the remotest-with the economic organization. The clause under discussion recognized the two truths "that political action and the means of civilization must be given an opportunity and that in this country, for one, it is out of the question to imagine that a political party can ‘take and hold.'" 1 This was the Socialist Labor party position. It had been foreshadowed in its 1900 convention when it endorsed the following resolution: Genuine trade-unionism not only must fight in the shop . . but must especially, uncompromisingly, at all costs and hazards fight the political parties of capitalism on election day. Its chief motto must be-" No union card will justify the political scab. He is a traitor to his class." . . . We recognize in the S. T. & L. A. the economic arm of the S. L. P. and its indispensable adjunct in its conflict between the working class and the capitalist class.2 The discussion brought out every shade of opinion on the ballot. These men were acutely aware of the fact that business is to a great extent the creator and controller of politics. As one delegate put it, “dropping pieces of paper into a hole in a box never did achieve emancipation for the working class and . . . it never will. Even Daniel DeLeon had nothing but contempt for 3 the visionary politician, the man who imagines that by going to the ballot box and taking a piece of paper-and throwing it in and then rubbing his hands and jollying himself with the expectation that through that process, through some mystic alchemy, the ballot will terminate capitalism and the socialist commonwealth will rise like a fairy out of the ballot-box.* The manifesto was very specific in proposing a purely 1 Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 231. 2 Proceedings, Tenth Annual Convention S. L. P., pp. 198-199. 3 "Father" Hagerty, Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 152. economic organization. That the issue would be a political organization was the prophecy of Frank Bohn, an official of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. Every industrial unionist [he declared] who thoroughly understands the deeper mission of his organization will reach classconscious political action. An industrial union cannot increase the average wage. In some cases it may be less likely than the craft unions to prevent the decrease in wages. .. Socialist to the core must the new economic organization be—and when the June convention has painted the skull and cross-bones on the door of "pure and simpledom," that last working-class compromise with capitalism, there will probably issue a political organization strong in numbers, but stronger in principle, because raised by the revolutionary spirit high above "mere vote-getting subterfuge." 1 In reply to this, A. M. Simons, the editor, declares that, if it is true that the new union is to be less powerful on the economic field than the pure and simple unions, and is simply to constitute a new political party jabbering a lot of jargon about general strikes and installing its officers as rulers of the coöperative commonwealth, then it is doomed to a short and sickening life.2 A very reasonable interpretation of this political clause is that the working class must be united politically, but not necessarily that that union is, or is in, or has any connection with, the I. W. W. However, the sequel showed that it was fatal to the unity of the organization. Three years later it proved to be the rock on which the movement split, bringing about the bifurcated organization we know at the present time; with a direct-actionist wing, non-political, and with a new and expurgated edition of the preamble, and a 1 "Concerning the Chicago Manifesto," International Socialist Review, vol. v, pp. 588-9, April, 1905. 2 Ibid., p. 591, April, 1905. DeLeonite or doctrinaire wing, pro-political-another Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance-with the same old preamble and the same old political clause.1 The constitution provided a highly centralized scheme of administration involving a mixed hierarchy of powers. The general organization was divided into thirteen international industrial divisions (later called "departments"). Each of these departmental divisions was supposed to comprise an allied group of industries, grouped together for administrative purposes. In the original report of the constitution committee the industrial or occupational "sphere of influence" of each division was specified in detail. The world's industries were divided into thirteen administrative groups. The report provided that the organization should "be composed of thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows: Division I shall be composed of all persons working in the following industries: Clerks, salesmen, tobacco, packing houses, flour mills, sugar refineries, dairies, bakeries, and kindred industries. Division 2: Brewery, wine and distillery workers. Division 3: Floriculture, stock and general farming. Division 4: Mining, milling, smelting and refining coal, ores, metals, salt and iron. Division 5 Steam railway, electric railway, marine, shipping, and teaming. Division 6: All building employees. Division 7: All textile industrial employees. Division 8: All leather industrial employees. Division 9: All wood-working employees excepting those engaged in building departments. Division 10: All metal industrial employees. 1 In 1915 the DeLeonite wing changed its name to "The Workers International Industrial Union." Division 12: All paper mills, chemical, rubber, broom, brush and jewelry industries. Division 13: Parks, highways, municipal, postal service, telegraph, telephone, schools and educational institutions, amusements, sanitary, printing, hotel, restaurant and laundry employees.1 3 This section provoked instant debate. In fact, two days and a half-about half the time given to the whole constitution-were given over to the discussion of this clause." Many delegates considered that such a specific division was not only a practical impossibility, on account of the very definite limits to the jurisdiction of most industries, but was a very inconsistent step for an industrial organization to take, since in their opinion it was nothing more or less than a recreation of craft lines. There was considerable feeling in evidence that this clause did not satisfy the provision of the manifesto for "craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working-class unity generally." Flaws and inconsistencies without end could, of course, be found in such a categorical division, and they were pointed out by critical delegates with much gusto. The main idea in this attempt at departmental demarcation of industries was that a centralized administration was imperative. Most of the delegates agreed to this. They believed that even the industry, although the unit or cell of the new structure, should not be the dominant basis of the administration. That must be departmental. Any of these industries [said Delegate Goodwin] are subsi 1 Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 299-300. This classification was amended and re-arranged at the Second Convention. Proceedings, p. 207. 2 Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 300, et seq. This objection was, in part, the cause of the refusal of the delegate of the Longshoremen's Union to install his local. Cf. infra, p. 102. diary and supporting the whole organization. . . . The tendency of capitalist development is concentration. We are going from industrial production to departmental production. It won't be many years. . . till we have departmental production. The tendency in development in the early stages of capital is to go into industries, and the later tendency is to divide into departments, and these departments are international. . . .1 As finally amended, the clause omitted any specific category of departments and industries and simply provided for thirteen departments with appropriate subdivisions. It read as follows: Art. I., Sec. 2.--And shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions subdivided into industrial unions of closely related industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration. The subdivisions, international and national industrial unions, shall have complete industrial autonomy in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General Executive Board shall have power to control these industrial unions in matters concerning the interests of the general welfare.2 The list of specifically divided industries was later replaced in the constitution, but in a very much improved form. Wm. E. Trautmann has worked this up even further, and in 1911 published a still more improved outline in which the number of departments is reduced to six.3 The constitutional convention also made provision for other and subordinate bodies, i. e., industrial councils, which might be formed. These were to comprise seven or more local unions in two or more industries and the local indus 1 1 Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 427. 2 Ibid., p. 496. 3 Vide I. W. W. Constitution, 1911, art. i, sec. 4, and Trautmann, One Great Union, Detroit, I. W. W. Literary Bureau, n. d. (Chart insert). |