Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the militant minority- found themselves decidedly in the minority, and so far unsuccessful. "Fully a hundred of the resolutions," says one prominent anarchist who attended the convention, "were progressive, favored decentralization, and were fathered, mothered, and nursed by half a dozen militants. But every radical resolution," he thought, "was either lost, laid on the table, or amended so that it was useless. The motion for decentralization was lost by three to one, as was the motion to do away with the G. E. B." Another opponent of centralized authority explained how "for two long and tedious weeks they [the decentralizers] presented their ideas . . . and the centralists slaughtered them by the brute force of voting power "The decentralizers held," he said, "that a revolutionary movement does not depend [so much] upon votes as it does upon the recognition of the fact that all

[ocr errors]

1

minorities are to have an equal voice . . . with the majorities. [because] the minority is always more militant than the majority." 2 In the same issue which carried this statement, the Voice of the People said editorially:

[The decentralization struggle in the I. W. W. is] a war between the advocates of “I am going to save myself" and those of "let me save you." . . . Centralization in labor unions is nothing less than government by representation, or political action. The advocates of centralization in the I. W. W. are socialists, in fact, if not in profession. . . . Only when they repudiate labor-union governmentalism will they become real direct-actionists.3

The "decentralist agitation" first assumed definite form

'Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention." Mother Earth, October, 1913, vol. viii, p. 240.

[ocr errors]

2 G. G. Soltes, Convention Notes," Voice of the People, Oct. 23, 1913, p. 2, col. 3. The italics are not in the original.

[ocr errors]

The question of decentralization," p. 2.

at a conference of the Pacific Coast locals of the I. W. W. held at Portland, Oregon, in February, 1911. At this conference the eight-hours movement, plans for the establishment of agitation circuits for organizers and—this most of all-the evils of centralized authority were discussed.1 At this conference was established the Pacific Coast District Organization, known among the I.W.W.s as the "P. C. D. O." This organization was an interesting compromise between the idea of absolutely self-governing locals on the one side and servile locals completely controlled by a bureaucratic national machine on the other. It undertook to exercise some of the sovereign functions of "Headquarters." According to a member of the General Executive Board,

this P. C. D. O. was to have its own due stamp books, headquarters, General Secretary, General Executive Board, and paper-this paper was the [Industrial] Worker. But the P. C. D. O. made no success . . . because of not having a strong enough ground to build upon in order to interest the western membership.2

It was believed in some quarters-especially at "Headquarters" that the real purpose of the Western Slope constituency which organized the P. C. D. O. was to disrupt the I. W. W., or to effect a secession from the national body. Some months after the Conference above referred to an editorial appeared in Solidarity-the administration organ. It declared that their purpose

was to disrupt the I. W. W. and form an independent organization in the West. The Conference itself proposed that the G. E. B. reduce the per capita [tax] to the P. C. D. O. to five cents and allow the locals in that district organization to buy

1 Report of Committee, Solidarity, Feb. 18. 1911, p. 2, col. 4.

2 J. M. Foss in his report to the eighth convention, Proceedings, p. 37.

their stamps directly from the district headquarters. . . . The final conclusion of the sixth convention was that such an organization as the P. C. D. O., for purposes of closer unity, localized activity and propaganda, was fully justified and should be supported, but efforts to divide or disrupt the organization as a whole would be fought to the bitter end.1

The administration saw in the P. C. D. O. a very subversive imperium in imperio, and when the eighth convention met, the G. E. B. issued the following statement concerning the western promoters of the P. C. D. O. idea:

Decentralization is what they want. To gain this point of control in the movement, they begin with the officials by saying they have too much power, and to break up the machine we must divide up in various parts, do away with the General Executive Board and the General Office. The first move . . . was . . . when the scheme of a Pacific Coast District Organization was launched under the mask of perfecting more organization [sic] in the I. W. W. At the [P. C. D. O.] convention held in Portland, Ore., they were to establish a western headquarters, get control of the western organ, The Industrial Worker, elect their own General Executive Board, and get out their own due-books and stamps, etc. This idea . . . is now prevailing in various sections throughout the organization. The P. C. D. O. scheme . . . failed because of [lack of] support [and] died with its first convention because of the fact that it smacked of disruption and decentralization. . . . 2

[ocr errors]

In the I. W. W., as in all voluntary organizations covering areas of continental magnitude, doctrines are allocated territorially. There are many points of contrast between

1 Solidarity, Oct. 21, 1911, p. 2, col. 3.

2 Report to the eighth convention, Proceedings, p. 36. Some of the delegates at this convention appeared to think that the P. C. D. O. "scheme" was instigated indirectly by the capitalists. Delegate Foss said: "... it is much cheaper for the masters to work within our organization rather than to fight us openly." Ibid., p. 38, col. 1.

the eastern and the western constituencies of the Industrial Workers of the World. At present we are only concerned with the eastern and western attitudes toward the idea of decentralization. The western environment drives the petit bourgeoisie to demand political home rule or local autonomy in legislative government. The result is the recent remarkable spread of the initiative, referendum and recall in the three Pacific Coast states. In these same three states we find the chief strongholds of industrial autonomy. The life of the western proletarian imbues him with the more individualistic kind of rebellion which expresses itself in the more or less coherent demand for an industrial state made up of self-governing local groups of workers. The results have been the partially successful drive from the West for the referendum idea in union government, the chronic decentralist mutterings which have constantly emanated from the West, the open but unsuccessful decentralist attack at the eighth convention and-the P. C. D. O. In the long run the decentralist pressure has had its effect and the organization, as already intimated, is now less centralized than it was a decade ago. The writer realizes that the analogy between western political pioneering and laborunion or industrialist pioneering in that section must not be pushed too far. For example, the ultimate result of I. W. W. decentralization is anarchist communism, which is quite different from the kind of political society resulting from the home-rule and referendum statutes enacted by a middleclass electorate.

The I. W. W. leaders were not unaware of the effect of the geographical environment. B. H. Williams, the editor of Solidarity, puts it in this way:

We see in the West, individualism in practice, combined with. a theory of collective action that scoffs at individual or group initiative by general officers and executive boards and con

ceives the possibility of "direct action" in all things through the "rank and file." Hence the proposal . . . for minimizing the power of the general administration.

He explains that the eastern delegates come from a different environment. Industry in the East is highly developed and centralized. They don't think of Pennsylvania in a geographical sense.

Without the individualistic spirit himself, the eastern worker nevertheless recognizes the value of individual initiative in promoting mass action and in executing the mandates . . . of the organization. The problem before the sixth convention was to preserve the balance between these two sets of ideas. In that the convention succeeded admirably.1

Another industrialist thinks that "the western part of the country, being very little developed industrially, has a tendency to develop individualism in the minds of the workers.

On the other hand, the workers in the large industrial centers develop a strong collectivism which expresses itself in mass action," and which requires a "close [ly] centralized organization." "

The western local union is usually a "mixed" union, and it is therefore not directly connected with any "shop" or industry. It is more nearly a propaganda club. It usually has a hall of some kind for meetings, and in many cases this hall is open all the time. Sometimes there is a “ jungle kitchen" attached and meals can be served to itinerant Fellow Workers who are passing through. This means that there is naturally more hall-room conversation and less 1" The sixth I. W. W. convention," International Socialist Review, vol. xii, pp. 301-2, Nov., 1911.

'Ewald Koeltgen, "I. W. W. Convention". (8th, 1913), International Socialist Review, vol. xiv, p. 275, Nov., 1913. Professor Hoxie took the same general view that decentralization was the slogan of the western membership. "The Truth about the I. W. W.," Journal of Political Economy, Nov., 1913, vol. xxi, p. 788.

« PředchozíPokračovat »