convention was in session, Joseph J. Ettor, a member of the General Executive Board, was awaiting trial in the Essex County jail in Salem, Mass. He wrote to the delegates that

all of the past term's progress is mainly due to the policies adopted, particularly by the sixth annual convention, and . . . I feel it an urgent duty on my part to advise that as much as conditions will allow, the lines laid down by the last convention be ratified. . . .

The General Executive Board specifically recommended to the convention the use of direct action as a weapon of the working class.

The only effective weapon that the workers have with which to meet this condition [runs the Board's report] is to [sic] render unproductive the machinery of production with which they labor, and have access to. Militant direct action in the industries of the world is the weapon upon which they must rely and which they must learn to use.2

With the growing interest of the I. W. W. in the workers in the agricultural and lumber industries came a realization of the need for some kind of a land policy. Delegate Covington Hall presented a petition which was adopted as a resolution by the convention:

Why not . . . proclaim today [the resolution asks] what we will be compelled to proclaim tomorrow-a land policy? Why not base this policy on the motto of the Russian peasant, "Whose the sweat, his the land," and couple this with a new I. W. W. motto: "Whose the sweat, theirs the machines"? In other words, proclaim that we will recognize no title to machinery except that which vests its ownership in the users.3 1 Letter dated September 14, 1912, Report of the Seventh Convention, Pp. 26-27.

2 Industrial Worker, Oct. 24, 1912, p. 4, col. 3.

3 Report of the Seventh Annual Convention, pp. 9, 24.

The most important aspect of this convention was the sentiment which was evidenced by some of the delegates in favor of reducing the power of the national administration -the central office-often referred to in this and following conventions as "Headquarters." This agitation for decentralization was not particularly successful, but the idea was given a hearing. At the following convention a much more extended discussion took place and the subject will be resumed in connection with the discussion of that meeting.1 At this 1912 meeting the question of decentralization came up in the discussion of a motion to give the General Executive Board jurisdiction over the calling, management and settlement of all free-speech fights. The alleged object of the motion was to restrict the number of such controversies. The "Wobblies" had been even more inclined to overindulge in free-speech fights than in strikes, and some thought this appetite might be kept in better control if it were made more difficult for locals to get support for such struggles from the national office. The motion was lost by an overwhelming majority. This vote expressed a significant reaction from the traditional I. W. W. policy of centralization. That the latter policy was still strong was indicated in the overwhelming defeat of motions to deprive the General Executive Board of its power over the strike activities of the organization. The policy of the convention was centralist on strikes and decentralist on free-speech fights. The editor of The Agitator, an anarchist exponent of industrial unionism, believes this was due to the fact that the I. W. W. had had much experience of "free-speech fighting" and realized the need for local autonomy, whereas it had had limited strike experience and so had "not yet learned the danger of allowing a few men . . . to control

1 Vide infra, p. 303 et seq.

"The I. W. W. Convention," The Agitator, Oct. 15, 1912.

its strike activities." The writer imagines that geography was also a factor. The proponents of continued centralization of strike power were the more disciplined eastern members. The defenders of local autonomy in free-speech fights were the western "Wobblies " and the nature of their life and experience bred in them much of the anarchistic spirit of individualism.

The Socialist Labor party and the doctrinaires of Detroit thought that this convention was a very insignificant gathering. One of the DeLeonites described it: "About thirty men acting in the capacity of delegates and about a score of onlookers, leaning with their backs against the walls leisurely smoking their pipes or chewing tobacco. . . . This constituted the convention. . . It is interpreted differently by one who is with the direct-actionists at least in sympathy. He says:

It is a significant proof of the sound base of the I. W. W. philosophy that the tremendous growth of the past year has not brought with it the germ of opportunism. There was no suggestion of a desire on the part of any of the delegates to swerve from the uncompromising and revolutionary attitude of the organization; nor was there any reaching out for "respectability." Every man was a "Red," most of them with jail records, too. . . . All striving. . . to hasten the day when the whistle will blow for the Boss to go to work." 2

66

1 Arthur Zavels, "The Bummery Congress'", Weekly People, Oct. 12, 1912, p. 1.

'J. P. Cannon, "Seventh I. W. W. Convention," International Socialist Review, vol. xiii, p. 424, col. 2 (Nov., 1912).

CHAPTER XIII

DUAL UNIONISM AND DECENTRALIZATION

IN 1913 the visit of Tom Mann, the well-known English labor leader and advocate of revolutionary unionism, revived the discussion of "dual unionism" and the respective merits of what the French Syndicalists called la pénétration and la pression extérieure,1 or what the American "Wobbly" calls "boring from within" and "hammering from without," respectively. Even before his visit a growing minority had been feebly protesting against the accepted I. W. W. policy of creating a new organization without regard to existing labor (or craft) unions in the locality instead of allowing the unorganized-and especially the radicals to enter the old unions (of the A. F. of L.) and "bore from within" their conservative shells to let in the light of revolutionary industrial unionism. This renewed interest was largely due to the exchange of ideas with European radicals at international congresses. The policy in Europe and in England has been precisely "the boring from within" policy, and European unions-especially the Confédération Générale du Travail of France - has prospered by it both in numbers and influence. In 1911, William Z. Foster, a member of the I. W. W., visited Europe and made a careful examination of the labor organizations there. He returned fully convinced that the I. W. W. should change its policy on "dual unionism" and begin to "bore from within" the American Federation of Labor.

1 E. Pouget, La confédération générale du travail (2nd ed.), p. 47.

In connection with the proposal of his name for the office of editor of the Industrial Worker he sent a letter on the subject to that paper. He makes such a cogent exposition of the case against dual unionism that the greater part of it is here given:

The question, "Why don't the I. W. W. grow?" is being asked on every hand, as well within our ranks as without. And justly, too, as only the blindest enthusiast is satisfied at the progress, or rather lack of progress, of the organization to date. In spite of truly heroic efforts on the part of our organizers and members in general . . . the I. W. W. remains small in membership and weak in influence. It is indeed time to examine the situation and discover what is wrong.

The founders of the I. W. W. at its inception gave the organization the working theory that in order to create a revolutionary labor movement, it was necessary to build a new organization separate and apart from the existing craft unions which were considered incapable of development. This theory and its consequent tactics has persisted in the organization, and we later comers have inherited them and, without any serious investigation, accepted the theory as an infallible dogma. Parrot-like and unthinking, we glibly re-echo the sentiment that "craft unions cannot become revolutionary unions," and usually consider the question undebatable. Convincing arguments in favor of the theory I have never seen nor heard— I used to accept it without question like the vast majority of the I. W. W. membership does now, and in practice it has achieved the negative results shown by the I. W. W. today with its membership of but a few thousands. The theory's strength is due to its being the one originally adopted by the founders of the I. W. W., and to me this is but a poor recommendation, as these same founders, in addition to giving us a constitution manifestly inadequate to our needs and the changing and ignoring of which occupies a large share of our time, made the monumental mistake of trying to harmonize all the various conflicting elements among them into one "Happy