solid "shop talk" in the western local than there is in the strictly industrial shop organization of the East. Many members felt that too much time was wasted in talking politics and religion. At the eighth convention there was some criticism of the loquaciousness of the western "wobbly" and of his personal appearance as well.

Today you have got to have a man go up and address the public that looks like a human being [said Delegate Olson]. [See what] you have got in the western country by their ragged agitators; you have got nothing but disappointment, and then you holler at the General Secretary. . . . If the rank and file were educated well enough to make use of the organization instead of arousing animosity they would do away with this spittoon philosophy.1

Frank Bohn, in describing the methods by which this group of so-called "spittoon philosophers" in the mixed locals is said to have attempted to disrupt the I. W. W., asks, “Is this chair-warming sect now the leading element in the I. W. W.? Is it in a majority? If it is, the I. W. W. is not dying. It is dead." 2

Whatever may be the merits or demerits of philosophic anarchism, it is unquestionable that the anarchist-the naïve anarchist, at any rate-is an unmitigated nuisance. Perhaps the General Executive Board had something of this sort in mind when they said that "word pictures of the ideal will not serve to satisfy the cry for bread for any great length of time regardless of how beautifully they may be portrayed . . .," and reminded the delegates that “responsibilities, financial, moral and physical, must be met and not shirked." The Board was more specific farther on in its report:

1

1 Proceedings, Eighth Convention, p. 52.

2 International Socialist Review, vol. xii, p. 44, July, 1911.

3 Report of the Eighth Convention, Proceedings, p. 37, col. 1, 2.

There is an element in the I. W. W. [it declares] whose sole purpose seems to be to disrupt the organization. We refer to the syndicalists or decentralizers, as they are all the same, in their attempt to disrupt the I. W. W. . . . While we do not believe in a highly centralized organization, neither is the I. W. W. such. In fact, it is the most decentralized movement in the world today. It does not interfere with the action of the locals as long as they abide by the fundamental principles of the organization. . . . We find a situation in the West that if carried on means a complete disruption of the only industrial organization in the world. In time of strike they sit around the hall talking of what ought to be done or devising ways and means to do away with General Headquarters. . . . They will talk of sabotage and direct action but leave it to the boss to use it on the few who take up the fight. If these conditions continue, the I. W. W. will die of dry rot.1

2

Delegate Foss, in a despondent moment, remarked that there was "a general tendency to prevent organization of any kind in this [I. W. W.] movement." At another time he remarked: "The western portion of this organization does not need any decentralization. Decentralization has got hold of it now and that is the very reason why this organization has no job control in the West. . .

In 1912 the G. E. B. had assured the membership that they were "not unmindful of the danger that will ever live in centralized power," but they asserted that "it does not follow that to centralize the administrative machinery of your organization necessarily means a centralized power," and that "the only means by which centralization of power can be avoided is by correct education and a thoroughly intelligent membership.

1 Report of the Eighth Convention, Proceedings, pp. 103-4.

2 Ibid., p. 70.

3 Ibid., p. 56, col. 2.

Report to the Seventh Convention, Industrial Worker, Oct. 24, 1912, p. 6, col. I.

A writer who favored the decentralists says that their defeat was due very largely to their "crudity and inexperience." "Possessed of a red-hot issue, they failed," he said, "to make good with it" partly "because of their unfamiliarity with the principles of decentralization." Alexander Berkman, one of the most prominent anarchists in the United States, regretted the victory of what he might have called the "entrenched oligarchy" at Chicago.

The question of local autonomy [he says], in itself such an axiomatic necessity of a truly revolutionary movement, has been so obscured in the debates of the convention that apparently sight was lost of the fact that no organization of independent and self-reliant workers is thinkable without complete local autonomy. It does not speak well either for the intelligence or spirit of the convention delegates that the efforts of the decentralists were defeated. The convention has given a very serious blow to the . . . spirit of the social revolution by [passing] the resolution that the publications of the I. W. W. should come under the supervision of the General Executive Board. That is centralization with a vengeance. We consider the convention . . . a sad failure [and] sincerely hope that the real militants and revolutionists of the I. W. W. will take the lesson to heart and exert all their energies to stem the tide of conservatism and faint-heartedness in the I. W. W. organization.2

we

In a very interesting article Ben Reitman, another anarchist, has set down his more personal impressions of this eighth I. W. W. convention. After assuring us that 98 per cent of the "extremely interesting crowd" of delegates had in all probability been in prison, but that none of them were criminals, he continues:

1 Onlooker, "The Question of Decentralization," Voice of the People, Oct. 9, 1913, p. 4, col. 2.

Alexander Berkman, "The I. W. W. Convention," Mother Earth, Oct., 1913, vol. viii, pp. 233, 234.

As I sat in the hot, stuffy, smoky room of the convention hall day after day and heard the discussions, and saw how little regard the delegates had for grammar and the truth, and realized that most of the delegates knew as much about the real labor movement as they did about psychology, and that they cared little about the broad principles of freedom, . I marvelled at the big things the I. W. W. have done during their short career; . . . and I said to myself, "God! Is it possible that this bunch of pork-chop philosophers, agitators who have no real, great organizing ability or creative brain power, are able to frighten the capitalistic class more than any other labor movement organized in America? Is it true that this body of politicians were able to send 5,000 men to jail in the various free-speech fights?... Are these the men who put a song in the mouth and a sense of solidarity in the heart of the hobo? Are the activities of these men forcing the A. F. of L. and the sociologists to recognize the power and necessity of Industrial Unionism?" And as I looked at the delegates and recounted their various activities, I felt that each one could say, "Yes, I'm the guy." And then I wondered how they did it.1

1

The I. W. W. was by this time developing some slight capacity for introspection. A few of the leaders at any rate clearly understood some of the weaknesses of the organization. The editor of the official organ makes the frank admission that "at present we are to the labor movement what the high diver is to the circus-a sensation marvelous and nerve-thrilling. We attract the crowds . . . [but] as far as making industrial unionism fit the every-day life of the worker, we have failed miserably."

2

1 Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention," Mother Earth, October, 1913, vol, viii, pp. 241-242.

2 Editorial, "Sensationalism vs. Organizing Ability," Solidarity, Aug. 23, 1913.

CHAPTER XIV

RECENT TENDENCIES

THE mutual hostility between the Western Federation of Miners and the I. W. W. has not lessened since 1907. This antagonism has been most acute in the Arizona, Nevada and Montana mining camps. In the Arizona-Montana territory the feeling on the side of the Federation is indicated by the following extract from a letter written to the twenty-first convention of that organization by a member in Jerome, Ariz.

We are very sorry [he writes] that we are unable to send a delegate to Denver, but we have the fight of our life here with an I. W. W. bunch. They are coming here from all over; already they have got in some dirty work by getting some of our members to quit the W. F. M., . . . there seems to be a concerted movement on the part of the I. W. W. to get in where the W. F. M. are doing good work and disrupt the union.1

It is not unnatural that there should be increasing friction between the two organizations, inasmuch as the Western Federation has become on the whole more conservative, while the I. W. W. has grown constantly more revolutionary. In June, 1910, the W. F. M. voted for affiliation with the American Federation of Labor and the alliance was finally consummated in May, 1911. "What the mine owners failed to do by force," declares the I. W. W., "they

1 T. P. Esmond, letter dated July 17, 1914, Proceedings, 21st Convention, W. F. M. (1914), p. 26.