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)