proves its continuity inevitable and in conformity to Economic Evolution. The I. W. W. admits of changes necessary to prevent the organization from becoming obsolete, as the craft unions have. This is because its constitution is an elastic one—it has changed many times.

Necessary to Change

Today again we are confronted with the necessity of changing our form and tactics, due largely to the fact, that rapid changes are taking place in the economic world, and the apparent blood-thirsty tactics of the masters of industry. Therefore I submit the following program for consideration—not as "my" program—but as a program evolved out of the accumulated knowledge of the past; gathered by reading and discussion with my fellow workers, and an analysis of the position of the proletariat to the economic necessity of abolishing the system of private ownership, together with the avaricious, trustified masters—the capitalist class.

During the last two years many plans have been submitted. Some members are willing to stay by the "Old Ship"’ (the I. W. W.) without applying modern machinery to run it. Others want to change its name. To the thinking portion of the members both plans are equally disastrous—you cannot fool the ruling class! What is necessary now is new machinery to run it. We must abolish that part which has served its purpose, and install the most uptodate equipment the modern mind can conceive of, or we will be operating at a loss of prestige—a loss of membership—the crew will become too small to run the big ship, and we will land in some future storm on the rocks. This is financially evident today. We can, however, insure the future by installing new, modern, efficient and uptodate machinery of ad ministration, to discharge the rotting cargo—capita1ism. Let us do it today.

Efficiency calls first for an organization with its basis on the job, with rank and file control from the bottom up to the highest office; second, that administrative councils be created to admit of joint action from the job to the whole of the organization; third, that a regional council should exist to execute business that interests the whole working class community; fourth, that a defense council shall be maintained for the purpose of caring for members who have temporarily ceased to be industrial workers, because of their incarceration by the capitalist class; fifth, that at all times the prerogative shall be in the hands of the members on the job; sixth, instead of District Offices for each industrial union, supply stations should be opened jointly.

The above can only be gained by having a Union formed along the lines indicated in the chart. I do not, however, claim its application should be hard and rigid; but, I do claim the principle with slight variations can be applied to all industries which we seek to organize.

Job Branches and Committees

The job branches as set out are the base of all action, whether, legislative or administrative—the executive power lies always with the workers at that base. The workers first organize the job—a mine, mill, camp or factory—immediately they have seven members they constitute themselves a Job Branch; hold meetings; elect a job committee, one of whom may be elected delegate for that job. This would move the avenue of communication from the delegate to the job. When a delegate leaves a job, immediately one is elected in his place, and supplies given him which were left behind by the retiring delegate. It will be seen here, the supplies become the property of the job committee, instead of the delegate. It will also be noticed, there will always be a delegate on the job, and one who expresses the wishes of the group so organized, for they elected him. They have the power to remove him if not satisfactory. With this system in operation there can never be more than one delegate on one job, and all jobs organized will have a delegate.

The job committee is the administrative committee, and attends to all matters arising on the job between meetings; such as grievances that may arise; differences prevailing amongst the members etc., and have power to call special meetings by a majority vote of the members of the committee. The meetings then take up the matters on the agenda and decide what action shall be taken.

Organized in this way the territorial divisions, prevalent in the craft unions disappear, for all workers meet together who work together; thus, as the workers gain power, so they are gaining control, and will form the basis of the future administration of industry under the Co-operative Commonwealth—Industrial Communism.

There are many workers who work in separate factories and jobs, who will be found to be working for the same master in a given piece of territory or a large city. We also know, that modern industrial capitalists are all organized industrially and territorially, so we must look on them as a class—the exploiting class—with the above divisions for efficiency amongst themselves; so, we must, therefore, unite our forces on the jobs to be able to meet them in open combat.

Central Branch Council

The Central Branch Council is fitted for meeting the opposition, and taking the aggression against the locally organized industrial groups of capitalists. The central branch council is made up of delegates from the job branches, who will meet as often as the job branches represented on the council decide, consistent with urgency, distance and expense, etc. They could meet oftener in highly centralized communities than where distance is an obstacle. A council ought to be formed as soon as seven job branches have been organized. If the job branches were large in membership, one could be formed with a less number. Representation could be had on a pro-rata basis, say, one delegate for every one hundred or any part thereof. The Central Branch Council’s function is legislative. It is to enable the workers to come in contact with each other through their duly elected representatives, who would receive instructions from their job branches, and deliberate, with their fellow workers in relation to the issues under discussion. Here we find that one delegate would bring up a question never thought of by some of the other delegates, so without instruction they would use their best judgment and vote accordingly. The decisions would be ratified by the members of the job branch. We must also concede that large bodies of men become unwieldy and cannot make the best decisions. They can also be played upon by eloquent popular orators. The central branch council would deal with facts alone, and members would act [here a line is missing in the original] from the council by the rank and file.

Industrial District Council

Several central branch councils could exist in an industrial district like some of the large mining districts, lumber districts, coastal districts of marine transport workers and agricultural districts, etc. This would necessitate an Industrial District Council being organized, to co-ordinate all the activities of a district within a given industry. The industrial district council would be made up of delegates from the central branch council, with a delegate for every 500 members affiliated or less. Again we must bear in mind the job branches would ratify the election of any delegate to the district council which would meet as often as conditions demanded, say every six months, and consistent with finance, urgency, etc.

This is absolutely necessary for drawing up uniform demands in a district where natural industrial divisions exist, such as in the logging industry where different machinery is used to get out the logs. These districts should not exist with territorial divisions where these natural divisions exist—the uniform methods of industry in the district would demand common council with each other—besides unity of action compels the workers to adopt modern ways of accomplishing Solidarity. Instead of striking separately, the workers would carry their grievances—if not settled locally—to the industrial district council. This would produce efficiency and a stability which would give ECONOMIC POWER to the WORKERS’ ONE BIG UNION.

Today we know that our interests are identical, that is, if we are workers. We also believe, that an organization which still maintains that the workers have interests in common with their employers—the parasites—is serving the masters’ interests, as opposed to the workers’ interests. Yes, the above is generally true. The workers almost without exception nowadays, admit they are fleeced daily by the profiteer, which means, they are subconscious of the wolves in sheep’s clothing—the Industrial Kings of the World, who rob us daily at the point of production.

General Industrial District Council

In so far as the workers have interests in common, they must organize into a General Industrial District Council. This would be done as soon as two or more industrial district councils existed in a district. It would not be necessary for this body to meet very often; say, once a year, if nothing of a critical nature came up appertaining to the interest of the whole district. Representatives or delegates from the central branch councils would meet, and comprise the general industrial district council, on the same pro-rata basis as the central branch council—thus we create co-hesion within a district—District Solidarity.

There will not be any permanent offices attached to the above councils, as they are purely creative or legislative. They must be so because they come from the job, and only workers who work on the job either by hand or brain are entitled to legislate or create machinery to govern their affairs. They know best! This does not mean that if some specialized work needs to be done, they must place a worker from the job to do it. No, they will hire the most efficient man to do the work.

Executives of Councils

The above councils, central branch, district and general, will all have their executives, who will attend to all matters as they arise during the intervals between conferences or meetings, and call into session—with permission of the job branches—emergency conferences, if a critical condition arises which demands immediate and important action that only a conference can settle. The office force of the clearing house or supply station, will be under the jurisdiction of the executive of the general industrial district council, who will go over books from time to time and see that efficiency is maintained, and render a report to the job branches.

Supply Stations

In districts which are a long way from the head quarters of the industrial unions, and where two or more industrial unions are operating, supply stations should be opened where delegates elected on the jobs can obtain supplies. All that would be necessary for the maintenance of this supply house would be a supply book and delegates’ credentials etc., with a Report Sheet for the daily supplies sent out and money received, which should be sent to the industrial union headquarters every day. Of course a duplicate of the work done would be kept on file for comparison, should a mistake arise. In this fashion, there would be no need for Index Cards, etc., together with the unnecessary work caused by duplicating the work at this office. The up-keep of this office would be maintained by those using it on a proportionate basis.

Form Union on Job

We are inevitably, always forced back to the ground work of organization, which always leads to the job. So we find, to form an industrial union is, not to open an office, but to go to the job and form a job branch—this is the foundation. It becomes unnecessary to open an office to do organization work for a particular industry, since there is in existence a general headquarters of all the industrial unions already organized. The job branch once formed could get its supplies from general headquarters temporarily, where a set of books could be kept under the jurisdiction of the G. E. B. When several small industrial unions exist, one bookkeeper and stenographer could be hired at headquarters to do the work, until they grow large enough to warrant the existence of separate offices with machinery. Then industrial charters should be issued. We come now to the Industrial Union.

Industrial Union

After 5,000 members have been attained, Industrial Union Headquarters could be opened. Remember, by the time a union reached a membership of 5,000, there would be in existence many central branch and district councils, therefore, not only would the work warrant the opening of a headquarters, but would be necessary to bring the workers together for common action nationally. The Industrial Union would then do business direct with the general office, distributing supplies to supply stations and job branches, and receiving the finance and paying its debts. A solid front would be forming like an army division, but under no circumstances should that division go to battle before enough recruits have made its strength almost impregnable. Never let the enemy choose the battle ground, especially while we are still weak.

Bureau of Industry

The General Headquarters of the Industrial Workers, organized into their respective industrial unions, now becomes the center of the whole working class as far as their economic interests are concerned. It is a central active bureau of industry. Each year a conference is held and officials elected. The most important executive of all is brought into being thru a ballot of the membership—the General Executive Board.

Under the jurisdiction of the G. E. B. comes the General Office, with all its subsidiaries, such as the publishing house, etc. They also supervise all unorganized fields where no industrial union exists to take care of it. They assist weak industrial unions, which come under their care because of not having attained a membership large enough to get a charter. This does not mean the G. E. B. would be the dictators to a newly formed union, but would work in conjunction with the rank and file in districts where job branches exist. Under no circumstances would the G. E. B., or the Industrial Union executives, operate contrary to the wishes of the membership of a district, providing they were not violating the principles laid down in the general constitution. Always the job branches, through their central branch councils, would decide who would be the organizer. The general office would finance this organizer until the district had sufficient funds in general headquarters to pay their own way.

Regional Council

To organize industrially is not enough for a revolutionary industrial organization to accomplish. There are other interests, which are communal in character. It is the working class community that will benefit by class-consciousness; not only the industrial part, but the mothers of the rising generation—the producers of the producers—producers par excellence. Therefore, on regional or territorial lines, we must form a city central council.

The City Central Council is therefore made up of delegates from the job branches, augmented by allowing membership to the wives of the fellow workers, providing they agree with the principles of the organization. This ought to be done, as a mother and companion’s interests are bound up with the conditions of her husband’s, and vice versa.

Social Center

This city central council would carry on propaganda meetings and finance itself thereby. This would relieve the industrial units from direct participation, which would only be connected by their delegate on the City Central Council. This would allow the industrial units to put in all their energies organizing the workers on the jobs. The council will also be the Social Center, where all the units in the industrial arena can find an outlet for their talents; a study could be maintained with a scientific labor library, economic classes and industrial history classes held, concerts and dances, giving an outlet for the musicians and singers; social dramas would be staged for those with artistic tendencies, and a multitude of things done in this direction.

The greatest inspiration of sincerity would be injected into the members of the City Central Council by the recognition that they are participating in a social council, which may be the council that will care for the community interests when capitalism is abolished. A beginning can be made into this work by organizing a system of food stations, also milk stations for the babies and the sick, to be brought into existence during real strikes. They would also during strikes set up a vigilance council to see that no acts of violence or vandalism were committed, and if any such acts were committed, to be in a position to place the responsibility. This may be the nucleus of a functioning body for the future—a Protective Council.

General Defense Council

Attached to the general office is the General Defense’ Council, which could be made up of the G. E. B. members, and those actively engaged in the responsible positions within accessible distance to the meeting place. A secretary-treasurer would be appointed through the committee. The office is a transitionary one, for, as soon as we gain power in industry the masters of bread who now are so urgent in their demands for blood and prison bars would then have to meet our representatives and would be forced to look at a condition unfavorable to themselves—the withdrawal of our Labor Power—which would solve the defense question.

There are several important items that come under the control of this transient office, and as long as we are forced into the capitalist courts—their battle ground—we must have funds to defend our members who choose to take legal defense. The raising of these funds, therefore, comes under control of the defense council. Under the direct charge of this council comes the hiring of all the legal talent necessary for adequate defense. It will be the duty of the council to observe closely all cases that are brought to their attention, and to decide whether the victim’s case is an organization matter. None but those arrested for doing organization work, or for being a member of the Union should receive defense. We should, however, always keep in mind the tactics pursued by the masters and not allow their camouflage to deter defense of a sincere fellow worker.

Defense Publicity and Relief

Publicity is a part of the general defense councils’ work. They should, through the secretary, get out publicity matter, nationally and internationally, and show the world how capitalism—the white terror—operates to our detriment. Also, the speakers for the defense are controlled by the council, who will devote their attention to the injustices of the capitalist class—imprisoning or killing our members.

Another important item is the caring for the wives and families of those in the dungeons. The assistance of those needing relief should be in proportion to their obligations and necessity for relief; sickness, number in a family and any reasonable obligation; but, in no case, should a self-sustaining person receive assistance. We must, however, avoid driving our dependents to the brink of injurious poverty. We should look upon the sons and daughters of our imprisoned comrades, at least, as an intelligent farmer looks upon his pure-bred stock—perpetuation of the class-conscious— which will assume some responsibility in the future.

Industrial Departments

The Industrial Departments have been omitted from this chart because of the desire to avoid confusion by extra complications. All that is necessary is to show that which is absolutely necessary today. The industrial departments may be a factor in the future, as there are many related industries which could not run on any anarchical scheme. For example, the tanneries and shoe factories, iron ore mining and the steel mills, and a number of other industries would be found closely related, if we had time and space to go into them. However, this is a matter for the future, as related to our immediate needs for organizing with efficient machinery under capitalism. As we develop our union, probably a need will arise for departments. This need is not here now; so let us deal with the immediate.

A Real International

With a program such as this being put into a tangible form of unionism in every country, we are reorganizing society to carry on production in a Free Society. The Workers’ International is in the embryo stage. At the present time messages are received daily from all parts of the globe of a shifting of the industrial scenery. The masters of gold have left the world the ruins of that of which they have always been the beneficiaries; they refuse in all cases to give assistance unless they may still continue to exploit. Their war did this—their greed for gold. The hope of the world’s workers lies in their ability to organize this prostrate world. Great hope and sincerity is shown now, for there are the great revolutionary syndicalist movements in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Spain, France, Portugal and other small countries; there are the revolutionary unions in Germany with civil war reigning; also, the workers of Austria and Hungary, making desperate plans to recuperate since the allied white terror has been introduced; the workers of the South American countries have endorsed the I. W. W. and become a part of the I. W. W. in Chile; the One Big Union movement to our north in Canada, and in Australia, due chiefly to the influence of the I. W. W. propaganda; and, the Shop Stewards’ and Workers’ Committees movement of Great Britain has voted in conference nationally to link up with the I. W. W. Our Russian fellows have sent out a call. Shall we answer and form an Industrial International? — International Solidarity of Labor—yes, a thousand times yes!!!

A Social Institution

This edifice of human affairs is a revolutionary one, because its very structure, outlined by the chart, leads through all the avenues of industry for taking care of the industrial and communal life, when capitalism shall have ceased to exist. It is rank and file; that will give them a lever to their own emancipation, and, by so doing, insure the future by the avoidance of chaos. Every member of the revolutionary union; every unit of the Army of Labor, so organized, will become a steadying factor in the transitory period; it embodies the forces necessary in the creation of food, clothing and shelter—the maintenance of life itself as well as giving an outlet to all esthetic qualities. There is the nucleus of protection, which, if extended nationally, can become the guardian of the workers occupied in peaceful production, which will be absolutely necessary, for, Lo and Behold the brutal outlook of today!

Constitutional or Capitalist Right?

An attempt has been made by trustified capital to outlaw any organization that challenges its power to own and control industry. This is all done in spite of the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States, that all one hundred per centers should learn and adhere to. Article One of the first Amendment clearly states that no law should be made "Abridging the Freedom of Speech, or the Press, or of the right of the People Peaceably to Assemble." The fourth Amendment protects persons in their homes and renders inviolate the invasion of homes by any who may take it into their heads to invade—they must state specifically in a warrant the "persons or things to be seized"—this the so-called "law enforcers" hardly ever do. That great freedom-loving statesman, Abraham Lincoln, speaking of the people of America on March 4th, 1861, said, "Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amendment, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." This is a part of the Declaration of Independence.

Violence and Chaos?

We propose to make the changes according to the above well-defined principles—by peacefully organizing the workers and the jobs. We have a legal right to do this. Judge Landis said in the great Chicago trial we had a right to revolution, "providing we could put it over." Whether the change will be by violence is a matter entirely in the hands of the capitalist class. They are committing violence on every hand! We want no violence and no chaos! The Constitution provides for these changes, and facilities to bring it about, if the Constitution is inviolate. We do not bother about Congress, for it expresses the economic interests of those in control. It will make laws to prevent our representatives getting there; so we must organize to control economically and choose our own institution of political expression—this will be done.

The Russian Conquerors

The inspiring devotion of our Russian fellow workers to their revolution has given an example to the world’s workers. The greatest statesman of the day—Lloyd George, says, "You cannot crush Bolshevism by the sword." This is an admission of defeat by the physical force advocates amongst the international gang of thieves. The same is admitted by Italian statesmen, with an added rider by the British premier that, "the Bolshevist Army is the largest and best disciplined army in Europe." All this with practically no organization on the industrial field when the collapse came—when the workers found the ruins of capitalism’s great war at their feet. The Russian Proletariat was forced into the building of the new society with chaos reigning on every hand. Yet they have succeeded marvelously. We must learn a lesson from them. If they have succeeded against a world of vengeance in spite of the apathy of the labor movement of the world, how much quicker could they have succeeded with a scientific industrial structure and a trained industrial army? Let us learn our lessons from the past and never repeat a failure.

NOTE— In this article a statement is made that the writer does not want to claim he alone is responsible for this work. Therefore, he names Roy Brown, with whom be was cellmates while incarcerated in Leavenworth Penitentiary, as one whom he accredits with having a great deal of knowledge along the lines indicated in this article. [Roy Brown was Chairman of the General Executive Board in 1921.—Tr.]

Originally posted: 2004 at Marxists Internet Archive

In the past we have been so busy building the productive and distributive organs of the future-the industrial unions with their branches and councils--that we have had little time to devote to another equally important function of the job branches, namely as the basis of local and regional administration. But we need not only organs of production and distribution. We must also have local administration to begin with and regional administration in the second place. Such an organ is the City Central Council, pictured on the Hardy chart as a representative local body, drawing its members from the various job branches. This council will have nothing directly to do with production but will function as intermediary between the job branches for purposes of local administration. It will take over most of the functions of the present city councils, but will in addition have many functions growing out of the change from private ownership to communism. So far we have had little use for these City Central Councils except as a body to handle the question of joint local propaganda for all the branches, such as renting of a common hall and office, handling literature and arranging meetings and entertainments, etc. But these functions are apt to be immensely widened almost any moment without any particular effort on our side. That capitalism is about to collapse completely nobody denies. Production and distribution are breaking down daily. Capitalism is making a failure of almost every branch of human activity. Particularly dangerous is the railway and coal situation. The capitalist press is making no secret of the fact that even if a railroad settlement is now effected, which is by no means sure, the railroads will not even approximately be able to get in shape in time to handle the crops. Famine stares us in the face in the near future. If railroad transportation breaks down all industries will suffer. They will have to shut down, and more particularly for the reason that there is little or no coal available. People in an authoritative position are repeatedly warning us that there will be a coal shortage this winter, that factories will have to shut down and that people will freeze. It is these very things that constitute the collapse of capitalism. Add to this that conditions in Europe are much worse and tend to drag American capitalism along to destruction, and we may without drawing too much on imagination say, that the collapse here is impending.

No chain is stronger than its weakest links, and the rail and coal situation are two links that are ready to snap.

All modern governments depend for their existence on taxes. If capitalism collapses, taxes will soon cease to flow. There will be little or no revenue for the governments. No capitalist government, local, state or national, can exist without revenue. When capitalism collapses the various governments will soon follow. They will be unable to function. The administration of our cities will go to pieces. Streets, light, water, schools, courts, institutions---all of these items of local administration will be stranded.

In Chicago f. i. the local government has been in a state of collapse for some time past. City employees of all kinds, including police and firemen have repeatedly gone on strike. The city had in sufficient revenue to keep going.

People will become desperate from suffering and disorder. The bad elements, the same ones who lynch Negroes or start race riots or raid I. W. W. halls, will get out their guns and begin a reign of terror like in Centralia, with this difference that they will have no organized production and distribution to fall back on. Banditry itself on a large scale (such as Villa's) will be impossible. Then people will grasp at straws for their salvation. They will try the A. F. of L. labor councils in many cities as an organ of local administration. It will be better than nothing, but unless it speedily regroups the workers industrially so they can take over production and distribution through their unions, they will make a failure of their administration.

Only a council elected by the workers in the shop or the place of work, penetrates with its power to the bottom of society and draws its inspiration from the whole people, and is in touch with living life. The modern governments are not in touch with the masses. Only such a City Central Council will enjoy the confidence of the people as a whole sufficiently to restore order without bloodshed. Only such a council will have the means at hand of running a city administration without collecting taxes. It will base the administration on an exchange of services.

While we may have no immediate use for such councils in some places, the question of organizing them should be taken up, to be ready for an emergency. We must not allow capitalism to crush us in its fall. We may not have time to organize any considerable portion of the cities before the great crash. But the start we have will serve as a nucleus around which we can in an emergency manner group representatives from all occupations until such time as we have a chance to thoroughly organize them for productive and distributive. purposes. Thus the City Central Council will not differ very much from the Russian soviets at the time w'hen capitalism and capitalist governmenlt broke down in Russia.

These City Central Councils are bound to become the basic units of the local administration of the near future.

In England the workers have suddenly awakened to the necessity of immediate action in this regard. They are now organizing the same kind of bodies under the name of Social Committees in Scotland and Social Soviets in England.

In Sweden the syndicalist organization has from the start built for local administration rather than for productive and distributive purposes. The local samorganizations of the Swedes will serve like a charm as organs of local administration, while they still have a good deal to do before they get their productive and distributive organs in shape.

In Germany the Labor Exchanges correspond most nearly to our City Central Councils, the English Social Soviets, and the Swedish Local Samorganizations. In Latin Europe they also have their labor exchanges. (Bourse du travail, camera del lavoro, etc.) Everywhere the workers are getting ready for the great crash which they see coming. The penalty for neglecting it will be severe.

There is one danger attending this work.

Some people may become so captivated with the idea of making a body of local administration, no matter how it is made up, that the professional politician will get too much play and precipitate us into revolutionary adventures a la left wing. It is always a good rule to keep the politicians out. All they want is power and wealth without going the legitimate way in getting it.

The proper way to go about it, is to organize one shop after another, one place of work after another. As the number of job branches grows, the City Central Council grows by having new members added. Every shop branch that sends delegates adds to its power. Thus we secure a natural and organic growth of the future organ of administration, which leaves no room for the professional politician to get in, except he works as a useful producer.

Henceforth we have, consequently, to build in two directions. We have to hurry to build our industrial unions, in order to have new organs of production and distribution when capitalist production collapses, and we have to build City Central Councils so as to have organs of local administration when capitalist administration, built as it is on private property and taxes, comes down in a heap.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield. Taken from an iww.org page no longer online, but available in archive.org

Ten years have now passed since the Swedish Syndicalists started their work with a independent Syndicalist organization for a conscious revolutionary struggle on the economic battlefield, the only field where the workers can carry on their struggle for emancipation to any advantage and with the prospect of victory.

The ideas of revolutionary Syndicalism were for the first time consciously propagated here in Sweden about fifteen years ago. True, discontent had already before been expressed over the lack of possibilities for an effective struggle by means of the Swedish craft union movement, and strong voices were heard for a rebuilding of these organizations in a revolutionary direction, but the Syndicalist ideas were not clearly formulated, aye, they were simply unknown to the workers of Sweden.

The Young Socialist movement of Sweden may be said to be the movement which during these years made the ideas of Syndicalism and its tactical methods known. Not as to say that the Young Socialist movement was the direct cause of the appearance of the Syndicalist movement as an organization — economic development and the necessity of revolutionary economic struggle would sooner or later have made Syndicalism necessary anyhow, and the practical experience of the Workers would then, perhaps, have formulated these ideas, but the Young Socialist movement with its energetic work of agitation and enlightenment on this subject accelerated this development. The Swedish Syndicalist Labor Movement owes great thanks for this conscious Syndicalist agitation carried on by the Young Socialist movement, for this agitation had the effect that the Syndicalist organization in Sweden, when it became an independent fighting organization, immediately took a position which was in complete consonance with the ideas of International Syndicalism.

The reason for the forming of this organization was simply that the old organization had plainly shown its incapacity to seriously represent the workers’ demands and interests. There was nothing else to do than to take this step, namely the step of trying to gather the workers in a new revolutionary organization for a necessary struggle against Capitalism.

Already before we had, during a series of years, energetically worked for the remodeling of the Craft organization in a Revolutionary Syndicalist direction. It was the Young Socialist movement which during this period was the driving power in this opposition. We got great numbers of workers on our side, demanding a remodeling of the old movement. A great number of propositions and motions with this purpose in view were made at the Congresses of the National Craft Unions and of the Landsorganization but these propositions were defeated without much debate. Not even after the smarting defeat of the general strike of 1909 would the Landsorganization make the smallest change in spite of the fact that at the National Congress in 1909 there were about forty different motions which all proposed changes in more or less radical direction.

1907, 1908 and 1909 are three years of mighty struggle in the history of the Swedish Labor Movement. One great battle followed upon another on the economic field and culminated in the great general strike of 1909. Most of these battles turned out to be stinging defeats for the Swedish Labor movement. The organizations were partly razed and great numbers of workers were thrown into unemployment and a considerable number of them were compelled to emigrate to foreign countries, especially to America, in order to try to make the living that was denied them in Sweden, thru the conscienceless persecution of the employing class. It was the revolutionary workers who had to stand the worst persecution, and when the workers demanded that the organizations should step in to protect this energetic revolutionary element in the labor movement, the reformist leaders showed the most callous indifference. They were apparently happy to see these fellow workers chased out of the country. By such means these revolutionaries, who were so troublesome for the reformist leaders, were gotten rid of.

The cause of all these defeats was exclusively this: that the battles were not conducted according to the methods demanded by the circumstances. The old craft union movement was permeated with that accursed consideration for the Capitalist class and their system of society, which is such a characteristic trait of the reformist labor movement thruout the world. If during these years the Swedish workers had resorted to revolutionary fighting methods, the results would surely have been different. The workers would then have emerged as victors from those battles.

After the inglorious end of the general strike everything was on the verge of falling apart. The organizations were thrown to pieces and unfit for battle and, what was worse, great numbers of Swedish workers had lost faith in all organization and its ability to gain the demands of the working class. The very idea of organization and solidarity had received a hard knock.

What was to be done in order to pull the workers out of this stupor? How could we get new life and a revolutionary will into this listless class? That was the most burning question of the day among the wide-awake workers. It was at this time that the syndicalistically inclined workers of Sweden took hold with all their power in order to create the Syndicalist Revolutionary fighting organization. They had completely lost faith in the ability of the old organization to develop in a revolutionary direction and for this reason energetic agitation was started for a new organization. A great number of meetings were held on the question where the workers gathered resolved in favor of forming such an organization.

After a preliminary conference in SKANE, where a committee was elected to do the preliminary work for a new organization, about twenty craft union representatives, together with others, met in convention in Stockholm at midsummer, 1910, to lay the foundation for the Syndicalist Organization in Sweden. After three days of earnest discussion the organization was ready to start on its career in life and to commence the necessary battle for the interests of the working class.

The name decided upon was “Central Organization of Workers of Sweden” (Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation). It was built on local “Samorganizations” in every place (Sam together). Technically these had for their purpose to unite all the workers of the locality, regardless of craft or occupation, in a unified class organization. As our organization has developed we have also worked out the necessary industrial organs inside the organization in order to divide the local Samorganizations in industrial subsections in the bigger communities with their many different kinds of industrial workers. In most of the big industries thruout the country, we have in our conferences selected industrial education and action committees whose purpose has been to serve as organs for activity along industrial lines when such proved to be necessary. As a whole the members are welded together in a unified class organization.

Already from the start our organization experienced a heavy resistance. Not enough that Capitalism began a ruthless battle against us, as was to be expected, but the old organization, particularly its leading men, has also done everything to put our movement down. In this struggle against us the reformists have used every means. Lies, slander, and treason have been the most common methods. Many of our battles have been broken up because the old organization acted as traitors. They worked hand in hand with the employers against us but we are proud to point out that in spite of these traitors we ourselves have NEVER acted in a similar manner against the members of the old organization when they were out on fight.

The membership figure has risen slowly, but surely, from year to year. The following figures will illuminate the development during these years both in local Samorganizations and number of members:

Dec. 31 1910…. 21 L. S . 696 members
Dec. 31 1911…. 38 L. S….1175 members
Dec. 31 1912…. 64 L. S….2037 members
Dec. 31 1913…. 94 L. S….3709 members
Dec. 31 1914…. 99 L. S.. . .4519 members
Dec. 31 1915…. 98 L. S….4880 members
Dec. 31 1916… 144 L. S….9295 members
Dec. 31 1917… 196 L. S. ..15216 members
Dec. 31 1918 . . . 296 L. S. . . 20331 members
Dec. 31 1919… 353 L. S.. .24000 members

1920 shows the same upward tendency only in a little speedier tempo. There is as yet no statistics elaborated for the past half but we can nevertheless state that S.A.C. (Central Organization of Workers of Sweden) at the moment of writing has 420 local Samorganizations with a little over 30,000 members. This figure is not very large, but Sweden is a small country of only some 6,000,000 inhabitants, and we are sure it will not be many years before the Syndicalist Organization has broken thru completely. The strength of Syndicalism in Sweden must however not be computed according to this membership figure for it is much greater. All around us among the masses of the workers, outside our organization, Syndicalism and its methods have become recognized and our ideas conquer. It now only remains for those workers to transplant their ideas into practice in the way of organization.

The Swedish Syndicalist Organization has already from the start stood as an uncompromising fighter against Capitalism. The number of battles during the years past proves this clearly.

From June 25, 1910 to December 31, 1919, the local Samorganizations have, according to the reports, conducted not less than 1,046 battles. A great number of other battles have also been conducted but have not been reported. The figure given includes mainly the open battles. In some cases the demands of the members have been wholly or in part complied with without the necessity of going to an open fight.

Of the 1,046 battles mentioned, 705 ended with victory for the workers, 84 with defeat and 257 with compromise. Besides, there has on the different places of work been conducted an extensive job battle, — that means fights on the job with different means, by which methods the members have gained considerable advantages. So, for instance, the Construction Workers in the S.A.C. have on a large scale used what they call the “Register” by means of which they have from January 1, 1917 to June 30, 1919, won a wage increase of not less than 145%. This is a quite noteworthy improvement won thru this persistent and conscious battle on the job for industrial control and fixing of wages. During these years the S.A.C. has been a battling organization and will be so much more in the future.

All the branches of the organization are developing towards greater stability. The financial status is relatively good. A newly started printshop is working under high pressure to produce all the literature which is spread in millions of copies over the country. The publishing bureau issues books and pamphlets in rapid succession, treating of the different phases of the actual class struggle.

Our paper “Syndikalisten” which is issued twice a week now has an edition of 15,000 on Wednesdays and 17,000 on Saturdays. Steps are now being taken to issue “Syndikalisten” as a daily paper. For this purpose the Organization has bought a house in Stockholm for 250,000 kronor in order to fit it up as a printshop and newspaper office and organization offices.

Special papers are issued quite frequently in large editions and in some parts of the country local Syndicalist papers are planned in order to better be able to agitate for Syndicalism.

All in all the Swedish Syndicalist movement is in a state of rapid development, not only is the membership constantly increasing but the stabilization progresses, making the members conscious Syndicalists able to know what they want and to know the task they have to perform in the imminent struggle for the re-organization of society.

[i]Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand

Transcriber's Note: This article, in which Sandgren outlines his views on proper industrial organization and its implications for the new society, got him fired as editor of The One Big Union Monthly for its criticism of armed revolution, the Bolsheviks, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Sandgren was an early opponent of political action and the parliamentarist De Leon faction in the I.W.W. He (among others) debated De Leon in the New York Daily People in 1907. That debate was later published by De Leon as a pamphlet, "As to Politics".

Solving the Social Problem Through Economic Direct Action

A resolution, numbered 43, and adopted at the 12th annual convention of the I. W. W., in the year1920, reads as follows:

...Resolved, that we always preach and practice our only weapon--Economic Direct Action--in order to abolish the present system of exploitation.

In this connection let us quote the last two passages from our preamble, as follows:

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 the capitalists, but also 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.

The above is a picture in words of what the I. W. W. tries to accomplish. To make it more plain we are accompanying this article with a sketch of a chart designed to give a total view of the structure of the new society which we are building.

Industrial Communism Illustrated

The society that the I. W. W. is building is a society of Industrial Communism.

We propose that the people of the whole world should get together on industrial lines, in order to create the organs that are needed for the running of a communist society.

The organs we need are of two kinds, namely, first, organs of production and distribution, and secondly, organs of local and regional administration.

The I. W. W., having for its aim to establish industrial democracy and to anchor for all time all power within the useful layers of society and to make social parasitism impossible, establishes a new basic unit of the social structure.

The basic unit of our new society is The Shop or Job Branch. Every human being of working age, no matter what his occupation, is referred to some shop or job branch, even where the occupation is not properly speaking industrial in the commonly accepted sense of the term. Our chart includes them all.

These shop and job branches are on our chart illustrated by means of the ring of radial lines, which form so to speak the rim of the wheel-like structure.

From these basic units, or basic organs, all the other organs are derived.

The spokes in the wheel, so to speak, are the Industrial Unions, which are formed by uniting all the shop and job branches of every industry or occupation, whether it be shoemaking or the teaching of sciences at the universities.

The hub of the wheel is formed by the Industrial Union Administration, Departmental Administration and the Genera! Administration.

All these together, however, are only part of the structure of Industrial Communism. They form only the productive and distributive machine. The purpose of these organs is to produce what mankind needs and to distribute it.

The old I. W. W. chart did not go any further. It depicted only the organs of productions and distribution, for the simple reason that the need for other organs was not apparent while the organization was small and purely in an agitational stage.

As the organization developed it became apparent that we must add to it organs for local and regional administration if we wanted to cover the whole field of human activity.

We have had these organs in an embryonic shape for many years in our City Central Committees, and Councils of different kinds, but they never got beyond the experimental stage.

However, as the overthrow or the collapse of capitalism approaches and comes dangerously near, we realize the absolute necessity of new organs of local and regional administration as well.

These we have depicted on our chart as the iron tire, so to speak, which holds the wheel of production and distribution together. The two organs supplement each other and are equally necessary. And both of them are drawn from the shop, or the job branches. Through a system of industrial representation, that is, through representatives elected from the job branches, organs of administration will be formed which will replace the present organs of local and regional administration, when these no longer function, due to the fact that the whole system on which they rest has collapsed.

By drawing the productive and distributive organs as well as our administrative organs from the shop and job branches, by vesting ownership and control direct with the industrially organized masses we secure both industrial communism and industrial democracy.

This chart, which could very likely be improved upon in many different ways, depicts quite clearly how the I. W. W. proposes to solve the social problem through Economic Direct Action, as the 12th annual convention puts it.

No Room for a Political Party

As will be seen this plan leaves no room for a political party, city, state or national.

The City administration will consist of the City Central Council. As for state administration, as in U. S. or provincial administration such as in Canada or in Europe, the justification for them is disappearing.

The provinces in various countries may have a historical, or an ethnographic or political explanation in most cases, but the state lines on this continent are nearly all artificial boundaries.

The chief surveyor of a century ago seems to have taken a large U. S. map and a big ruler and laid out the country in squares with the exception of the places where mountains or big rivers made good physical boundary lines, without any consideration whatsoever for the natural economic boundary lines. In fact, how else could it have been done, being that the state lines were drawn up before the country was developed.

The states as political units are a nuisance like any artificial social arrangement. The nonsensical division into states is causing us to have over fifty different complete sets of regional administration without any natural basis for it, and is a tremendous expense to the American people and causes no end of confusion in our public life. It causes regions which should naturally be joined together to be split in several parts with separate administration, while it joins together pieces of regions which have little or nothing in common. Not to speak of the absurdity of having 50 sets of different laws, courts and lawyers. It almost looks as if the whole plan was devised by the lawyers. For the usefully employed men and women of these regions are only meagerly represented.

Instead of state lines a rational form of society would draw industrial boundary lines for purposes of administration according to the economic life of the country.

Thus the Pacific Coast country up to the mountains could very well be one region, while the intermountain states formed a second region, the gulf country a third region, the prairie states a fourth, the mine and forest states of the north a fifth. The tobacco and cotton states a sixth, the coal states a seventh, the factory states of the North East an eighth region, etc.

Thus the people who have most in common would be brought together under one regional administration for common welfare.

The regional Central Council would be composed of representatives selected by the shop and job branches, thus securing complete industrial democracy even on this stage.

In the same manner the shop and job branches would select the departmental and the general administration, the latter being composed of a general executive board and a general secretary-treasurer. We may not need the treasurer in the new society, but we need him at present.

The general administration would be the central exchange both for the productive and distributive machine and the machine of local and regional administration.

Where is there room for, or need for a political party in this plan? It covers the whole field. Every kind of human activity that is desirable and useful will find a place in this plan and every legitimate human interest will be safeguarded.

On the other hand this plan of society leaves no room, no opening for those who want to live the lives of parasites on humanity. All the "half-world", the caterers to vice, the criminals, and the professional politicians and the parasitical capitalist class will here be brought back to their proper place in the system of production and distribution, with no chance to get out of it. Nor would they have any chance to get on top as rulers except by formal election from the shop and job branches which would supply all the administrative forces.

Nearly all people with a socialist or near-socialist training as well as any practical minded worker will see and admit that Industrial Communism as thus proposed by the I. W. W. and many sister organizations in other countries is the proper way to solve the whole social question.

The Bolsheviki of Russia have partly built their new society according to our map. They have the industrial unions, except in agriculture, and they have the local and regional and national administration in embryo. But instead of having complete democracy, they have actually the dictatorship of a party which calls itself communist. The leaders of this party, however, declare that it is their intention to maintain the rule of this party only until such time as the industrial unions can themselves take the responsibility for production and distribution and until the soviets can be recruited from the industrial union branches exclusively.

The Central administration of the All Russian Trade Union movement, which most nearly corresponds to our general administration, is now subordinated to the rule of a political party, which has general direction not only of local and regional administration but also of production and distribution, even to the single factories and places of work.

There may have been many good reasons for this sort of an arrangement, this sort of tentative state communism, in Russia, where people were so unprepared for the task of taking over the country and all responsibilities, and where the mass of the people were unable to read print. It was an almost impossible task to transmit the plan of industrial communism on the spot to a couple of hundred million people who were either utterly illiterate or else entirely strange to industrial conceptions and ideas, such as can grow into the popular mind only in a country like America.

To the same extent that the people of the various countries have in advance propagated the idea of organizing the people into shop and job branches for the purpose of taking over all public activities, to the same extent that they have already organized such shop and job branches and industrial unions and industrial departments and central councils for local and regional administration, to the same extent will they be able to take over their respective countries without calling to their aid the political parties.

The Politicians

The politicians are looking upon such teachings with dismay. If the workers are going to take possession of the factories direct, without governmental proclamations, as they seem to be doing in Italy; if the workers continue to organize their camere del lavoro, as in Italy, or their labor exchanges as in other countries, or their local samorganizations as in Scandinavia, or their councils as in America and in England, what becomes of the political parties, the political machines and the politicians?

They will find themselves misfits and the politicians will face the necessity of earning their living by labor recognized as useful, instead of living by monopolizing the administrative jobs from top to bottom.

There is a tendency in all political parties to organize into something we would call "The Political Workers Industrial Union". This union of each party desires the chance to govern all the rest of the people. To govern is the business of a politician.

The republican and democratic parties, the Socialist parties, the Labor parties, the Communist parties, are all "Industrial Unions" of that kind.

As far as the communists of America are concerned some of them seem to wish to have their party, much as an industrial union, incorporated into the I. W. W. plan of Industrial Communism. They want a place for their "industrial union" on the I. W. W. chart. And the chief function of the members of this union would be to fill all the more important office chairs of the new society.

This is, of course, repugnant to all friends of real democracy or self-government.

The communist parties being composed to a large extent of people outside the working class proper, of artists, literateurs and boheme, of professional men without a footing in the bourgeois world and of parliamentarians as in Sweden, Norway and other countries, hate to see the world made over in such a manner that their conspiracy to govern the world comes to naught.

Feeling and knowing that they have no prospects of getting into the office chairs by the old methods of parliamentarian elections, they want the working masses to make a revolution and lift them into power as their rulers. That is what they call the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are not very anxious that the workers should give too much of their attention to building according to the I. W. W. blueprint, for these wily politicians and desperadoes realize, that if the workers build that way, they will not need the "communist" politicians.

Consequently we find that when the members of the communist parties join the I., W. W. or the syndicalist organizations of other countries, it is not so much for the purpose of building up those organizations, as for the purpose of changing their activities so they will fall in with the current of communist political activities. They do not join for the purpose of taking a bundle of our papers or magazines or books under their arm, as a rule, in order to sell them and to spread I. W. W. information. They do not join in order to fill our treasuries or build up our unions. No, they join us, apparently, mostly for the same purpose as the saloon-keeper or the doctor or grocer joins the Elks or the Eagles, that is for business.

And in the same manner as they join the I. W. W. they join the A. F. of L. and the co-operative movement or any other movement, that is for the purpose of propaganda, or in order to break them up if they do not yield to the propaganda.

And what is their propaganda?

They want us to change our program as outlined in the beginning of this article. They want us to abandon the attempt to build the new society within the shell of the old as being useless, and to gather our forces and join with other bodies that they are trying to convert, in an attempt to capture the capitalist state through "mass action". They openly state that they mean armed insurrection.

They are an impatient element thirsting for power. They want a political revolution by force in order to get on top and tell us what to do.

But as we have outlined above, in word and in illustration, we already have made up our mind what to do. We have made up our mind to do with out them. We propose to solve the whole social problem without political action, without the aid of politicians. We propose to solve it through Economic Direct Action, and we are winning the world over to our program slowly but surely. Fifteen years ago we were nothing, and now the workers of every country are taking up our program, where they have not temporarily been carried off their feet by the desperate, last-chance agitation of the left wingers from the socialist parties.

Somebody might say that our Central Councils are nothing but political institutions, as well as the general administration, in so far as it serves as center for these councils, and that we, consequently, have a political program as well as an economic, the latter being embodied in our Industrial Unions. This hairsplitting is frequently resorted to by the cornered politician, who is loth to admit that we could do without him and his politics. Such argument is insincere.

"Polis" is a Greek word which means town or city. We have it in Constantinopolis and Adrianopolis. From that "polis" is derived the word politics and political and politician. Politics means about the same as "city business," "city affairs," or in short, "public business." Political is that which has to do with public business, and a politician is one who devotes himself to public business or public affairs.

As a matter of fact the I. W. W. is trying to make public business of most human functions. It is going to make production and distribution public business, and it is going to make city and regional and national administration public business also, instead of the private business of a political party.

From that point of view a hairsplitter might say, with the benign judge up in Bellingham, Wash., that the I. W. W. is nothing but a political party.

The confusion comes from using "politics", "political" and "politician" in a double sense.

If we take these words in their original, respectable sense of "public business", then the I. W. W. is a political organization, through and through.

But the word politics, political and politician have long ago lost that sense and have gotten a new meaning that we use when we repudiate politics, political action and the meddling in our work by politicians.

The degeneration of our vocabulary has kept even pace with the degeneration of public affairs and public men during the reign of capitalism.

Politicians, instead of being public spirited men with the welfare of the people at heart, are commonly known in every country as conscienceless villains who steal and take bribes and sell out the people and their interests to the highest bidder. Politics, instead of being an honorable occupation for which honorable men compete, has become a cess-pool from which decent and self-respecting men shrink in impotent sorrow.

Politics is a cut-throat game in which only the basest participate and in which the biggest villain frequently is the victor. When the innocent working class goes into politics it quickly degenerates and falls into corrupt political machines.

The politician is after power. He wants to get that power, because it leads to everything else that he wants.

The Republican, Democrat, Farmer Labor, Socialist, and Communist politicians are all after the same thing. They all want to get possession of the government buildings in order to rule us from there. It is the same in all countries. But we do not want to be ruled. We want to "govern" ourselves.

All of them propose to "get there" by the use of the ballot except the communist politician. He proposes to get there by the use of the bullet. The Republicans and Democrats and all the other ballot politicians work their game with promises of reform within the confines of the capitalist state and a millennium in the future, perhaps, but the communist politician works his game by promising us all we ask for on the spot if we will help him into the government buildings so he can "smash the capitalist state." This change has come over the communist politicians during the last 24 months and they are still constantly changing "attitudes", "positions", "planks" and "principles." This rapid-fire evolution from parliamentarians to insurrectionists they arrogantly call "keeping abreast of the times". We call it trimming.

We refuse to see in it anything but the fury of a handful of intellectual or quasi-intellectual leaders outside the ranks of the regular wage workers who have lost their footing and are staking all on one card, the card of political revolution.

It is to further such ends and for no other reason that some of the "communist" leaders have taken up the I. W. W. as a platform plank. Some of them are issuing literature declaring open war against us. The I. W. W. has no use for their politics nor for the politics of any other party. We are enough to ourselves. We need no political help to solve the social problem. We will not reach our final goal one minute faster by deviating from our straight course of economic direct action.

The very presence of social organs like the ones we are building will in the final crisis be sufficient to make a desperate people turn to the solution we offer. If people keep their self control and adopt our program, no political revolution such as contemplated by the "communists," is needed. Any set of fools can make a bloody revolution, but it takes sensible men like the I. W. W. to attempt a complete economic revolution without bloodshed.

The Italian workers, in taking possession of the factories, have given wings to the expression "a bloodless revolution". The I. W. W. program makes such a revolution possible.

May every individual retain his political faith as well as his religious faith, if he wants to, but we hold that with increasing enlightenment all religious and political denominations shall disappear and every man and woman become a "politician" in the original and proper sense of the word, that is a public spirited person who seeks nothing but the common welfare.

But until that time we shall draw a sharp line of demarcation between political action and economic action. We will leave the name "politician" as a Cain's mark on the forehead of those who are now dragging men, women and children down in a sea of foul corruption and into bloody adventures. Our own activities we shall continue to characterize as Economic Direct Action, as per decision of our last convention, and we shall do our best to keep politicians out of it.

In the "appeal to the I. W. W." from the Third International we recognize the soft Jacob-voice of international solidarity, but in the out-stretched hand we recognize the hairy Esau-hand of wily politicians. We cannot and will not grasp that hand.

Besides, what benefit could we derive from joining a few hundred thousand politicians? We do not count certain economic bodies as their adhesion is largely sentimental and brought about in an unguarded moment by crafty politicians.

As pointed out in another article in this issue, the workers of every country are calling for an Industrial International. That will be a real, big international of tens of millions of workers with a practical, international working program, That is where the I. W. W. belongs, and not among politicians.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield. Taken from a iww.org page no longer online, but available on archive.org

Any woman determined to win for her sex a complete emancipation will not know how to remain indifferent before a future hastened or retarded with a social fact as important as communism.

The feudal regime based on the doctrine of force, established on aristocracy of birth, the bourgeois regime founded on the profit system and putting its emphasis on material wealth have both kept women in subjection and exploited them. Will socialism, when realized, perpetuate this subjection and exploitation?

With only a superficial examination, one might believe this. Many of the militant syndicalists hold exactly the same opinion about women as those ancient Romans, autocratic and egoistic, who could think of no words of greater praise to put on the tomb of a Roman matron than, “She remained at home and spun wool.”

They do not understand the life of woman, bound, as it is, by all the enslaving duties of the home. They do not think of any activity of woman except in the shadow of a man. I have now in my hands a letter which a good militant sent me a short time ago about the work of woman. ‘‘Many of the comrades,” he said to me, “have decided, as I have, to have their wives withdrawn from industry.”

He did not even realize the tone of ownership which he had used. One could easily see in his thought and in that of his comrades that, the husbands once having made the decision, women had only to submit themselves, no matter what they were doing, to their husbands’ wishes.

Even in socialist circles, sympathetic to the emancipation of woman, it never enters the minds of our comrades that this emancipation can be accomplished by making an appeal to women themselves. Even when one appeals to the beginner, when one encourages him, when one urges him to action, he will find the beginner in his quiet place.

So that if it were necessary for us to depend for our progress on the masculine ideals which dominate society, we would not see woman’s emancipation but in the hazy distance of the future.

But there are things stronger than the sentiments and ideals of individuals. All yield, whether they wish to or not, to the law of the milieu in which they live. Communism, which tomorrow will modify the very foundations of society, will replace the rule of gold with that of service and will create, of itself, a favorable environment where the freedom of this slave of the centuries can be accomplished.

On the regime of the right of the strong, woman can do nothing. To power of money has given to the man who brings his wages to his home an advantage over her whose drudgery is not paid for. Today, in basing all rights on that work, the masters of the new city are “the citizens who earn their living in performing a work productive or useful to the community, as well as those who are engaged in household work for the former in order to permit them to work.” (Constitution of the Soviets, Art. 64.)

By its principles, by the remaking of the very structure of society, a communist society cannot fail to help in the emancipation of women, and I add that if it does not bring to an end the economic inferiority in which women are today, it will maintain within itself an unhealthy ferment which sooner or later will ruin it.

To bring about the society of tomorrow, which should break all chains, socialists are charged with the duty of seeking out the cause of this economic inferiority of women and of recognizing that there is one of the most serious problems which will present itself for solution to the minds of the grave-diggers of the old order.

In our age of the machine, where physical force is no longer the only requirement for work, where nervous force is an important factor in the doing a task well, generally speaking, woman does not find any avenue of work absolutely closed to her. She can assure for herself an independent livelihood. The thousand experiences of the war have proved that she is equal to all tasks. She can be sure of her livelihood if she can always work.

The child comes to prevent it. The child is then the cause of the enslavement of women. As a mother, the worker can no longer work. A baby demands constant care; during the first two years of its life, it monopolizes completely the activities of its mother. Circumstances have thus placed the mother and her child up to the present time in a position of dependence on the father; and the father, through the instrumentality of the child, has made the woman yield to his authority. Society has not only tolerated this state of things, but has embodied it into its laws and sanctified it.

It is thus that our laws on marriage and on the family constitute a veritable monument of iniquity. They have placed woman in a state of complete slavery to the man and have made of her a creature to be exploited.

I say ‘‘exploited,” and the word is not too strong. Hours of work not fixed, sometimes sixteen or seventeen hours, the impossibility of leisure, permitting her no personal culture, working conditions which no one attempts to better (see whether or not our city officials, members of the departments in charge of the houses of the poorer classes, have ever thought of a central kitchen for workers’ houses or for a sensible arrangement of the interiors of their homes); horrible sanitation—the man cares little, for it is not he who spends hours taking care of these hovels without light or air which are the kitchens of the workers’ houses—-such is the life that awaits the woman worker in her home. Enslaved by endless drudgery which constitutes what literary sentimentalists call the “life of the family,” the “queen” of the home has never been able to find time to work out a way to make her lot an easier one.

The Communists of Russia have realized that socialist society must set itself to the freeing of woman; not only in appearance, by the passing of laws which do not take count of the economic inferiority inherent in the life of woman today; but by providing means which will free her in part from the hold of the child, and which will try, by industrializing certain domestic duties, to render less crushing her endless round of household tasks.

And this is not all. For as the years pass, the desire for the independence of women will be more clearly formulated; and they will realize to what a state of inferiority in the present state of society they have been brought by their maternal function.

And there will be presented directly to communist society, as it has been already presented to bourgeois society, the problem of guaranteeing the complete economic independence of the mother. It is for us then to commence to work out the solution.

The reader is doubtless astonished that I pass over in silence what action our earnest comrades among the women can do to bring about communism.

In my opinion, it is not necessary for the time being to think about this action. Woman is, in France, too crushed by drudgery and by laws to have had any leisure to study political and economic questions. She submits to the present state because the duties which crush her do not permit her to revolt against it.

It is only when the revolution will have achieved the essential conditions of economic and political freedom for woman: that she can make the step forward towards her place in the world.

The more enlightened among the women workers are in sympathy with communism. On them, one can count. The new society will give the workers their due. All, in the development of their abilities, will pay back a hundred-fold to the society which has freed them the equivalent of the services which they have received.

(Translated from La Revue Communiste”’ by Frances B.)

Shop Organization in the Metal & Machinery Industry: "440"s method of organizing its shop councils into one city branch

The main office of Metal and Machinery Workers Industrial Union No. 440 finds keen satisfaction in submitting to the membership the accompanying organization chart, confident that it embodies such a perfected plan of organization as has never before been attained by the metal and machinery industry and as will infallibly result in the phenomenal and rapid expansion of our industrial union, if we get the uniform co-operation of the membership in its application. It is nothing but the thoroughly worked out and comprehensive application of the now world-wide popular and effective "shop committee" or "shop council" plan of organization to our industry. The plan includes the two overwhelming advantages of resulting in the most effective form of organization both for dealing with the masters now and for operating the industries after the masters are overthrown, at the same time that we follow the line of least resistance in organizing.

The membership will recognize that this graphic chart and its plan of organization is in exact accord with the action of the last General Convention of the General Organization in endorsing the "shop committee" plan of organization. And we need hardly add, in addressing the members of Metal and Machinery Workers' Industrial Union, that it is directly consequent upon and in conformity with the decision of our own last general convention at Toledo, O., last spring, and confirmed by referendum vote of the membership.

Because of the supreme importance of the subject and in view of the fact that this month we are able to produce this graphic chart, we are going to quote from an article of last month's issue of the METAL WORKER, which with a little study will make the chart perfectly plain to the mind in every detail. The article, in so far as it applies directly to the understanding and elucidation of the chart, reads as follows:

The metal and machinery industry is composed of many factories and mills where workers are engaged in the production of metal products. Every factory or mill of any size is sub-divided into departments and every department has its foreman.

Let us forget our nationality when considering this plan and bring our attention to bear upon the metal and machinery industry. If we are to have a genuine industrial organization, then we must study the industry and how it is organized. By doing so we will get a better idea of the form our organization should take.

We will now proceed to organize. First we will take the department of the shop. We will have one delegate in each department. The duty of the delegates will be to take care of their respective departments just as your foreman does now, except that the delegates' only function at present will be to collect dues and carry on the educational and organization work in his department.

These department delegates will come together, making up the shop council and elect a shop delegate, whose duty will be to get supplies from the branch secretary and issue them to the department delegates.

He receives reports from the department delegate and forwards them to the branch secretary, in short he has the same duty as the superintendent, or general foreman of the shop in which you work, that of looking after the shop in general except that his only duty at present it to look after the department delegate, take care of the educational and organization work in the shop and act as chairman of the shop council.

The shop delegates come together making the One City Branch organization committee. They elect a chairman.

This committee's duty is to look after the interests of the organization within the city. To raise finances and supervise the work of the organization in general throughout the city. The branch financial secretary shall act as recording secretary for the city organization committee and shall take care of the branch funds. He receives supplies from and sends his reports to the main office of the industrial union direct.

Branch secretaries shall be put on a wage basis only when the volume of business demands it, or the revenue will allow the same to be done. Branches shall hold only such funds on hand as may be absolutely necessary to carry on the work of organization in the particular locality.

The entire membership of a city shall meet together in one business of establishing general industrial solidarity in a given district. Delegates will come together from the City Branches in a district, let us say about every three or six months, except in the larger cities, where conditions will not permit or where it is necessary for foreign language speaking fellow workers to meet by themselves.

In either case it may not be possible for the membership of an entire city to meet together. Where it is necessary to meet in several different bodies for the above reasons, each body will have its own recording secretary, who will keep the financial secretary and organization committee of the One City Branch informed of the activities of the particular body.

Of course, the above scheme of the One City Branch with shop units can only be worked out as we gain sufficient membership in the various shops, but if we go about the work in the right way we can work it out to a great extent with our present membership. Where it is necessary to meet in several different bodies, and where your shop units cannot be formed at the present, each body will elect a delegate who will receive reports from the delegates in his body and turn them over to the financial secretary. He will receive supplies from the financial secretary and issue the same to the other delegates in his body and turn them over to the financial secretary. He will receive supplies from the financial secretary and issue the same to the other delegates in his body. These delegates from the several different bodies will make up the City Organization Committee. Whenever it is possible it will be best to go ahead with the shop unit plan, then we will have our organization committee made up of delegates from the various shops in the city. This is a genuine industrial organization in line with the present makeup of the metal machinery industry. We bring our organization to the shop where it belongs, educating and organizing the workers right at the point of production for a realization of our aims, that of working class management.

Besides all this a closer alliance will be maintained between the various One City Branches in a locality through the formation of Industrial District Councils. Industrial District Councils are formed for the purpose of discussing general organization matters pertaining to the district and to work effectively in the district. This is the only function it can perform at the present and is in compliance with our constitution.

To give you a general idea of Industrial District Councils as they can be formed in the metal and machinery industry, we will give you the following districts with Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, and New York as centers. Of course, we have not much at present except delegates in some of the cities mentioned, but it will be an illustration anyway. The Chicago District will include: Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, South Chicago, Indiana Harbor, Gary, Hammond, So. Bend, Harvey and Rockford, etc. Cleveland District will include: Detroit, Toledo, Tiffin, Warren, Canton, Akron, Erie, Youngstown and Pittsburgh. Dayton District will include Cincinnati, Hamilton, Middletown and Columbus. New York will include: Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Schenectady, Stratford, Bridgeport and Philadelphia.

One or two good delegates from a branch will be enough, for these are but conferences and we must not incur any large expense. Industrial District Councils will have no paid officials and will hold no treasury. Branches will pay the expenses of the delegates.

General Industrial District Councils are formed for the purpose of establishing general industrial solidarity between the different industrial unions in a given district. Its function is the same as that of the Industrial District Council, except that its delegates come from branches of different industrial unions.

The Industrial District Council takes up the questions pertaining to one industry, while the General District Council takes up questions pertaining to all industries in the given district. The scope of the latter may be limited to the city.

We want you to read in connection with this subject an editorial from a recent number of SOLIDARITY, quoted elsewhere in this issue*, in which is related the experience of one of our members in organizing one of the big industrial plants of this country along lines practically the same as this plan. It will give the reader an idea of the ease with which our plan can be applied.

Now, fellow workers, it is up to you. The plan is yours. As stated above it contains great and immediate possibilities for our industry. Its growth and achievement will travel exactly in ratio to our zeal and enthusiasm.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield. Taken from iww.org page no longer online, but available on archive.org

Two hostile camps have developed in the Canadian One Big Union. The one is fighting for a militant industrial form of an organization, the other for a geographical (district) beans and soup association.

The former is advocated by the lumber (migratory) workers, and the later by the city "home" guard element.

The migratory workers have acquired their knowledge and class-consciousness in the bitter school of actual life, but the city slaves got their training in the A. F. of L. and in other yellow institutions that served to build up the capitalist system and now function to brace and patch it up.

From their numerous articles of polemique and their recent convention we gather the following points (they are contradicting one an other) which in their opinion would justify their form of an organization:

"That the workers would have more in common geographically than industrially.

"That the industrial form of organization endangered the success of the Russian revolution and that the Lumber Workers are having, or at least advocating a dangerous form of an organization, anarcho-syndicalist like the I. W. W.

"That industrial organizations such as the Lumber Workers etc., are A. F. L. unions.

"That decentralization of our organization and devolution shall take place". (group organization their slogan)

"That above five points are the basis wherefrom they intend to institute a "class organization" based on small geographical districts and crown it "one big union".

"And that industrial organizations creates unnecessary officialdom", (such as the Lumber Workers)

Winnipeg (Canada) is the gem of the district form of organization, since the inception. of the O. B. U. and their officialdom outnumbers that of the Lumber Workers 3 to 1. The Carpenters alone has 4 officials; the 17 Unions, each of them has its separate set of officials and three of them are separate Railwaymen's Units. Toronto, the home of the famous "class" organization shows on the books 2 Carpenters' Units, each with a set of officials.

There may be arguments as to why there are so many small crafts and trade divisions divided by geographical and other lines with sets of separate officials, but there are no arguments that would justify the agitation for further separation with a view towards the elimination of officialdom. You can get all the Philadelphia lawyers together and none of them will be in a position, to show you how that elimination is done in one big mulligan of district and decentralized group organization.

We agree to their sentimental expression in point [one] just so far as sentiment may go, "the workers have everything in common", not alone in a given locality, but the world over. But then we must remember that organizations are not advanced by sentiment, but by material conditions.

The method of production and distribution in a given industry are best known to the workers in that industry, and it is they who have the knowledge of the productive capacity of that industry, they are the ones to determine the form of government in that industry.

The industrial method of production determines the sphere of every individual in industry. We are bound to this law with unbreakable steel chains, chains that link us together with our fellow-workers in a given industry, in America, Europe, or Asia, whether we like it or not. No geographical organization can alter this fact. We must then, organize along the lines that the industrial method of production determines, according to industry, in the strata in which industry placed us going forward with the current of social evolution to the establishment of industrial democracy.

The talk of having more in common as workers of all or some industries in a given locality, serves only as a weapon to political adventurers and labor lieutenants, enabling them to form parliamentary and other machines, for the purpose of negotiation and compromise, thereby serving the master class. Therefore the militant working-class movement has just as much in common with that kind of individuals as they have with the master class, as a matter of fact those opportunists are more dangerous than the master-class.

Any school boy can tell you who the miners of Great Britain have more in common with, and in this connection there is the probability that the miners of all Europe join hands and by the strength of their industrial organizations, compel the masters to come to terms. On the other hand who cries out, "negotiate, compromise"? Who but the politico-geographical opportunists. (Same thing happened during the British railway strike). It was no mulligan of a fancy "class" organization, but the industrial workers of the metal industries who expropriated those factories in Italy just recently. Therefore the workers have more in common in a given industry the world over, than they would en masse in a geographical economic organization in the industrial field, such as the O. B. U. of Canada now proposes. Mass and class organizations have entirely different functions to perform. We have none in Canada that are worthy considering from a revolutionary political standpoint. If there is need of one, then it must be started outside of the O. B. U.

Transcribed by J. D. Crutchfield.

Originally appeared in The One Big Union Monthly (December 1920)

An account of a wave of suppression which swept the Chilean workers' movement in the summer of 1920.

The following article is a translation of a letter received from a member of the Chilean branch of the international revolutionary rank-and-file union the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) sent to the American IWW. They state it was one of several communications received by them from authentic and reliable sources, giving an account of the almost unbelievable atrocities committed by the Chilean ruling class during and since the last week of July. These atrocities were caused by what appears to be a cleverly manipulated "wave of patriotism" on behalf of the nitrate barons of northern Chile, who dominate the whole country and its government through its chief wealth-producing industry, against Peru and Bolivia and their awakening capitalist elements. These latter have of late voiced a desire to regain possession of the provinces of Arica and Tacna, formerly a part of Peru, and Antofagasta, formerly a part of Bolivia, which were seized by Chile in the war of 1879, and held by it since the peace treaty of 1883.

As the magazine "Insurrexit," published by the University Students’ Organisation of Buenos Aires, said: another war, fomented by the patriots of Chile, Peru and Bolivia, was brewing for the possession of a desert waste of fowl excrement, the guano beds out of which the nitrate is taken.

A Letter from Chile
Fellow Workers:

We are passing through a period of repression which for savage ferocity has never been equalled in this country. The dominating powers and representatives of "order," of "our country", and of "god" even, are reverting naturally and easily to the instincts of the troglodyte.

The watchword seems to be, "wipe out all Syndicalists, IWW's, Anarchists and idealists, be they workers or students; destroy their publications and print shops, their offices, assembly halls and libraries," etc., in short, all agencies of enlightenment and education appealing to, or established by, oppressed workers or idealists, and all organisations aiming to replace the present intolerable regime with one of economic freedom.

There are large numbers of our comrades and fellow workers in the jails of Chile; over 100 in Santiago, 25 in Valparaiso, as many more in Concepcion, Iquique, Caleta Buena, Antofagasta, Tocopilla, Punta Arenas and other localities. Many of our fellow workers have been deported for the "crime" of having been born beyond the boundaries of the domains of the nitrate despots, or because of affiliation with the seriously progressive labour organisations, in spite of the fact that many of them have resided in this country for 25 years or more. These comrades have been arrested, subjected to violence and beatings, and abandoned in the desert on the Peruvian boundary.

They have raided and destroyed the printing plant of the libertarian review "Numen" of Santiago, of the Anarcho-syndicalist ten-day publications "El Surco" of Iquique and "La Batalla" of Valparaiso, of "La Comuna" of Vina del Mar, of the weekly "El Socialista" and the inter-daily "El Trabajo" of Punta Arenas, the latter being the organ of Magellan Workers' Federation.

They have destroyed and sacked the offices of the Students' Federation of Santiago and of the local unions of the Industrial Workers of the World in Santiago and Valparaiso. The majority of the prisoners are of the latter organisation, and they are being tried or are awaiting trial in Santiago and elsewhere as "subverters of law and order." Those detained for trial in Santiago comprise practically all the members of the Regional Administrative Council of the I.W.W. of Chile, as well as the business managers of "Numen" and "Verba Roja," Julio Valiante and Luis A. Soza. The editors were not apprehended. Nearly all the members of the Local Administrative Council of Santiago and the editors and managers of its organ "Mar y Tierra," Juan 0. Chamorro y Santos Arancibia, are in jail in Valparaiso, with Juan Vergara and Luis A. Pardo of the Anarcho-Syndicalist ten-day paper "La Batalla". In Iquique, the editor of "El Surco," Celedonic Arenas, is again on trial, and in Tocopilla, the editor of "El Socialista," Luis Rocabarren, has been indicted. In Concepcion, Fellow Workers Luis A. Jorquera and Luis A. Hernandez, editors of "La Jornada," are being tried.

Among the students being tried in Santiago, is Fellow Worker Domingo Gomez Rojas for the "crime" of being a member of the IWW, and Pedro Gandulfo and Rigoberto Soto, who heroically defended their offices and hall on the day of the assault, when the library of the social centre of the students was burned. The assault on the students' club took place at high noon, and it is pertinent to mention that the said club was situated two blocks away from the palace of "La Moneda," the seat of government of this civilized republic.

In the face of the acquiescent police, a mob of clericals and patriots, made up of students of the religious colleges and military in civilian clothes, with the national flag and the portrait of the president at their head, proceeded to destroy all that stood for enlightenment and freedom for the workers and producers. They beat up our Fellow Worker Juan Gandulfo, a student, most cruelly, because he would not obey their demands that he kiss the flag they were carrying. They also beat up in the most savage manner the student Santiago Labarco, and the professors of the University of Chile, Evaristo Molina of the department of Political Economy and Pedro Leon of the Department of Philosophy.

In Valparaiso the same acts of barbarism took place, the IWW hall being raided by police and soldiers, who entered the hall, revolver in hand, while the fellow workers were holding a special business meeting, and began to beat them right and left, until a couple of our comrades opposed their cowardly brutality and defended themselves with chairs, and then the majority of those present were taken to jail, including the most active members of our Valparaiso unions, while other police and soldiers miraculously "found" dynamite and firearms of different kinds in the hall. The furore created over this discovery by the corrupt daily press with its usual perversions, brought about another raid of the hall by the clericals and patriots pure and simple, who destroyed all the furniture and equipment in the local hall and offices of the IWW. The hall and offices of the Magellan Workers' Federation, including their printing establishment, all occupying a magnificent building formerly used as a theatre, were stormed shortly after midnight, while the workers were assembled inside.

The soldiery attempted to enter the hall but were refused, and upon being closed out fired several volleys into the building at close range, killing some thirty workers and wounding about fifty. The mob, made up of the Catholic Federation, the Patriotic League of Chile, and military and civil officials, including the governor of Magellan, set machine guns at the street corners surrounding the building, and set fire to the workers' hall at several different places at the same time, burning it to the ground along with the offices and print shop of "El Trabajo," organ of the Workers' Federation of Magellan, issued every second day.

The soldiery attempted to enter the hall, but were orgies of murder and destruction, and he forbade the fire department from putting out the fire. Afterward, according to the version of this same worthy governor, there were found in the ruins the charred remains of five victims of the assault and fire. Those who succeeded in escaping from the burning building were seized. Some of them were shot while attempting to escape the flames, while others were shot in the plaza without further ado.

It is the supposition that not only the wave of mobilisation patriotism against Peru, but also the opposition of the Federation and its organ to the governor, Alfonso Bulnes Corres, because of his protection of the local exploiters and illegal traffickers in liquor, as well as the ultimatum of the workers comprising the Federation not to move any liquor, caused the governor to instigate vengeful action against the workers, being ably assisted by the Catholic Federation, the Patriotic League of Chile and the press, as well as mayor Paradas and other civil and military officials.

The infamous massacre was too much even for the editor of the bourgeois paper "The Daily Magellian," and another editor had to be found before the paper could be issued; while the workers of the whole region went out on a spontaneous general strike of protest and in memory of the victims of the Chilean bourgeoisie, continuing on strike for four days.

As you will see by the above, fellow workers, we are the victims of the most infamous reaction imaginable. Neither the names of the workers held prisoner in different parts of Chile nor of those deported have been allowed to be published; in this letter we only mention those we have knowledge of personally, or through other comrades.

As we are placed at a tremendous disadvantage in our struggle against the perpetrators of these terrible crimes, we ask for solidarity from all the workers the world over. We suggest that wherever and whenever possible publicity should be given to the crimes of the Chilean bourgeoisie, and that protest meetings be held.

We also ask that you endeavour to carry on a boycott on all that comes from or goes to Chile as long as our comrades are held behind prison bars, and while the vicious persecution lasts against those of us who seek a better system of society and a brighter future for humanity.

Fellow workers: let solidarity be the watchword!

Against the criminal tyranny of the Chilean bourgeoisie let us oppose the international solidarity of the proletariat!

The I.W.W. and Anarchists of Chile.
Valparaiso, Chile,
September 28, 1920.

P.S. We especially urge a boycott against members of the Chilean bourgeoisie travelling in your country, by the organised Chauffeurs, Hotel and Restaurant Workers, etc.

Discontinue sending all papers and correspondence to our former addresses; this concerns all radical papers and organisations in Chile, as our offices have been closed and our addresses being known, all correspondence for us is being seized by the police. Send papers and correspondence to Luis Pirson, Correo 2, Valparaiso, Chile.

Edited from the One Big Union Monthly, January 1921

As told in the C.N.T. “Boletin de Informacion”

At every turning point in history supermen appear—fighting leaders and heroes. Francisco Ascaso was the stormy petrel, the fighting leader and hero of the present Spanish Revolution. The admiration with which the world looks today at the Spanish people, their self-sacrifice, their undaunted courage and determination, their valiant struggle for human ideals, must be attributed, to a great extent, to the example set by Ascaso.

Who was Francisco Ascaso? The third son of humble baker, Francisco was born in 1901 in the small market town of Almudevar, in the province of Huesca, which is at present witnessing severe fighting. While still a youth he displayed unusual observation and was endowed with a talent for drawing which caused the village schoolmaster to entertain hopes of making an artist of the baker’s son.

When Francisco was eleven years old his father died and the family were to compelled to give up their business and move to Saragossa. The two eldest sons, Domingo and Alejandre, helped their mother and young sister Marie, but Francisco became and odd-job boy in a bar, where he spent four years working from 16 to 18 hours a day. Here in the hard and practical school of life the young man learned to understand social evils and injustices, and the needs and misery of his own people.

At the age of fifteen, Francisco was apprenticed to a baker, with the intention of following in his fathers footsteps. He had just started his apprenticeship when a baker’s strike broke out in Saragossa. The fifteen year old boy had already so mulch class knowledge that he immediately joined the strikers. One day, meeting a strike breaker in the street carrying bread, the lad urged him to quit work. The strike-breaker refused and in no time the bread basket was rolling in the middle of the road and the loaves in a nearby brook. As a result of this “political act” Francisco spent two weeks in jail.

After his release he found he was finished with the baking trade as no baker in Saragossa would employ this “rebel”. He obtained work as a waiter, however, and spent his leisure hours studying the writings of the great social and revolutionary thinkers.

In 1920, the editor of the Herald De Aragon was killed by an avenging bullet. This man was said to have been responsible for the shooting of seven soldiers during a military uprising in Saragossa. The Government accused the Ascaso brothers of this killing of the editor. His two brothers escaped, but Francisco fell into the hands of the police. Although all the accused could furnish undeniable proof of their innocence, the reactionaries wanted their heads, and the death sentence was pronounced. In view of the energetic protests of the mass of the people, the authorities did not dare to carry out the verdict but contented themselves with condemning Francisco to four years imprisonment, thinking to cure him of his revolutionary ideas.

Ascaso came out of jail bearing on his body the evidence of wounds, blows and lashes. The reactionaries had shown him what was customary in the days of Torquemada. All those tortures to which can be added thirst and hunger had weakened Francisco’s body but strengthened his mind and fighting spirit. As soon as he recovered his liberty, Ascaso became active in a circle called VOLUNTAD (will) which was also the name of a weekly newspaper published by this circle in defense of the first International.

In 1922, Ascaso went to Barcelona, where he got in touch with Juan Garcia Oliver, Rafols, Boix, Vidal, Montserrat, Durruti and others. He was working as a waiter and his spare time was devoted to the movement. He founded the CNT Waiters Syndicate.

Ascaso later left the Catalan Capital to go to La Coruna where he, intended embarking for Bolivia. There he hoped to realize the dream of his youth—to go around wandering as Jack London had done. But in Galacia, Francisco, remembering his true mission and the sad situation of the Spanish proletariat, returned to Saragossa. Here he met again his old friends and opponents of the “Free Syndicates.” In Saragossa, the church, in the person of the Cardinal Soldevile intrigued against the proletariat. The Cardinal was executed by some despairing workers, and again Ascaso along with a few other comrades was put in jail. He remained here from June to December 8th, 1923, when he escaped with 23 friends. Only Ascaso and one of his companions reached France, the other 21 were caught and punished for an offence they had never committed.

Ascaso found new friends, comrades and fighters in Paris. There also he made the acquaintance of his wife Berta. In June, 1924, he embarked with Durruti for Buenos Aires and spread his ideas over almost the whole of South America, at the same time broadening his horizon and acquiring a knowledge of human nature.

Thirteen months later, in July 1925, we see our fighter again in Paris. Here he remained until April 14, 1931, when the monarchy fell. Ascaso’s first thought was to return from his banishment though he realized that the king had gone but the generals remained. Back again in Barcelona he found fertile soil for his ideas. Spain was now a kind of camouflaged democracy, so long as the church and the army retained their old privileges. But July 19th was to be the hour of liberation for Spain. At the head of his fellow comrades and workers, by the side his dear friend Durruti, Ascaso fought on the barricades. He had already conquered half of Barcelona, by July 20th he would have liberated the whole city. In Atarazanas, in the new city of the harbor, Ascaso advanced in spite of the fascist machine guns. A rebel bullet struck him.

Comrade Ascaso is dead. But his work still lives and like lava has spread over Spain. The war front is the place where the fire of his lava burns most fiercely, the front of civil war and social Revolution fed by the living soul and spirit of this man of action—Ascaso!

Transcribed by Revolution's Newsstand

Newspaper reporters, after witnessing bloody police attacks on workers for many years and putting in reports that, as they appeared were little to the liking of labor, organized themselves, and received such beatings as this ANG member did in the strike at the Wisconsin News.

Their union has won in many places. “It will make for honest reporting of labor news,” says this member of the ANG, “but it will take One Big Union to see to it that these honest reports are published.”

It must be admitted out of hand that any consideration of the question whether or not the American Newspaper Guild can make for honest reporting of labor news must at this time be based, to a considerable extent, on speculation—on describing the road ahead by the signs that are now visible.

Among perennial liberals and other incurable optimists, there is a tendency to hail the Guild, as the savior of the labor movement and to shout that at last brass check Journalism has been given a nice coating of pure gold leaf. To make such an assumption, however, is blandly to ignore the purpose, to say nothing of the power, of this movement.

During recent months, these predictions have found sturdy champions among the newspaper publishers. This cry was taken up with gusto as the result of the Seattle Newspaper Guild’s strike against the Hearst owned Seattle Post-Intelligencer, resulting in the suspension of that sheet for fifteen weeks. The nation’s press, for the most part, grew quite panicky at this threat to their purses and bellowed in alarm that the “freedom of the press” was being jeopardized.

One cannot state too bluntly that the pretended fears of the publishers, as well as the rosy hopes of the liberals, are based on a misconception of unionization as it is now practiced within an industrial plant (and a newspaper is an industry) does not mean the control of the type, size or color of the product. True, it may mean a step toward worker control, but at best only a step and we are doing ourselves a disservice if we describe it as a hop, skip and a jump.

While the Guild follows the I. W. W. in allowing for complete rank and file control, it has no revolutionary aims. Let us go to the constitution of the union for a statement of purpose.

“The purpose of the American Newspaper Guild,” says this document, “shall be to advance the economic well being of its members, to guarantee as far as it is able, constant honesty in the news, to raise the standards of journalism and ethics of the industry, to foster friendly cooperation with all other workers, and to promote industrial unionism in the newspaper industry.”

You will note two passages—“to guarantee as far as it is able constant honesty in the news” and “to raise the standards of journalism and ethics of the industry.” These were pounced upon by the publishers, during the outcry against the Seattle and previous strikes to lend weight to the charge that the Guild was attempting to direct the editorial policies of the nation’s press.

While many Guild members believe that their union will be able to make significant contributions to the labor movement, they have been forced to discount these charges by emphatically pointing out that the control of the publication rests with the publisher and that the sole aim of their organization is to see that the editorial workers come in for a measure of economic security.

The publisher well knows this, of course, but it does nothing to endear him to the ANPG. The unionization of editorial workers is detested by these gentlemen for reasons other than the increases in pay and shorter hours that are bound to come, albeit they surely are not eager to make even these concessions.

It would perhaps be well to point out to those unfamiliar with the city rooms of the daily press, that reporters are not usually “told” how a story should be written or what should be left out of the paper and what should be played up. It is an old saying in the craft that any reporter who is too dumb to discover “policy” is too stupid to stay on the pay roll. In other words, all reporters know that the boss is interested in strikes only to lend what assistance he can to the employer and it therefore is wise to waste no energy giving the strikers’ position in the controversy.

One of the characteristics of American journalism, as it affects labor troubles, is that much can be written but under no consideration is one to present a fair, impartial account of what the workers want. Usually strikes are “covered” by picking up hand-outs from the Chamber of Commerce or some Industrial Association. Seldom does a reporter get his information direct from the union and when he does, it is either thrown away by the editor, garbled by a re-write man, stressing an “angle” favorable to the employer, or buried in the market section.

The hostility of the publisher towards organized labor is the principal reason for the prostitution of the word “news” in labor troubles, but there is still another—ignorance of the newspaperman. For the most part, a knowledge of the labor movement is not considered an asset on a newspaper. In fact, the stupidity of some newspapermen on the question of unionism is amazing and while unions are not likely to believe it, I personally know of instances where some blows below the belt were due solely to the lack of knowledge on the part of a reporter who was, in fact, sympathetic to the striking, workers.

It must also be remembered that the working newspaperman is up against the economic question the same as other wage slaves. No matter how independent he may wish to feel, his insecurity is inclined to make him adopt a “protective coloration.” Because it is the safe thing to do, many unconsciously accept the ideas and prejudices of the publisher. These are the last to admit that their attitude has anything to do with holding their jobs.

Here is where the Guild has entered the picture. By giving him some security, the working newspaperman can and has adopted an independent attitude once foreign to all but a few venturesome souls. Then their active participation in the labor movement rapidly conditions their thinking —they sooner or later realize their own status in the economic scheme of things. In brief, they receive a valuable education previously missed. This educating could be better understood, if the reader could see a young reporter attending his first Guild meeting and worrying about the boss —then a few weeks later see him enthusiastically voting a strike and going at this new activity in a deadly serious manner.

No union understands better than the I. W. W. the importance of taking one’s case to the public. In the past many unions could do little to counteract the boss propaganda in the daily press. They were unfamiliar with journalistic tricks and practices and, consequently, they were practically mute at a time when speech was essential.

Whatever else may be laid at the Guild’s door, none can say that it has not been militant. True the fights were forced upon it, but it did fight. As the result, there are today in the United States thousands of labor-conscious newspapermen who will and have lent their services to unions when the time comes for doing what the publishers call “influencing public opinion.”

As this is written, I glance at a stack of newspapers. There are ninety of them. They are the issues of the Guild Daily, published in Seattle during the Post-Intelligencer strike. As far as I can determine, this is the first time in the history of the United States that a group of workers went on strike but continued to work at their usual jobs. Here, certainly, is something for publishers to really worry about and here is an eloquent answer to those who condescendly say that workers need a boss to direct and exploit them.

Within a few moments after the management of the Post-Intelligencer announced suspension, these strikers went to work putting out a newspaper. It hit the streets after a hectic night and some 20,000 were sold. Then, each day during the long strike this paper not only appeared but it grew steadily in circulation and importance. Boycotted by the usual wire services, the nation was covered by the Guild Wire Service, made up of union reporters in every large city in the country. Its policy on all questions was determined by a vote of the entire staff and it gave Seattle residents an unusually complete coverage of the city’s doings. Then, also, labor news was reported accurately for the first time since the suspension of the Union Record. This is probably wandering a bit afield. This article was to discuss the question of the Guild and honest labor reporting and not necessarily the importance in general to unions of organizing this particular group of white collar workers.

One can sum it up by saying that the Guild, as it stands now, will make for honest reporting of labor news, but it will take One Big Union to see to it that these honest reports are published.

-X304230

Transcribed by Juan Conatz

In the world today we hear a great amount of talk and also some degree of organization about and around the issue dubbed "Democracy versus Fascism." Many liberal and humane-minded persons, as well as self-styled radicals, the world over are huddling under the banner of "Democracy" in horrified opposition to Fascism.

In the United States these people supported Roosevelt in the recent elections, side with the "Republic" of Spain, feel a dependent fondness for Great Britain as the fairy godmother of Democracy while she steps designedly into every "situation" with her celebrated "diplomacy," give varying degrees of approval of Soviet Russia, and reserve the hate their simple souls can generate for the black fascist regimes of Italy and Germany.

The philosophy of the out and out liberal of this conglomerate group is that while Fascism is a surly, horrible thing. Capitalism as such is very desirable and should be preserved, albeit improved from time to time.

The "radicals" of this democratic movement are in their hearts not content with Capitalism, but are so frightened by the prospects of Fascism that they are hysterically choosing the fatal Germanic policy of the "lesser evil." Throwing all pretense of radicalism to the winds, these people have crawled out of the dread and darkness of their social cyclone cellars to become the blatant champions of Capitalist Democracy.

The slogan of each group resolves itself into—keep Capitalism, but keep out Fascism!

This slogan, however, is historically incorrect; we cannot keep in Capitalism and at the same time keep out Fascism. Fascism is but the logical development, the irresistible outcome of the class antagonism of Capitalism.

Recent history is bearing this out inexorably. Several nations are already frankly fascist, many more are tending toward that direction. It is a steady albeit uneven, petrifaction of international capitalist society into the hardened forms of fascist death.

Why does fascism everywhere appear as the fated affinity of Capitalism? Why is it that capitalist "Democracy" cannot withstand the attacks of this monster?

It is because Democracy cannot be the theoretically ideal form of government under Capitalism and was not so conceived. The class nature of capitalist society makes this impossible. "Democracy" was the slogan and weapon for the overthrow of feudalism. It cannot be the slogan or the weapon for the frustration of fascism.

At the time of the classic overthrow of feudalism there was no thought of the "Capitalism" of today. All classes subject to the authority and parasitism of the aristocracy and its church—the budding bourgeois, the equally budding "worker," and the peasant were united in a "people’s front" against feudalism.

Because of the authoritative and caste character of feudalism and the intellectual repressiveness of its church, the intellectual and cultural chanticleers of the new day declared the invigorating doctrines of democracy. The "freedom of man" became the inspired rallying cry of the new social order. This, combined with the confused and muddled class interests of the various groups in the "people’s front," none of which had formulated a clearly-defined political and economic policy for itself (and which would have been too weak alone to have imposed it if it had) made democracy the logical pattern of the new political forms.

However, that democracy is not the innate mate of Capitalism is clearly seen by the methods employed by Capitalism everywhere in its development. Where was democracy in the colonial policies and piracies of the democratic nations? Where was democracy in the United States which countenanced chattel slavery naked and unashamed until 1863? Where is democracy up until this day in the industries of Capitalism? Symptomatically defined, Fascism is force and violence. Has not Capitalism always practiced an incipient fascism at the point where its profits are produced?

As for the general domestic democratic forms of government, however, how has Capitalism managed? Ideally unsuited for it, Capitalism has nonetheless in some respects turned democracy into a very powerful aid for itself. Democracy has been of incalculable benefit to Capitalism in its development by serving as a smoke screen for its autocratic exploitation. It has with surprising efficiency served as a social control to combat the rebellion against the concentration process whereby the overwhelming majority of the populace has been reduced to "wage-slavery." Political freedom has obscured industrial serfdom.

In view of this very positive gain from democracy, the capitalist class has with more or less grace subjected itself to the expenses and inconveniences of democracy. Any dangers that might arise through it have been neatly evaded heretofore by outlay to politicians and political parties who have proved themselves very willing to safeguard the interests of the capitalist class and do its bidding with fawning servility.

However, as the relationships of Capitalism are becoming more thoroughly understood, as a pauperized proletariat (actually or relatively) is beginning to stand up in open defiance of its exploiting masters, as strikes and union organizations become larger, as tile ballot box becomes fore-doomed to partial control and eventual capture by the numerically largest group in society—the working class, Democracy must go in order for Capitalism to continue to exist. The bed-rock principle of Capitalism, is the exploitation of the working class, and no group conscious of its subjection and determined to end it can be restrained except by large scale force. Fascism supplies that force—"Democracy" cannot, particularly when its political forms threaten to pass into the hands of the exploited through a "people’s front." When the latter happens, or threatens to occur, or when faced by widespread labor unionism, Fascism will make its supreme bid for power, is in Germany and Spain, as it is preparing to do in France.

The phenomenon of Fascism is not always simple and uniform in its development. There is a great unevenness throughout the world that may serve to mislead tile unwary into the belief that Capitalist Democracy can be preserved and a fascist coup d’etat prevented. President Roosevelt, for example, is regarded in America as bulwark against Fascism. But, Fascism is still out of the saddle in Washington because Democracy is still under the control of the capitalism class. The "radical" reputation of the President has aroused the hopes of the yet confused American proletariat and its members thus remain at least temporarily quiescent under the rule of their capitalist masters. It may be, too, that the "people’s front" in France, timid and largely unwilling to introduce drastic changes, yet holding the confidence of a trusting proletariat, may still continue to serve largely the class interests of the employers without the necessity of a fascist coup for some time.

Is this the kind of democracy we want? A democracy that is suffered because it presides over an exploited and deluded people unaware of their real interests? Fascism will remain submerged only as long as "democracy" remains workable for the capitalist class; that is, as long as the workers remain content as a submerged and exploited class. `Tis small glory in such democracy or the victories achieved in its name.

The Roman Holiday of Fascism can be thwarted not by hurling the pitiful shafts of a sham capitalist democracy against its iron legions. Only the grimly alert, courageous advance of an organization resolutely determined to root out Capitalism can be expected to "mop up" Fascism. Alternatives are few in dangerous situations. The working class has positively no "stake" in Capitalism; but, even if you fancy that you have, the world cannot eat its cake yet have it too. Preserve Capitalism, invite Fascism; build a cooperative commonwealth and smash Fascism. Out of this a new democracy shall arise—the industrial democracy of cooperative labor.

Originally appeared in The One Big Union Monthly (January 1937)

“A fantastic situation!” exclaims one weekly voice of American employers about sit-down strikes.

“We are tired of having to get passes to enter our own factories,” many French capitalists protest.

Employers become powerless in the face of stay-in or sit-down strikes. The iron hand that holds the economic life of thousands becomes putty when confronted by these aroused workers.

The sacred property rights of the industrial tyrant are being questioned, and the absentee owner trembles lest sit-down strikes become more popular.

A new era of working-class solidarity is dawning. The slumbering giant is stirring and testing his chains.

Orthodox unionism is finding itself swept on in the rising tide of solidarity. Workers are spontaneously realizing they have a weapon more powerful than any ever dreamed.

Totally unorganized workers are arising in protest against deplorable conditions and are awakening to the advantages of industrial unionism. The stay-in strikes in June in France were spontaneous and took the trade unions by surprise. French trade unions are said to be enjoying an unprecedented growth due to the overwhelming success of these strikes. One observer writes, “It can be said roughly that the number of trade unionists has gone up from 600,000 to 4,400,000 since June. Some instances: The number of office employees passed from 25,000 to 825,000, the food workers’ union from 20,000 to 50,000, the Galleries La Fayette, which had not one single organized worker, now numbers 2,000 of them. Even the employees of the Banque de France begin to draw up their demands.”

Two thousand British and Welsh coal miners recently preferred to remain underground in the mines until their demands were met.

Miners at Pecs, Hungary, likewise declared a “stay-down” strike to wring concessions from the owners.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Silesia, India, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico — all of these countries have witnessed within the past year the solidarity of workers united in economic direct action. Sit-down strikes, stay-in strikes, hunger strikes — all these echo a grim determination of militant workers. Workers who refuse to leave underground mines or who remain at their factory benches or in their stores and restaurants and offices while striking — this is the new type of class struggle confronting capitalism.

Even in Fascist Germany, police and Nazi Storm Troops become powerless in the face of sit-down strikes, which have occurred in protest against further wage cuts. The D. K. W. Motor Works at Spandau, and the Motor Works of Bauer and Schauberte in the Rhineland both witnessed successful stay-in strikes recently.

American rubber and tire companies, Bendix Aviation, General Electric, R.C.A., WPA workers in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and elsewhere, Reading Maid Hosiery, Aluminum Co. of America, New York Shipbuilding Co., and many other corporations can testify to the efficiency of sit-down strikes by their lessened profits — and the workers of many of these places can hold up fatter pay envelopes as mute testimony of their success.

Violence, rioting, and bloodshed: for years and years these have been the pet bogeys of union haters. “Terrorism, destruction, and gore” meant the same thing as “strike” to labor baiters. They dragged these skeletons out to dangle before the horrified eyes of scissorbills whenever anyone even whispered “strike” or “solidarity”. “See what will happen,” employers have exclaimed as they reached for the telephone to call their tin soldiers or “private detectives” to come and do some rioting and terrorising for them.

Now, alas and alack, these myths which were so conveniently used by the bosses are being dispelled.

“Business Week” complains, “Sit-downs were so frequent that the union set up a system that placed the striking workers in charge of the plant during disturbances. Men were told off beforehand to guard doors, round up supervisors ‘for safekeeping in case of trouble’ and generally take over the plant.”

Order, self-discipline, and responsibility have universally characterized all sit-down strikes. The employers alone have been directly responsible for any bloodshed or destruction of property — because the workers realized that it is not by these tactics that their strikes are won.

In the recent French sit-down strikes which involved so many industries it is said the machines were preciously taken care of. The furnaces which must never go out were kept going; in the tan-yards the skins remained bathed, and every morning the masons wet the stones of the houses they were building. In short all work that could not be stopped without actual damage to valuable materials or machines was kept going by the strikers.

The workers here demonstrated they can take over and run industries without the parasitic control by a master-class, and that they can run them in an orderly and intelligent fashion. This is one thing capitalism has found itself unable to do: run industry in an orderly and intelligent fashion.

Where workers have not given politicians control of their strike, the sit-down strike has been uniformly and universally successful since the first one — the IWW strike of 3,000 General Electric employees in 1906.

The fact that the ownership of an industry belongs to the workers in that industry, just as the toothbrush he uses should belong to him; the fact that a worker has just as definite a right to the job upon which his economic life depends as he has upon his hair; the fact that the rights of the parasitic class should not include the ownership of tools they never use but upon which others’ lives depends — these facts are all understood by a sit-down striker, though he may not recognize them as such.

The worker at his machine which he refuses either to leave or to operate until his demands are granted, and the factory which continues to be operated by strikers, declare the worker’s right to his machine, and his ability to run it when the shackles of capitalist ownership are shaken off, though at the time it be only temporary.

Where economic direct action and working class solidarity are used in struggles against the master class, the workers will never lose.

“Freedom cannot be gained through intermediaries.”

Originally appeared in The One Big Union Monthly (January 1937)

What prospect is there of French labor insisting on intervention in Spain?

What was the driving force back of last year’s sit-down strikes? Why has a country with such a militant working class adopted compulsory arbitration?

A recognized authority on European labor movements deals with these important questions.

The latter part of May, 1936, the world was startled by an epidemic of strikes in all industries all over France. Unexpectedly and spontaneously millions of workers had revolted against unbearable conditions which had been continually and gradually worsening ever since the World War, undermining and demoralizing the spirit of that once proud, militant, and revolutionary French proletariat.

The amazement of the world was due not so much to the suddenness and the extent of the strikes, as to the new methods adopted and employed by the strikers. “Striking on the job” was put into effect on an unprecedently large scale and with telling effect.

The workers came to the decision that the means of production were no longer to be considered as the exclusive property of the masters, but that they by right belonged as much, or even more, to the workers whose lives and well being depended on these instruments of production and distribution; for, without the workers industry could not exist, and, without access to industry, the working class would perish. So the strikers had decided that in that fight, instead of abandoning the struck factories, shops, mines, railroads, department stores, etc., they were going to remain in them, and make themselves at home in them until the termination of the conflict. “La Greve sur le Tas” (striking on the job) was maintained throughout their extensive struggle.

To be sure, the “new” method employed by the French strikers, was not altogether new. The I.W.W. has propagated and practiced the principle of “striking on the job” ever since it was first organized. The French syndicalists themselves practised it occasionally even before the birth of the I.W.W. And in America, too, the WPA workers have been indulging in it sporadically for the last few years. But it was the strikes of May-June, 1936, in France, that definitely fixed the “sit-down strike” as a regular weapon in the armory of the working class.

By this departure from the ordinary, the strikes in France became first page news for the capitalist press of the world. Well known correspondents wrote the strikes up as “foreign news”, and the Brass Chock press thus unwittingly spread the idea among workers of all lands. The idea was taken up everywhere, even in these United States as we just witnessed in the General Motors strike. This weapon has no legal standing as yet; on the contrary, politicians and jurists seem to be unanimous in outlawing it as a breach of the sacrosanct right of capitalist property. Even the French Popular Front composed of communist, socialist, and radical bourgeois parties, and its government headed by comrade Leon Blum, have declared “sitting strikes” illegal, to be resisted by all the forces of the government.

But, what of it? Have not peaceful strikes and picketing been considered illegal for centuries? They came to be tolerated only when and where the workers were able to muster sufficient force to assert their “rights”.

Was the strike a success? The answer depends on who answers it. The strikes did not aim at revolutionary objectives, they were an explosion of the discontent of the masses. The demands have all been granted and these exceeded by far the expectations of the leaders of the labor unions, who, by the way, had no responsibility in starting these strikes. Briefly the gains were:

1. —‘Collective bargaining and collective contract;
2. —Right of electing shop and job delegates to represent the workers on the job and to adjust grievances and disputes with their employers; the employers not to fire delegates on account of their job delegate activities and the delegates to re¬ ceive their regular wages for time spent negotiating with the employers or their agents;
3. —The 40-hour work week;
4. —Vacations with full pay;
5. —Increase in wages from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, the lowest paid workers to receive the largest increase.

To American members of the I.W.W. these attainments will not appear very imposing and certainly not revolutionary; old-time French syndicalists appreciate these gains in the same way as the Wobblies would. Furthermore they contend that the enforcement of these gains will depend entirely on the strength of organization and the pressure workers will be able to exert, that otherwise the gains will be lost or forgotten. That these fears are justified will appear later in this article.

These same revolutionary unionists, however, unanimously agree that the strikes were a great victory for the working class, quite apart from the gains enumerated above. The working class of France has re-discovered itself, it has regained its former self-reliance and besides it forged for itself a new, efficient weapon, which it will never relinquish, and therefore it is ready to go places. Not since 1906, when after two years preparation the eight-hour day was won by great struggles, including several general strikes, have the masses of the French workers manifested such militancy.

It should be understood that the strikes of last year were not planned, or called by the unions through their regular channels. Most of the leaders of the unions were at the time engrossed with the political schemes of the Popular Front which had just won out in the elections and was busy forming its own government. Strikes of any magnitude would have embarrassed their political business. Small strikes broke out spontaneously in different parts of the country, and the time being ripe for it—the workers’ dissatisfaction having reached its climax—these small strikes spread. The movement got beyond the control of the union leaders— since the bulk of the striking workers were not members of the unions—and it became general. The masses not only took possession of the industrial establishments of France, but of the unions as well. They flocked into the unions so fast that in a few months the membership of the General Confederation of Labor increased from one million to five million members.

The reason why the masses had kept away from the unions is a long story and we can give only a few brief details. Up to the World War, the French Confederation of Labor (C.G.T.) was the outstanding revolutionary working class organization of the world. It was one of the sources of inspiration for the founders of the I.W.W. It was also actively anti-militarist. It commanded the respect and loyalty of the great majority of workers of France whether union members or not. It was a power of the first magnitude in France.

On the eve of the World War the C.G.T. proposed to the German Trade Unions that a general strike be called in France and Germany to prevent mobilization and war. The proposal was coldly turned down. “When the Fatherland is at war, the German worker is a German first of all” was the answer. As a reaction to this many of the influential leaders of the C.G.T. became favorable to defending their country against invasion and from then on they filled somewhat the same role for the French government that the A.F.L. did for the Wilson administration. The best militants, those who remained true to their anti-war principles were jailed or sent to the front line trenches to be murdered. By the tactics of class collaboration and with the aid of the government the C.G.T. grew numerically, but its principles got diluted and its morale weakened, losing its former militant, revolutionary character. The leaders thereafter no longer relied on the organized strength and combativeness of the membership, but rather on bickering with politicians, with the government and with the Labour Bureau of the League of Nations.

After the war, communism too, appeared, creating the usual confusion in the ranks, and after a couple of years of bitter internal struggle the C.G.T. split into two separate confederations (C.G.T. and C.G.T.U.), the latter affiliated with the Red International following the well known zig-zag lines laid down by Moscow. The other (affiliated with the I.F.T.U.) became more and more reformistic and closer to the socialist and radical bourgeois political parties and cliques.

For sixteen years the main activity of the two confederations consisted of fighting each other. Strikes under the reformist C.G.T. were generally disrupted by communists, injecting their senseless slogans such as, “Hands of China” etc. and bitterly attacking the people in charge of strikes, thus creating distrust and defeatism in the midst of strikes. After a strike would be lost or ended with doubtful success, as the result, at least in part, of such meddling, the communists would use that as fresh arguments of the treachery of the “social-fascist” leaders.

On the other hand, the communists kept on calling “political general strikes” in rapid succession until their movement became an object of contempt and ridicule with the great mass of workers. The labor world was thus kept constantly irritated and disgusted with these senseless fights and meaningless strikes. That is why workers, in ever increasing numbers, were dropping away from the unions and their activities.

On account of the fight between the two federations, several large industrial union federations pulled out of them and remained autonomous. Besides, the anarcho-syndicalists, feeling at home in neither of the above groupings, formed their own Confederation, the C. G. T. S. R. (Revolutionary Syndicalist General Confederation of Labor) and affiliated with the I.W.M.A.

The membership of the two confederations dwindled and their influence on the working class approached the vanishing point. The employing class thus got a free hand to deal as it liked with its slaves, and used this unscrupulously over the weakened proletariat.

The French workers are akin in mental makeup to Spanish workers; as a rule they are class-conscious and have a high sense of class solidarity. They finally grew tired of their miserable conditions; tired of waiting for the two confederations to be done with their mutually exterminating struggle and to again take the lead, as formerly, in their struggle against the masters. They began to bring pressure from the outside on the unions to quit their foolishness and create a united labor movement. Invited to meetings, non-members were able to exert this pressure. So strong became the pressure that in spite of past bitter struggles, a Unity Convention was held in January, 1936, and the two confederations and the autonomous federations merged into a single body and affiliated with the I.F.T.U. The anarcho-syndicalist C.G.T.S.R. remained out of the merger.

With unity accomplished it appeared that a new era would begin for French labor. But another difficulty got in the way. Due to the danger of a fascist coup, an agreement was established between the socialist and communist parties, to drive back the fascist attacks. Later this was enlarged to take in the left-liberal bourgeois parties and establish what is known as the Popular Front. Just before the strikes we are considering, the Popular Front won a majority in the French parliament and proceeded to form a government with the Socialist leader, Leon Blum, as the chief.

Even before the new government could began to function the “sitdown” strikes broke out. Most of the important officials of the C.G.T. are members of either the Socialist or Communist parties and as they were busy with political scheming and log-rolling, an extensive strike movement was very inconvenient and greatly embarrassed them.

The workers, however, sensed that that was precisely the opportune time to strike. The Popular Front government, just come into power, could have hardly afforded to use the army of the Garde Mobile against the strikers. They were right. Instead, the government stepped in offering its good offices for mediating peace “among all classes,” as Blum said. The socialist and communist officials of the unions got busy inside the unions to dampen the spirit of the workers and to persuade them against “unreasonable” demands and to lessen the effects of the strikes. With the aid of the government, compromises were effected, and some temporary agreements drawn up. Details were to be settled later by negotiation and arbitration.

Here is where trouble starts anew. Arbitration has been in bad repute with the French workers for as far back as we can remember. Traditional direct actionists, they are suspicious even of voluntary arbitration. In the settlement of last year’s strike it was tried and it did not work. It appears that the workers accepting it always get the short end. Consequently, sit-down strikes broke out afresh in places where disputes were thought of as settled. The socialist Minister of Interior, Salengro, lost his patience and threatened to throw the striking comrades out of the factories by military force.

Voluntary arbitration systems not filling the bill, the socialist-communist government passed a compulsory arbitration law. As with all laws pertaining to labor relations, this, too, is vague. In effect it says, that if an agreement cannot be reached between the workers and employers, and they cannot agree as to a supreme arbiter, the government shall appoint the arbitrator, and the finding of that gentleman shall be binding on both parties to the dispute. Blum blames the necessity for this law on the stubborness of the employers and wants the workers to think that the law is passed as a favor to them. He also hints that as long as he is the government chief, the arbiter will be a member of the C.G.T. But how about when the communist-socialist government of Blum will be followed by a reactionary government? What kind of arbiters will a conservative government appoint to render binding awards in labor disputes? There is plenty of dissatisfaction and turmoil around this business, and plenty of opposition. Blum will find that the French workers are just as unyielding in the matter as the employers.

There is also a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way the government is acting towards the Spanish fight against the fascist invasion. In spite of the merger of the different groups of unions into one, the old fight is continuing just as bitterly as ever before. The masses were able to exert pressure on the two confederations from the outside. They got inside but there they find the fight unequal with the politicians entrenched in strategic functions of the unions. The mass pays its dues but its wishes are defeated by the well oiled machine.

And here we revert to the affiliate of the I.W. M.A., the anarcho-syndicalist C.G.T.S.R. For years past it was a small organization composed mostly of dogmatic anarchists. Before the Unity Convention, syndicalists of different schools could find place for themselves in the two confederations and in the autonomous unions. If dissatisfied with the one, he could transfer his allegiance to the other group and not have to join with the sectarian anarcho-syndicalists. But since unity was accomplished, the same political clique is ruling the entire outfit. Therefore, it is expected that hereafter large numbers of dissatisfied C.G.T. members will flock to the C.G.T.S.R. whose prestige increased greatly among the French workers on account of its close connection with the C.N.T. of Spain. With new elements entering it, it will soon lose its exclusively anarchist characteristic, and there is a good chance that it will eventually play the same role in France as the C.N.T. in Spain, with the C.G.T. in the role of the U.G.T. for the great body of the French working class will not long allow politicians to rule their economic organization, nor lead it into the rut of parliamentary politics.

Transcribed by Juan Conatz

It is about time that someone wrote another “One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs”. In place of horrifying details of sandpaper on your toothbrush, this book should deal with the one hundred million workingclass guinea pigs who in America, past and present, have been dished out an infinite variety of adulterated remedies to keep them sick but satisfied,—all substitutes for the real thing.

The material to select from is wide and varied, for in no realm of human relations are there to be found more substitutes, fake claims, and harmful products than in the field of sociology. For every measure that could possibly aid in the thorough housecleaning of our society, a spurious substitute is offered and pushed before the public. The phenomenon of Fascism alone affords a vast field for fertile study, for Fascism is the grand devil of them all in the black art of adulterated substitution. Its sample wares include such choice items as “national socialism” for socialism, “labor front” for independent labor unionism, race or national struggle for class struggle, to mention a few of the more important ones.

However, since we only suggested the book and are not writing it, let us confine ourselves to one instance in current America that might provide a significant chapter for the proposed volume. We have reference to the current attempt to substitute the C.I.O. for an industrial union movement long championed by the I.W.W.

The C.I.O. emerged upon the scene a little more than a year ago. Why? Back in the “horse and buggy” days the mighty onsurge of solidarity on the part of the workers through the Knights of Labor was stopped by the appearance of the A. F. of L. “The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.” Is the C.I.O., the child of the A. F. of L., coming to the fore to run bona fide industrial unionism into the ground?

The employers’ art of spurious substitution in the labor commodity market was at first exercised entirely on their own initiative in America by those pariahs of the people, the John D. Rockefellers, as an outgrowth of the terrible and magnificient strike of the Colorado coal miners in 1913-14. The Rockefellers, after witnessing fifteen months of heroic struggle on the part of the miners that even wholesale murder of their women and children at Ludlow could not stifle, brought in W. L. MacKenzie King, later premier of Canada, to form the first “company union” in the United States, the Rockefeller Industrial Representation Plan. In subsequent years the “company union” has served with varying success as a substitute for labor unionism in countless industrial establishments of America.

However, since the gaping dent put into Capitalism by the “crash” of ’29, a general awakening of the American working class has occurred. After an interim of stunned stumbling, the workers commenced to organize in earnest.

The unemployed, no longer pleading recipients of charity, organized and clamored for more bread and shelter. Several plants in the mass production industries went out on unorganized but bitterly contested strikes, notably the Briggs body plants in Detroit. The craft-bound A. F. of L. witnessed a large influx of members into its unworkable federal unions. The I.W.W. made some serious inroads into the automobile industry during and immediately following the Briggs strike. The latter organization also conducted a large agricultural strike for higher wages in the martial law-patrolled Yakima Valley of Washington, as well as conducting a construction workers’ strike at Boulder Dam, a seamen’s strike on the Gulf, building strikes in Philadelphia, etc. In addition, several independent unions of a bona fide working class nature were springing up everywhere, such as the M.E.S.A., the Wisconsin Industrial Union, the Union of All Workers in Minnesota, and others.

Against such an arousing working class the employers were beginning to find the camouflage of “company unionism” rather thin.

With the introduction of the NRA, the Government started playing around with the A.F. of L., but found that the rock-ribbed craft structure of the A. F. of L. was so utterly outmoded as to be unfit for the Judas role of old. The piratical prerogatives of the international craft unions upon the federal locals were causing the new recruits to go through the A. F. of L. like a green light. The distressing spectacle of the lumber workers in the West deserting the safe haven of the A. F. of L. for the industrial unionism of the I.W.W., clearly proved the impotence of even “doctored” craft unionism to embrace the aroused workers of America and run them-into the “safe and sane” channels of the A. F. of L. Such experiences early led Generalissimo Johnson of the NRA to declare for industrial unionism. Today this blustery strike-buster is the blatant advocate of the C.I.O., much to the distress and protestation of weary Willy Green. Shocked and offended Mr. Green may not be able to understand why the good General is taking such an attitude, but the General does.

The laissez faire capitalism of old is day by day being pushed into the background. The day of unrestricted “individual enterprise” is fast disappearing. Through governmental pressure the days of suicidal, unplanned production with its disastrous “booms” and “over-production” (as well as rather amateurish handling of labor problems) are diminishing. More and more, despite temporary setbacks, “monopoly”, “regulations”, “standards”, are being introduced into American economic life. A very real “One Big Union” of capital is being evolved in this country in an effort to ‘stabilize” capitalism and secure to the present beneficiaries of capitalism their powers and privileges at the expense of the working class as heretofore. The capitalist system in America is steadily tending towards one gigantic corporation to displace the present big and little corporations.

With the “corporate” trend of capitalism, and its sometimes startling changes in governmental and business procedure from the days of “laissez faire”, it readily can be seen that an industrial union movement growing out from this can be merely a corresponding change in the form of “company unionism”. For the individual “representation plan” of the individual corporation must be substituted a nation-wide “representation plan” to serve the interests of the newly evolving “corporate state”. A One Big Company Union of labor to match the new One Big Corporation of capital!

Is the C.I.O. being groomed as this “One Big Company Union”?

That the C.I.O. may be bitterly fought by some employers does not in the least contradict this question. These employers are still confident that they can go on in the old laissez faire way. They are yet opposed to merging into the “One Big Corporation of Capital”. But, eventually they will see the arrangement as of benefit to them and as their lone salvation, much as an individual worker in a factory being organized by the I.W.W. may at first resist attempts to organize him, only finally to see the point. These employers are conservatives of the old school. Their ranks will continue to diminish, much as their political expression, the Republican Party, is rapidly decaying and is even now practically moribund as far as national politics is concerned.

Another element accounting for the misleading antagonism of some employers to the C.I.O. may well be the ambition of some of the leaders of this latter movement. Capitalism is not in a precisely enviable position at present. It is endangered on the one hand by the stupidity of some of its sections and on the other by the threat of genuine organization on the part of the working class. In order to get personal considerations, would ambitious “labor leaders” be averse to holding the working class for ransom? As it were, blackmailing the capitalist class into assuring them worthy rewards in power and privilege? After all, both Mussolini and Hitler were pretty blustery and did not strike a bargain until they were assured of their perogatives.

For these reasons, and because the substitute must be plausible, the C.I.O. certainly will not fall into the unimaginative routine of a “company union” or a fascist “labor front” until a full-fledged bargain is struck. Furthermore, rank and file impetuosity will provide from time to time certain flare and color to the whole procedure. However, this rank and file activity will become increasingly rare as Mr. Lewis and his lieutenants come to understandings with the various industrial concerns.

Already the chief outcome of the General Motors strike1 is the agreement on the part of the union to outlaw any job action until all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted, meaning conferences between Lewis and the management. When the time comes that Mr. Lewis wins the checkoff and the right to bargain for all the workers in a company’s employ, the rank and file will be caught between the two mill-stones of Mr. Lewis and the employer. The worker, individually and collectively, will find himself helpless in fighting both the employer and the union. A double chain will be around his neck.

Universally organized into the C.I.O., will the American worker find himself bound hand and foot to the system that exploits him? Freedom a myth, will he be an industrial serf forever in his place and receiving such fruits of labor as his masters may in their benevolence choose to bestow upon him?

The socio-economic basis of fascism is the corporate or totalitarian state—one hundred per cent organized industry and parallel industrial organization of the workers. Industrial unionism lends itself very easily to the corporate plans of fascism. Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was guided in his formulation of the fascist state by his experience with the wide-spread “syndicalism” of Italy. He discovered that industrial unionism can be turned upon its head and become industrial bondage.

An industrial union movement can be an instrument of social advancement and happiness for mankind and a bulwark against fascism only if it is thoroughly saturated with a rank and file spirit and adhere in form and practice to democratic control. What is more, it must be based foursquare on the principle of irreconcilable economic antagonism between the employing class and the working class, for only class-consciousness can counteract the totalitarian appeal of fascism. How does the C.I.O. measure up to any of these requirements? Is it a suitable substitute for the I. W. W.?

Will the members of the American working class offer themselves as “One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs”?

Transcribed by Juan Conatz

• 1•NOTE: The conduct and the settlement of the General Motors Strike indicates that the General Motors Corporation represents an employer group that is taking a watchful “on the fence” attitude to the “corporate” tendencies of American capitalism. Despite the heroic determination of the gallant Flint sit-downers, the small percentage of union organization in the G. M. plants would not have prevented the company from engaging in physical efforts to break the strike unless a question of broad social policy were not in the background of the affair. In an ordinary economic struggle the organization of the strikers was much too weak to seriously intimidate the Company, particularly with the support of the Flint Alliance and the old- line A. F. of L. on the side of the corporation.—T. C.

From One Big Union Monthly. April, 1937. Vol. I, №4. P. 25-27.

I.

In the days before fascism was heard of, the question whether socialism was inevitable was sometimes approached from this viewpoint: May not the contradictions of capitalism which make its indefinite continuation impossible, be dissolved by the more complete organization of the employing class, or even by the trend toward the concentration of wealth into the hands of some oligarchy small enough to apply an intelligent paternalism to modern productive forces?

The contradictions were there and were real enough. The swing of the business cycle regularly proclaimed that the growing order and planning inside the factory was not balanced by any such planning in the economy as a whole, and thus the best regulated of plants must periodically close its gates for the lack of market. The market was not there because the growing productivity of labor, which had increased several thousand per cent in the great advance of mechanization since the end of the 18th century, was not balanced by any such increase in the capacity of the proletarized mass of the population to get ad use this wealth, for their living standard at the best times reflected only about twice the purchasing power they had before the industrial revolution.

This disparity was kept within workable limits only by the increasing internal wastefulness of capitalists economy, which often enough spends more to market a product than it does to make it, and by the re-investment of the surplus in new industries at home, or imperialistically, abroad. But every rational growth in capitalism, its trusts and cartels, lessened this easing wastefulness, and the accumulation of capital either enhanced the productivity of labor at home or exploited cheaper labor at the far ends of the earth. The one substantial release on this growing and unused productivity was the military aspect of imperialism which often spent more to gain some object by war that [sic] it would have cost to buy it outright.

The function of industry was social, doing in a large collective way what previously had been done in a small way in men’s homes, but there was little or no social control. Mild-mannered professors were fully aware of this, and likewise aware that much more of the unpleasant disturbance of life, all the way from the increasing nervous disorders to crime waves, was the result of the contradiction between the social function of the productive equipment and its private control. They reasoned optimistically that regulation by commission of democrative [sic] governments would be found increasingly necessary, and would step by step establish the needed balance, thus subordinating socially functioning industry to the public interest and re-establishing the supremacy of human intelligence over the Industrial Frankenstein it had created.

To such liberals, the efforts of labor alike in its strikes or in its building of a philosophy of class struggle, were viewed as just so much more unpleasant disturbance—something that eventually would be regulated or ironed out by a commission appointed in the public interest. The efforts of labor to remedy the great disparity between production and earnings was discussed by such professors under the head of “The Labor Problem.” That there were such workers as the I.W.W. deliberately “fanning the flames of discontent and preaching the doctrine of an irreconcilable struggle between capital and labor”, appeared to such thinkers as a most lamentable thing, as an unintelligent disregard for their text books and their liberal teaching to be excused only by comparison with such other monstrous things as the plug-ugly labor policy of U.S. Steel. To them this class struggle appeared only as another factor holding back their utopia of social regulation by commission in the public interest.

Today this dream of the liberals is fulfilled so far as it can be, in fascism. Now that the omelette is cooked, it is not to their taste, and still mild-mannerdly (sic) as befits them, they ask that the eggs be put back in the shell. The public interest that is being served isn’t their public, and their whole scheme of democracy is squashed. The standard of living under fascism goes down instead of up. Its regulated economy instead of furthering world peace as they had thought a regulated and rationalized economy would surely do, promotes world armament on an unprecedented scale. And man’s intelligence, instead of becoming supreme, is almost completely removed as a disturbing factor in fascist society by being outlawed and sent to a concentration camp.

So there must have been an error somewhere in the reasoning. Were the stresses and strains, the impacts ad blows, the ups and downs of unregulated capitalism due merely to the contradiction between the social function of the productive equipment and its private control? Or did they result fro a quite separate contradiction between productivity and earning? Could the social regulation of the business cycle, even with the most complete restrictions on boom speculation and the best planned postponement of public works to slack times, and the most complete of codes to restrict the insane modern editions of competition, erase the fact that labor does not own what it produces, and that a surplus is produced regardless of whether it be produced evenly or unevenly? And didn’t this contradiction between expanding production and limited earnings only express some still more basic contradiction—that those whose tremendous productive power could undertake the most gigantic tasks of linking oceans, or digging tunnels, or girdling the globe with copper cables, were still powerless to say whether their children should eat or not? Was the labor movements with its persistent demand for “more and more and more” and its philosophy of class struggle, just another unpleasant disturbance of capitalism, a problem to be solved by some commission, or was this labor movement, considered as an element in the historic process, by its continuous struggle for power over production, power over the means of life, the one agent that could dissolve the contradictions of capitalism?

That the answer is yes, is confirmed by an examination of the question: Why doesn’t fascism work?

II.

An examination of the economy of fascism should disclose many things. One very useful bit of information it should yield is what and where this fascism is that we are fighting.

First it should be understood that fascism is not just political dictatorship, not just militant reaction, not just the abridgement of civil liberties, not just the old brought and ready way of trampling on labor, and not just a process of Jew-baiting either. We have had all these things with us before. None of them needed the corporative state; none of them tried to take the whole life in town and regulate it to a plan; none of them sought to invent a new type of society. Neither should fascism be understood as the social realization of a philosophy. Back in 1921 Mussolini said: “During the two months which remain before us, I should like to see us create the philosophy of Italian Fascism.” It was created voluminously within those two months as trimmings for a far more substantial reality.

Fascism is this militant reaction detested by liberals set to the task of realizing the liberal’s regulation of economy in a public interest—the public in fascism as in any other phase of capitalism, being those who pay the regulators.

An examination of who pays to keep fascism going and to get it started will readily disclose that it is not a phenomena confined within the boundaries of Italy, German, or any other nation. Back in 1934 in the “Fortune” article that led to so many disclosures of the internationalism of the armament makers, Adolf Hitler was disclosed as a champion promoted of arms sales on behalf of all the armament makers. Fritz Thyssen, “King of the Ruhr” provided a large part of the fund to get him started. The directors of the large Skoda works controlled by Schneider of France, but in which Vickers-Armstrong of England is also interested, also contributed. And in 1933 before his coup, Adolf paid a most peculiar fine for contempt of court: he had brought suit against a German journalist for stating that he had been financed directly by Schneider-Creusot, French armament makers; in court he was asked the question direct; he refused to answer, and paid 1000 marks fine for contempt of court rather than answer. The French press, controlled by the armament makers, welcomed Hitler with a shriek for further defense, and the investment in Hitler paid well, as France became the leader among nations of the world both for armament and for the export of arms.

Hitler is not only an excellent arms salesman, but quite willing to reciprocate in mustering up adequate means for other nations to participate properly in our mutual extermination. As Wilson Woodside observes in the February Harpers alongside of idle textile mills, margarine factories and packing plants, idle for the lack of a market, the metal industries of Germany are working overtime, and are far behind in deliveries. They are not only arming Germany, but busy making equipment for England as well; and of 668,000 tons of construction underway in German shipyards, 104,00 tons are for Britain. This fascism is an international undertaking and not confined to the internationalism of the armament makers. Fascist economy, for various reasons to be explained later, runs on a deficit; it is not up to non-fascist capitalism in efficiency; it is kept going by the support of world capitalism. There have been direct loans, unpaid. In 1927 Mussolini was saved from a crisis by a $100,000,000 loan floated in the United States. Last year he had Italian interests sell their control of Mosul Oil Fields Ltd., to the British Iraq Petroleum Co. Last September he floated another $236,000,000 loan purchasable only in foreign currency, not officially floated here because under the recent Johnson Act those governments defaulting on war debts cannot borrow here. Such deals, and the complaisant way in which the government of the “democratic nations” have financed exports to Germany and Italy, and the credits directly extended by such exporters, should all set at rest any notion that non-fascist capitalism desires to check the advance of fascism, and may ally itself with labor in order to do so.

The internationalism of fascism has shown itself in many ways apart from these financial transactions. Class conscious capitalists (and despite their professional patriotism they are all by the nature of their investments good internationalists) saw that their press from 1922 on welcomed Mussolini; and the feature writers who howled over the Bolshevik atrocities presented Benito as a rather jovial administrator of castor oil. The international solidarity of capitalist nations and their labor politicians in aiding France in the fascist invasion of Spain, should puzzle only those who forget that in 1934 it was Italian aid in arms and money that upset the liberal government in Austria and drove Vienna’s socialism underground. Hitler states quite openly his willingness to perform a like service for international investors in Czechoslovakia. That this can be done agreeably to all capitalist concerned, is shown by the fascist seizure of the Rio Tinto copper mines in Spain, with the result that shipments previously delivered to Britain are now delivered to Germany; yet there has been no complain lodged by the British owners. Fascism enters the world at a time when capitalism is well developed as a world economy, years after a world war in which allied soldiers were killed with equipment obligingly furnished by their own nations, and long after the typical business unit had become the corporation selling its stocks and bonds and debentures on all the exchange of the world to any buyer who wished to buy. It is most decidedly an international venture, maintained by international support rendered alike morally, politically, and financially.

Why does international capital support these ventures in “deficit economies?” The answer is largely why capital supports government in the first place. To the investor in stock in the proper German enterprises, fascism is not a deficit economy at all. Since 1929 the profits of German employers have raised six-fold, from 500,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 marks. This has come from a cut in wages by over one half. The employers did not get the full advantage of this extra exploitation of labor; a very substantial part of it as of everything has gone to the official racketeers; but even so a six-fold increase in profits is tempting. Wages are down to an average of 25 marks (about $10) per week; but to pay for this service of smashing up unions, stopping all strikes, and restricting civil liberties as must be done to achieve such wage levels, the taxes run to 9,000,000,000 marks or three times the profits. Even this pays only one half the current budget … And beside the taxes there is a tremendous amount of outright graft and forced donations to the Nazis. Incidentally the resources for future exploitation are being ruined. The shortsightedness of Fascist planning is shown by the depletion of the forests that since they days of Bismarck have been nursed with the utmost of care. Says Herr Goering: “The [sic] say I am using up too much of Germany’s forests…but if I have struck too deep into them so far, I shall strike two or three times as deep, for I had better destroy the forests than the nation.” The physique of the working class deteriorates in a manner that will undermine eventually their productivity and their military usefulness. In relation to world economy, a most necessary element for successful exploitation is the inventiveness to keep technique on a competitive par with the rest of the world; the deterioration of German science and learning in general undermines this perhaps most important resource of all; the inventions made in concentration camps do not usually come under the head of the productive arts. But fascism by its very nature does not look far to the future.

Why is fascism economically a failure? Why can’t the complete regulation of capitalist enterprise result in a more efficient use of resources and equipment than the unplanned an chaotic capitalism of the rest of the world? The answer to this question also answers another: Why, if fascism is international endowed, is it so intensely nationalistic?

A planned economy must be relatively self-contained economy. Thus Mussolini’s famous, though unsuccessful, “Battle for Wheat”, his draining of marsh-land, and his latest supreme effort to colonize Italy and Ethiopia alike in the style of the emperors from Constantine on, his adscription of agricultural labor as serfs to the soil. He calls this serfdom “deproletarianization”, but frankly says that Italy must have “genuine peasants attached to the soil, who do not ask the impossible, who know how to content themselves.” It is a form of sharecropping but with payment in kind that takes Italian agriculture back many centuries and results in some 6,000,000 rural workers, according to an official survey made in 1934, living either in caves or hovels, or in houses, as the report put it “almost absolutely uninhabitable.” The same fact is back of Hitler’s battle for “Rohstoffreiheit” —to need no foreign imports of raw materials. You can’t plan capitalism, and keep it a part of a chaotic world capitalism. At the same time to step out of world economy is most uneconomical. With the free interchange of the products of various parts of the earth in an unbridled competition, goods are normally produced where they can be produced cheapest. German pays for “freedom in raw materials” by using ore or 35 per cent iron content which costs four times as much to smelt as Swedish 65 per cent ore—and now she is mining 5 and 7 per cent deposits in the Hartz Mountains! On the first steps along the old “Berlin to Bagdad” route lie bauxite for making aluminum and oil, and these may explain much of the internal politics of this region, as Germany lacks both.
But if the failure of fascist economy is the result of an attempt to replace the use of the world’s resources with the uneconomic spoliation of the fascist nation’s own, then would not fascism succeed should it blossom out, as it threatens to, in a world fascist economy, or even in some region, as these United States, where nature has endowed the land with most of the resources needed? As to the latter, even the United States could not maintain its present population long without imports; there is scarcely any industrial process in which we engage that does not absolutely require some import. But perhaps world fascism is possible. To capitalists it is not a desirable state of affairs; it means that all but a handful of capitalists would be reduced to the universal serfdom; and the regulation of a world would be most costly. Though the bourgeois historians write of the latter days of the Roman empire as a time when the hand of the state was everywhere regulating all things, the modern business man reading such history understands that the hand of the state was everywhere grabbing things too.

World economy could readily enough be coordinated on the basis of a community of interests to effect the highest possible standard of living for all—if run by producers for producers; but to co-ordinate world economy under an iron hell, on the basis of discordant interests, where every petty official of the supreme oligarchy was looking for his graft for doing this dirty work, where everyone was discontent, where the military command was incessantly needed to maintain order and thus made mindful of its own opportunity to become the supreme oligarchy, is to enter a period of even greater chaos and waste than we suffer from now.

Fascism is not a forward looking plan; it is not even to be explained in terms of a far-sighted rationalism on the part of those who support it; it is the blind retreat from the threshold of new order that offers abundance to all, and thus privilege, prestige, and sundry other perverted desiderata of a class society to none. It rallies its support with an irrational appeal, and is not to be fought by any other means than power. The road to fascism is paved with liberal good intentions. Its means of operation is the regulation of the disturbances of capitalism in an alleged public interest. All planned control of economy not vested in labor, and not run by workers for workers, is grist for its mill. Every regulation over workers, whether by union officials or by public bodies on which such union officials sit, is another brick for its world-wide jailhouse. And the materials are being accumulated rapidly the world over.

Against this drift to Mussolini’s serfdom there are tremendous forces that can be rallied—the great dynamic power that has brought the world forward to this alternative of going back to serfdom and family or forward to a greater freedom and plenty. Capital establishes fascism, albeit reluctantly, for the same reason that it establishes and supports any form of government, hollering the while for “more business in government and less government in business. It is done to “police the poor.” It is done on an every increasing and more costly scale because capitalism is ever the breeder of a profounder discontent. Capitalism requires and produces a working class schooled and trained and brought into the contacts requisite for building revolutionary class organization; the most able class that ever his history submitted to exploitation by a class of idlers. It creates abilities that it cannot use; and unused ability is the great disturbing factor that fascism cannot put down.

The contradictions of capitalism—the great basic ones that are involved in the working class struggle for power over the means of life—cannot be ironed out even by an iron heel. They persist as a driving force toward a new society, but as a force that can build this new society only if organized as a class force, on the basis of class struggle, by working vigilantly avoiding every restriction to their own activity, whether from inside their organization or outside it. Therein lies the greater historic role of the I.W.W., more readily visualized today than ever before—by the planned economy of plenty that can be effected by the One Big Union of labor, to complete man’s conquest of nature through the establishment of the supremacy of human intelligence over the Industrial Frankenstein it has created.

Originally appeared in The One Big Union Monthly (April 1937)
Typed up by Erik

Published in the IWW's One Big Union Monthly, August, 1937

Alone, or in coalition with more or less "liberal" bourgeois political parties, the socialists today are in control of the government machinery in a number of countries while yet in other countries they stand in line awaiting in their turn the call of the economic masters to take over the government and to carry on and administer the collective affairs of the capitalists in the respective countries.

The conclusion of the long and destructive World War brought capitalism to bankruptcy, the bourgeois regime stood everywhere discredited physically and morally and in a state of collapse ; everywhere the working class was in open revolt. The only organized force that yet retained some moral prestige was the socialist movement and its trade unions, who, in one country after another gallantly rushed to the rescue of the moribund regime, until recently their professed enemy.

Naturally, the capitalists very graciously allowed the socialists to resurrect and reconstruct the capitalist regime. They were allowed and even invited to form "socialist governments." Times without number these "socialist governments" proved to the master class that they are in the best of positions to save capitalism and to safeguard all their interests not only by the use of brutal military and police forces, but also by their moral prestige over the working class acquired by nearly a century of socialist party and trade union connection within the working class.

To be sure the master class never was conspicuous by its gratitude, as soon as it imagined itself strong enough to rule without the aid of socialists these were discarded, and their governments turned over to the underworld characters, to gangsters parading in differently colored shirts. A few years of experience with the gangsterdom has, however, taught world capitalism the lesson that the socialists make the more efficient and loyal servants of capitalism after all, and at the present time the pendulum is rapidly swinging away from fascism to "socialist" or "Popular Front" governments.

Socialists the world over are proud of the role their parties are playing nowadays, and they look upon their present, internationally approved policy as the acme of "Marxism." Yet, this was not always so.

Before the end of the last century, socialists of all shades were violently and unalterably opposed to the very idea of party members participating in bourgeois (capitalist) governments, thereby making the socialist movement at least indirectly responsible for the acts of their respective capitalist governments. Even the acceptance by a party member of a minor, non-elective government job, was frowned upon as not kosher from a social-democratic standpoint.

When, in 1900, Alexander Millerand, who with Jean Jaures, was heading one of the four or five socialist parties existing then in France, entered into the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet, a storm of protests was raised in the socialist world. National and World Congresses debated and argued the propriety of the action and in all instances the act was condemned as treason to the international socialist movement. "Millerandism" and "Ministerialism" was synonymous with treason. The arguments lasted for fourteen years, until the outbreak of the World War, when the entire socialist world suddenly became "ministerialists" and governmentalists. And so it has remained to this day.
The foregoing is all old history, but it does no harm to recall it once in a while, the more so as in our days we are suddenly confronted with a new "ministerialism" from an unexpected source. This time the anarchist world is stirred with that same old question in the anti-fascist war now going on in Spain.

It would appear that with the post-war experiences, with the experiences of Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, we have learned enough to avoid the old and settled disputes. But we must have been mistaken, for it seems that we have to overcome the same difficulties and misunderstandings at every instance of serious fight that we, the working class, are confronted with.

The old forgotten "Millerandism" or "Ministerialism" is and has been a burning issue in Spain ever since the present war was precipitated by the uniformed bandits of Spain. The only real revolutionary force in the present Spanish war was the CNT and its ideological reflex, the F.A.I. It would have appeared an absurdity for anyone a year ago to state that the old issue of "ministerialism" could bob up—of all things—in this anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movement, in the time of the acutest crisis that ever confronted not only these two Spanish movements (that are really one), but the anarchist fraternity the world over.

Perseus, of mythological fame, wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. I would like to have pulled such a magic cap over my own ears so that I may not see the internal fight in the revolutionary forces of the present Spanish fight. Unfortunately, I can read many languages and am in touch with revolutionary literature of many lands, and no magic cap can prevent me from seeing things I would not like to see. I am giving below a translation of an open letter of A. Shapiro to the CNT I read similar open letters months ago, whose authors have fallen since, either fighting on the bloody battlefields, or through cowardly assassination by the Spanish Branch of the Russian Cheka. Shapiro is not dead yet, he is one of the outstanding figures of the anarchist movement of the world. He was for a number of years one of the Secretariat of the International Workingmens Association. Therefore, whatever the readers of the "One Big Union" may think of his statements, I assure them that Shapiro is sincere and means what he says.

Open letter to the CNT
We read with more surprise than interest the minimal program of the CNT "for the realization of a real war policy." The reading of the program raised an entire series of questions and problems, some of which should be called to your attention.

Certainly none of us was simple enough to believe that a war can be carried on with resolutions and by anti-militarist theories. Many of us believed, long before July 19 (1936) that the anti-militarist propaganda, so dear to our Dutch comrades of the International Anti-militarist Bureau and which found, in the past, a sympathetic enough echo in the columns of your press in Spain, was in contradiction with the organization of the revolution.

Many of us knew that the putsches, that were so dear to our Spanish comrades, such as those of December 8 and January 8, 1934, were far from helping this organization of the revolution, it helped rather to disorganize it.

July 19 opened your eyes. It made you realize the mistake you had committed in the past, when, in a revolutionary period, you neglected Seriously organizing the necessary frame-work for the struggle that you knew would be inevitable on the day of the settlement of accounts. Yet, today you are shutting your eyes on another important fact. You seem to think that a civil war brought about by the circumstance of a fascist putsch does not necessarily obligate you to examine the possibilities of modifying and altering the character of that civil war.

A "minimal" program is not something to startle us ; but a particular minimal program (such as yours) cannot have any value unless it creates the opportunity for the preparation of a maximal program.

But, your "real war policy," after all, is nothing but a program for entering the Council of Ministry (government) ; with it you act merely as a political party desirous of participation in an existing government ; setting forth your conditions of participation, and these conditions are so bureaucratic in character that they are far from weakening in the least the bourgeois capitalist regime, on the contrary they are tending to strengthen capitalism and stabilize it.

The surprising part of your program is that you do not consider it as a means for the attainment of some well defined goal, but consider your "real war policy" program as an aim in itself. That is the main danger in your program. It presupposes a permanent participation in the government—not merely circumstantial—which is to extend over a number of years, even if the war itself, with its brutal, daily manifestations would cease in the meanwhile. A monopoly of the Foreign Commerce (have the communists whispered this to you ?), customs policy, new legislations, a new penal code—all of this takes a long time. In order to realize these tasks, your program proposes a very close collaboration on all fields with the bourgeoisie (republican block) and with the communists (marxist block), while almost at the same time you state in your appeal of June 14 that you are sure of triumphing not only against Franco, but also against a stupidly backward bourgeoisie ("the republican block") and against the tricky and dishonest politicians ("marxist block").

You see, therefore, that even your minimal program is beset with flagrant contradictions ; its realization is dependent on the aid of the very sectors against which that program is aimed. Even the freedom with which you state these two mutually excluding programs : collaboration with the bourgeoisie and "marxism" on the one hand and fight to finish against this same bourgeoisie and "marxism" on the other, situates your minimal program as the aim, and your declaration of June 14 becomes a mere verbiage. We would have, naturally, liked to see things the other way.
The problem of Spain’s economic reconstruction does not form a part of your program. And yet, you cannot help but know that a civil war, like the one you are going through, cannot bring the people to its aid unless the victories on the fronts will assure at the same time their own victories in the rear.

It is true—and many of us outside of Spain have known it long before July 19—the Social Revolution cannot be attained in 24 hours, and that a libertarian regime cannot be erected by the turn of the hand. Nevertheless, neither the CNT nor the F.A.I. cared anything about pre-revolutionary organization and about preparing in advance the framework for the social and economic reconstruction. We claim that there is a bridge leading from the downfall of the old regime to the erection of the new regime erected on the ashes and the ruins of the old regime. This bridge is all the more full of dangerous traps and pitfalls as the new regime differs from the old. And it was precisely this period of transition that you have misunderstood in the past and that you continue to misunderstand today. For if you had recognized that the social and economic reconstruction on a libertarian basis is the indispensable condition to victory over fascism, you would have elaborated (having in view the aim to be attained) a minimal revolutionary program that would have given the city and country proletariat of Spain the necessary will and enthusiasm to continue the war to its logical conclusion.

But such a program you failed to proclaim. The few timid allusions contained in your "war program" are far from having a revolutionary character : the elaboration of a plan for the economic reconstruction that would be accepted by the three blocks could only be a naive illusion, if it would not be so dangerous ; the municipalization of land is an anti-revolutionary project since it legalizes something that a coming revolution will have to abolish, since the municipalities are, after all, but cogs in the wheel of the State as long as the State will exist.

Naturally, the elaboration of an economic program for the transition period presupposes a final aim. Does the CNT consider that libertarian communism is an unattainable "Utopia" that should be relegated to the museum ?

If you still think (as you did before July 19) that libertarian communism forms part of the program of the CNT it is your duty—it was really your duty since July 1936—to elaborate your economic program of transition, without regard to the bourgeois and marxist blocks, who can but sabotage any program of libertarian tendency and inspiration.

To be sure, such a program will place you in conflict with these blocks, but on the other hand, it will unite with you the large majority of the workers, who want but one thing, the victory of the Revolution. It is necessary, therefore to choose between these two eventualities.

Such a program will, naturally, nullify your "war program" which is nothing but the expression of a "true" desire for a permanent cabinet collaboration. But this proposition, this "war program" of yours is diametrically contrary to the traditionally revolutionary attitude of the CNT, which this organization has not denied yet. It is therefore necessary to choose.

The CNT should not allow—as it has unfortunately done since July 19—the acceptance of the tactics of the "line of least resistance," which cannot but lead to a slow but sure liquidation of the libertarian revolution.

The ministerial collaboration policy has certainly pushed back to the rear the program of revolutionary economy. You are on the wrong track and you can see that yourselves.

Do you not think that you should stop following this road, that leads you to certain downfall ?

Text taken from http://raforum.info

The following letter was published in the paper of the American IWW's paper, One Big Union Monthly in 1937.

Original introduction
The One Big Union Monthly and the Industrial Workers of the World are heart and soul for the success of the anti-fascist fight going on in Spain but we see no reason why we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend not to be aware of the capitalist class element within the Spanish United Front government that is trying to rob the Spanish revolutionary unionists of victory.

No matter what our opinion may be as to the wisdom of the syndicalists' policy of co-operation with political government, the information and arguments contained in this letter from a rank and file fighter in the cause of working class freedom, and in other articles appearing in this magazine, cannot but be valuable reminders that there are still working class enemies among those who favour "democracy" as opposed to fascism - Editor.

A soldier returns
Marseilles, France
Fellow Worker:-

Received your letter the other day in Barcelona. I typed three pages in reply but could not smuggle it out of the country, so I tore it up.

I am out of Spain. The reasons are numerous. I was not wanted by the government as I was in the Durruti International Shock Battalion. The government sabotaged us since we were formed in May and made it impossible for us to stay at the front. No tobacco unless you had money. All of the time I was in the militia I received no money. I had to beg money for postage stamps, etc. I was sent back from the front slightly shell-shocked and put in a hospital in Barcelona. when we registered at the hospital I told them I was from the Durruti International Battalion and they wouldn't register me. In fact they told me to go and ask my friends for money for a place to sleep. I explained to them that I was from Canada and had no friends in Barcelona, then they tried to make me a prisoner in the hospital. I called them all the lousy -- I could think of. Anyway, I ran away from the hospital one day to the English section of the CNT-FAI and the people there insisted that I see the British consul for a permit to leave Spain, which I did, though I hated to leave.

Spain is a wonderful country. At present it reminds me of the stories I have read of the O.G.P.U. [secret police] in Russia. The jails of loyalist Spain are full of volunteers who have more than a single-track mind. I know one of them from Toronto, a member of the L.R.W.P. I wonder if they will bump him off. The Stalinists do not hesitate to kill any of those who do not blindly accept Stalin as a second Christ. One of the refugees who came over with me from Spain was a member of the O.G.P.U. in Spain, which, by the way, is controlled by Russia. Every volunteer in the Communist International Brigade is considered a potential enemy of Stalin. He is checked and double-checked, every damn one. If he utters a word other than commy phrases he is taken "for a ride." This chap (ex- O.G.P.U.) is like all the other commies coming out of Spain, absolutely anti-Stalin and anti-communist. He skipped the country by flashing his O.G.P.U. badge on the trains etc.

I believe that the I.W.W. has lost some members here, as I doubt if they would keep quiet at the front in view of what is taking place.

It was only through sabotage that the government succeeded in disbanding the International Battalion of Anarchists. Four of our bunch died of starvation in one day. Our arms were rotten, even though the Valencia government has plenty of arms and planes. They know enough not to give arms to the thousands of anarchists on the Aragon front. We could have driven the fascists out of Huesca and Saragossa had we had the aid of the aviation. But the Anarchists form collectives where ever they advance, and these comrades would rather let Franco have those cities that the CNT-FAI.

Fenner Brockway, prominent labour leader in England, exposed the way the communists were treating those boys (volunteers) in the International Brigade. They will not let any of them come back unless they are racketeers of the Sam Scarlett type who will say anything they are told as long as the pork chops are coming in.

The CNT-FAI seems to have lost all the power they had in the army. There is a good fort on the top of a hill overlooking Barcelona which the anarchists captured from the fascists. When I left for the front it was still in the hands of the FAI but when I came back the communists had it. The workers of Spain are against the communists, but the latter don't care. They are making a play for the support of the bourgeoisie and other racketeers. As far as the industries are concerned the CNT has a lot of power, far more than any other organization.

Well, Fellow Worker, one day has elapsed since I wrote the above. Last night I had a head ache and I had to postpone finishing the letter. I am eating good since coming to France.

I believe the British consul is going to send me to England or to Canada. If I wasn't such a wreck I would ship on a British ship for Spain. Wages are double on the Spanish run, and ships are tied up because of a shortage of men. I have been on English ships and none of the crew would speak English.
I met two more men from the International Brigade this morning. They say many Canadians are in prison in Spain.

With best wished for the I.W.W.,

I remain Bill Wood

from One Big Union Monthly, September 1937.

This text taken and slightly edited for spelling by libcom from the Revolt collection.
Originally from the bulletin of the Kate Sharpley Library.

To those readers who are already acquainted with Trotsky’s ideas and the publications of his movement, his present book will be a disappointment as it contains little new material. In this review we shall therefore limit ourselves to those portions of the volume which indicate that even in the mind of the party-intellectual changes do take place. But, it must be said, even such changes as Trotsky sees are only matters of emphasis – an effort to adapt his “theoretical line” to the new situation which has obviously contradicted previous postulates of his theory.

Any serious student of Soviet Russia must admit that Trotsky’s factual material gives an accurate picture of the real situation in Russia. It may also be said that, on the whole, he had paid due regard to the high-lights in the history and present policy of the Third International even though he still tends to account for the counter-revolutionary role of that institution and its sponsor, the Soviet state, by referring to the stupidity and viciousness of Stalin and his associates. The subjective “errors” and “crimes” of these leaders seem to play, according to Trotsky, a more significant part in the general development than the objective factor of economic-social necessity.

Hazy History

The farther Trotsky searches back into the past of Bolshevism and Russia, the more meagre are the fruits of his investigation. It is regrettable that the period during which Lenin and Trotsky held sway is dealt with in such a cursory manner as not to admit of a critical evaluation. It should be evident that to explain Stalin’s triumph it is necessary to refer back to pre-Stalinist conditions in Russia and it is precisely these important years that preceded Stalin’s rise which meet with no criticism at the pen of Trotsky. Stalinism can be explained only by way of Bolshevism. If Leninism was the revolutionary stage of Bolshevism, Stalinism is its phase of consolidation. The two are inseparable and a criticism of one is of small value without an analysis of the other.

Trotsky writes:

“Socialism had demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earth’s surface – not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity.” (p. 8.

This sentence, accepted at its face value, vitiates all criticism of Stalinism for certainly, this “right” of “Socialism” has been demonstrated in the period of Stalin than before. Only with Stalin has this “right” been demonstrated at all “in the industrial arena.” Lenin himself did not think it possible to do more than vindicate the “right” of state capitalism after the Bolshevik seizure of power. Can it be that when Trotsky innocently states that the “term ‘state capitalism’ has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means,” he is expressing a hope that his readers are unacquainted with Lenin’s position on this question which dominated the ideas of the Bolsheviks prior to Stalin’s ascendancy?

Lenin, at the eleventh party congress, stated clearly his line: “State capitalism is that form of capitalism which we shall be in a position to restrict to establish its limits; this capitalism is bound up with the state – that is, the workers, the most advanced part of the workers, the vanguard is ourselves. And it is we on whom the nature of this state capitalism will depend.” But us was necessary to camouflage the state capitalist character of Russian economy before the Russian masses. As Bukharin expressed it at a government conference toward the end of 1925:

“If we confess that the enterprises taken over by the State are state capitalist enterprises, if we say this openly, how can we conduct a campaign for a greater output? In factories which are not purely socialistic, the workers will not increase the productivity of their labor.”

This plainly reveals that the Bolsheviks did not think it convenient to tell the workers that Russia is a state capitalist system. Of course the international bourgeoisie understood that they could deal quite as well – if not better – with the One Big Corporation which has Soviet capitalism as they had done formerly with the multitude of individual capitalists.

Frequently Lenin identified state capitalism and socialism…In Towards the Seizure of Power he writes:

“Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be a capitalist monopoly.”

In spite of the unmistakable meaning of Lenin’s words Trotsky nevertheless writes that his analysis of the concept of state capitalism “is sufficient to show how absurd the attempts are to identify capitalist state-ism with the soviet system.” (p. 248)

Russian State Capitalism

Trotsky denies the state capitalist character of Russian economy by reducing the term state capitalism to a meaningless phrase. That is, he sees in the concept no more than was seen in it prior to the Russian revolution, or than is seen in it today with reference to the state capitalist tendencies of the fascist countries.

Since it is clear that Russia today is dominated by an economy different from what is implied by the term state capitalism in fascist or general bourgeois society, Trotksy is enabled to win his argument by posing the question to suit his convenience. But a full-fledged state capitalist system is surely something other than state capitalist tendencies, or state enterprises, or even state control in an otherwise bourgeois society. State capitalism as a social system presupposes the expropriation of the individual capitalists, that is, a revolution in property relations.

While the capitalist mode of production grew up historically on the basis of individual ownership of the means of production, the Russian revolution has shown that under certain conditions the capitalist mode of production can continue to exist even though the individual proprietors are eliminated and replaced by a collective exploiting apparatus where factories are not owed by capitalist “X” or “Y” but are “controlled” (i.e. owned) by the State (i.e. the controlling classes).

The Russian revolution changed property relations, replacing individual proprietors by the Bolsheviks and their allies, substituting new “revolutionary” phrases for the old pep slogans, erecting the hammer and sickle over the Kremlin where the Czarist Eagle once stood, but the Bolshevik seizure of power did not change the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, under the Bolsheviks, there remains, as formerly, the system of wage labor and the appropriation by the exploiting class of surplus value which is profit. And, what is done with such profit is exactly what was done with it under the system of individual capitalists, allowing, of course, for the special character of state capitalism.

Such surplus value is distributed according to the needs of the total capital in the interests of further capital accumulation and to safeguard the state capitalist apparatus by increasing its power and prestige.

Only a change in the mode of production can bring about socialism; otherwise, as far as the workers are concerned, they will have only exchanged one set of exploiters for another. Under the conditions of state capitalism the process of accumulation, the development of the productive forces by wage labor is bound up, as in the case of “regular” capitalism, with an increases appropriation of surplus value, with further exploitation, and hence with the development of new classes, of new vested interests in order to continue this process since the working class cannot exploit itself.

This capitalist necessity serves to explain Russian development; no other “line”, no other “policy” could have essentially changed this development. By failing to recognize the state capitalist character of Russia, by regarding its present economy as a transitional step to socialism, Trotsky merely indicates his readiness to precipitate a new state capitalist revolution which must lead to a new Stalinism – another betrayal of the Revolution.

Advocates A New Machine

Trotsky describes the contradictions of the Russian economic situation as follows:

“To the extent that, in contrast to a decaying capitalism, it develops the productive forces, it is preparing the economic basis of socialism. To the extent that, for the benefit of an upper stratum, it carries to more and more extreme expression bourgeois norms of distribution, it is preparing a capitalist restoration. This contrast between forms of property and norms of distribution cannot grow indefinitely. Either the bourgeois norms in one form or another spread to the means of production, or the norms of distribution must be brought into correspondence with the socialist property system” (p. 244)

The solution, according to Trotsky, lies in the replacement of the present parasitical bureaucracy by a non-parasitical apparatus. Nothing else in his opinion needs to be changed as the Soviet economic system is fully qualified to proceed toward socialism in combination with the world-revolutionary trend. This new bureaucracy, essential in Trotsky’s transitional stage, will, according to Trotsky, introduce a greater equality of income. But Trotsky must remember that the present bureaucracy started out with the same idea, originally limiting salaries to Communists, etc. It was the circumstances enveloping the economy which not only enabled but obliged the present bureaucracy to adopt a program of ever increasing economic inequality in its favor. This was in harmony with the need of a faster accumulation to secure the system as a whole. There is no guarantee that a hypothetical Trotskyist bureaucracy would be any different in this respect from Stalin’s machine.

Under the prevailing mode of production Russia cannot develop the productive forces higher than the old familiar brand of capitalism in the western world was able to do. Because it cannot do so its system of distribution can never exceed the norms of capitalist distribution. Such a contradiction between forms of property and norms of distribution as Trotsky envisions does not exist. The Russian method of distribution is in perfect harmony with its state capitalist method of production.

It is only necessary to reflect on the paramount role which Trotsky played in the first thundering years of Bolshevik Russia to understand why he cannot admit that the Bolshevik revolution was only able to change the form of capitalism but was not able to do away with the capitalist form of exploitation. It is the shadow of that period that lies in the way of his understanding.

Transcribed by Juan Conatz.
Minor formatting changes were made from the original.