Since 1906 there have been no Industrial Departments (i. e., no divisions larger in scope than the National Industrial Union in the I. W. W. Nevertheless, the Constitution continued, up to the tenth convention in 1916, to speak of the organization as being composed of National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, etc.1 The Agricultural Workers' Organization (the “A. W. O.”), organized in 1914, which now constitutes a large and increasingly important division of the I. W. W., is akin to what the founders wanted to have in the I. W. W. in 1905. There is more body to it today than there was to any of the so-called International Industrial Departments of the earlier period. It is to be noted that in all the editions of the Constitution since 1906 the word "International" has been replaced wherever it occurred by the word "National." Throughout the whole of its history the Industrial Workers of the World has been composed almost entirely of local unions scattered throughout the United States and Canada, all directly connected with the central office or what is called the General Organization. The development of subdivisions (such as Industrial District Councils, International Industrial Unions, and Industrial Departments), between the general organization and the local union has not been appreciable until within the last two or three years.' 1I. W. W. Constitution (1914), P. 4. The writer is unable to find any complete list of the "individual" locals belonging to the I. W. W. in 1906 or 1907. It is not probable that any such record has been preserved. The following very incomplete list has been put together from scattered references in the Proceedings of the Second Convention: Local Union No. 144 Power Workers Industrial Workers Union Industrial Workers Union Denver, Colo. Jersey City (Mixed local). 263 Hotel and Restaurant Employees ....Chicago, Ill. Arizona State Union No. 3 of the Department of Mining. CHAPTER V THE Coup OF THE "PROLETARIAN RABBLE" (1906) THE second convention was the occasion of the first split in the ranks of the Industrial Workers of the World. At this time the friction seemed to be chiefly personal, whereas the second schism in 1908 was primarily due to differences in regard to principles and policies. It is true that principles and policies were involved in the feud of 1906, but they lurked obscurely in the background, while personal antagonisms-charges and counter-charges of graft, corruption and malfeasance in office-held the center of the stage. From the inception of the movement the year before a smouldering dissension developed between the poorer and less skilled groups of workers-largely migratory and casual laborers, the "revolutionists" or the " wage-slave delegates " as they were called in the second convention-these on the one side, and the more highly skilled and strongly organized groups called (by the other side) the "reactionaries" or the political fakirs." It might be remarked in passing that, in this ultra-revolutionary I. W. W., the "conservatism " of the "reactionaries" ought to be heavily discounted and the radicalism of the "revolutionists" raised to the nth degree to get the true perspective! Involved with this group hostility was the trouble stirred up by various members of the two Socialist political parties. The first year [writes Mr. St. John] was one of internal struggle for control by these different elements. The two 136 camps of socialist politicians looked upon the I. W. W. only as a battle-ground on which to settle their respective merits and demerits. The labor fakirs strove to fasten themselves upon the organization that they might continue to exist if the new union was a success." 1 But all this internal antagonism was very obscure. It evidenced itself chiefly in the personal fight between the Sherman-Hanneman-Kirkpatrick faction and the TrautmannDeLeon-St. John faction at the second convention, which finally resulted in the deposition of C. O. Sherman as General President. Mr. St. John has described the situation as it appeared from his side of the controversy. At the second convention it soon developed, he says, that the administration of the I. W. W. was in the hands of men who were not in accord with the revolutionary program of the organization. Of the general officers only two were sincere the General Secretary, W. E. Trautmann, and one member of the Executive Board, John Riordan. The struggle for control of the organization formed the second convention into two camps. The majority vote of the convention was in the revolutionary camp. The reactionary camp, having the chairman, used obstructive tactics in their effort to gain control of the convention. They hoped thereby to delay the convention until enough delegates would be forced to return home and thus change the control of the convention. The revolutionists cut this knot by abolishng the office of president and electing a chairman from among the revolutionists.2 The revolutionists, who were referred to later by their opponents as the "proletarian rabble" or the "beggars," held a pre-convention conference in Chicago on August 14, 1906. This little "curtain-raiser" was called by Local 1 In a letter quoted by Brooks, American Syndicalism: the I. W. W., 2 The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods (1917 ed.), p. 6. Union No. 23 of the Department of Metal and Machinery which on July 20 sent out a letter to the various I. W. W. locals in Chicago, which declared that "developments during the past year have proven to us that the constitution does not come up to the requirements of the rank and file .," and urged a preliminary conference to consider the following propositions: First. Is a president necessary in our form of organization? Second. Shall this organization be the expression of the membership? Third. Who shall direct the organization work? Fourth. Shall the local unions receive a copy of the minutes of the General Executive Board sessions? Fifth. Shall the local unions be represented at the National Convention, as set forth in Article VI., General Constitution? Sixth. Any other question that the Conference may deem necessary to discuss.1 The conference met with delegates present from about sixteen local unions and unanimously decided that a president was unnecessary, that all organizers, lecturers, etc., should be nominated by the local unions and elected by the "rank and file," that each local should receive reports of all Executive Board sessions, which, moreover, should be open to the rank and file, and that every local union be represented at the approaching convention by at least two delegates. Whereas, the day is at hand [runs their resolution] when we must abolish anything that pertains to aristocratic power or reactionary policy, the office of president of a class-conscious organization is not necessary. The rank and file must conduct the affairs of the organization directly through an executive "I. W. W. Conference Proceedings ", Miners' Magazine, Sept. 6, 1906, p. 12. |