An “Industrialist” Rout. (1909)

Party News from the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Thursday, May 27th, at the Latchmere Baths, Battersea, J. Fitzgerald and E. J. B. Allen debated as to the correctness of the position taken up by their respective organisations in compassing the end to which both are pledged, viz., the abolition of the present system of society and the substitution of the Socialist Commonwealth.

The debate was conducted in a splendid spirit, and followed by a large audience with an attention which demonstrated their recognition of the importance of the issue raised.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain feels more than justified in giving the above title to the following short account of the debate, where the representative of the Industrialist League cleverly defended a position which, under the stern bombardment of Fitzgerald became hopelessly untenable, ultimately presenting a picture of “looped and windowed raggedness” which must have been apparent even to the adherents of, and sympathisers with, that organisation.

Mr. H. B. Rogers was in the chair. After a few opening remarks he called upon Allen to hold the fort for half an hour.

E. J. B. Allen acknowledged the oneness of aim of the two organisations. The question was:

HOW WAS THE WORKING CLASS TO GAIN CONTROL ?

On the political field we saw the waste of time and energy in the quarrels between the various political parties, while in those places where revolutionary unionism existed you had a revolutionary working class. The class struggle was manifested mainly in the factory, field and workshop. There the revolutionary organisation must be built up. Street-corner propaganda was useless, unless backed up by revolutionary tactics in every-day life. In the political field you had your Burns’s, Vivianis, Millerands, and Briands taking sides with the capitalists because they had been placed in a false position through political action. The franchise can, it has been, it may be, monkeyed with. What weapon then, had the S.P.G.B. to fall back upon? The “political” Socialist was quick to point out failures of strikes ; he seemed to shut his eyes to electoral failures with the consequent waste of time, money and energy. The Revolutionary Union would be prepared to take political action to dispossess the capitalist of power. They would use the weapon of the Strike up to the partial and complete General Strike. The French Postal workers had used this weapon with success. It looked as though after all the S.P.G.B. would have to follow the methods it denounced as impracticable, viz., the nationalisation of industries piecemeal. To-day the Parliament did not control the Army, for the Army Council was not under the control of any elected body. Along with Industrial Unionism there must be an

ANTI-MILITARIST PROPAGANDA.

There are not wanting signs that the times are ripe for such a movement. The soldiers at Featherstone killed three. Had they shot as ordered they could have killed three hundred. The capitalist class had built up their economic power before they overthrew the absolute monarchy. The recent Postal strike in Paris illustrated the fact that a worker of whatever political colour could act solid with his class in the workshop. A Radical operator held up wires from Rome which would have facilitated work of the masters. Therefore he answered, “Yes,” his organisation would accept even members of the I.L.P. It would accept anyone willing to act solid with his class. Once in the organisation the lesson of Socialism could be driven home by the Socialist already in the ranks. Besides a man would act straight as a worker who may be hopelessly befogged as a politician. The S.P.G.B. had run municipal candidates. They did not bar Parliamentary candidature. What would their representative do if elected ? He could but

SUPPORT PALLIATIVES

as the elected representatives of the I.L.P. etc. did.

J. Fitzgerald in his all too brief half hour’s reply, said that he intended, before answering his adversary’s points directly, to state briefly, the position of his Party. A mere statement of that position would refute much that had been said in opposition. What were the main obstacles to the goal ? Two. The first corporeal, measurable, gross to sight, viz., the armed forces and other political machinery ; the second, alas ! incorporeal, immeasurable, unseen but real, vague but potent, heavy with the heaviness of Death—

WORKING-CLASS IGNORANCE.

That ignorance it is the duty of every Socialist to dispel. With regard to the first obstacle he noticed that the Industrialist League had added a new item to its programme since the inception of Industrial Unionism, when they argued they could “lock out the capitalist class,” viz., Anti-Militarism. Not that he attached much importance to that particular form of propaganda, except that it clearly demonstrated that the Industrialist League had learnt from the S.P.G.B. the imperative necessity of reckoning with the armed forces instead of ignoring, Anarchist fashion, the political machinery. Did not this fact of itself show, however, that the “neutral,” telescope-to-the-blind-eye attitude of the Industrial Leaguists as far as “politics” were concerned, was officially capable of expression as a pious belief, but ludicrously impossible as practical tactics?

Allen had stated that Revolutionary Industrial organisations had made the French, Spanish, and Italian workers “more revolutionary.” Had they? Is that why they continue to send representatives of the master class to their exploiters’ grand committees for the conservation of class privilege and the preservation of class oppression ?

With regard to the second obstacle—working-class ignorance—Allen and himself were both agreed as to the vital need of teaching. It was alleged that such teaching would be most effective on the spot where the worker found himself face to face with class exploitation. As a matter of fact the workers are more split on the economic field, where they have over 1,000 organisations, than on the political, where they have less than 100. Must he bring his opponent back to the solid ground of fact by reminding him that the present system

FORCES TWO INDUSTRIALISTS TO FIGHT

for a job ? Political leaders “sell out! ” Do economic leaders never do so ? “Strikesmasher” Barnes, “Arbitration” Bell, “Mabon,” etc., never “sell out” ! Oh no ! He would remind him of Frank Rose’s sinister declaration in the Clarion of 18th September, 1908 : “They (the masters) bribe away the best and most knowing of the operatives’ officials by giving them better jobs and bigger salaries, and the internal working of the operatives’ unions are open books lo them.

“IT IS A GHASTLY BUSINESS.”

Regarding the General Strike, the ablest writer on the subject, Arnold Roller, showed the absurdity of the Industrialists’ statement that the workers could continue to carry on production for themselves and starve out the capitalists, for he says : “It is evident in such a struggle the ruling class would pay no sentimental regard to law and would simply seize the provisions of the proletariat for themselves and their army.”

What became of the talk about “taking and holding” ? Moreover, the statement completely knocked the bottom out of the case for the General Strike. What had the French Postal workers got by this weapon ? Six hundred had got— the sack !

It was not true that the Army Council was not under the control of any elected body, for it was appointed by the Cabinet, that was in its turn appointed by Parliament, which was an elected body and had ultimate control. With regard to Anti-Militarism, it were wise, especially while the Party was small, to direct their energies to most likely material for conversion. His opponent could judge of the relative accessibility to Socialist thought of soldiers and civilians, hedged in as the former were by every influence, positive and negative, tending to stupification of the thinking faculties. The gist of Hervé’s teaching consisted of calling upon the workers to resist conscription and to be shot rather than join the army ! We had been told, as an instance of the success of Herve’s propaganda, that the 71st Regiment of the line in France had mutinied when called on to fire upon the wine growers in the South, but the truth was this regiment was recruited from that very district, and it was this very fact of being called upon to fire at their own relatives—in some cases their own fathers and mothers—that caused the mutiny, and not the propaganda of Anti Militarism.

In answer to the question as to the attitude of elected representatives on public bodies, his reply was, no! they will not bolster up palliatives; they will be there to speak from the wider platform as revolutionary propagandists; essentially they can but continue the propaganda while in the minority.

Allen in his 20 minutes reply reiterated several of his former points. He said that Marx himself had declared (in his “Eighteenth Brumaire” ) that politicians would mar any movement. Suppose a majority of Socialists elected to the House. Would reactionary army officers etc. yield at the word of a majority ? No ! The means of production must be made ready for seizing by previous revolutionary work in the factories, etc. As far as education was concerned, contesting elections simply meant educating the worker in the divineness of capitalist “law and order” ; whereas

DIRECT ACTION

implies the contrary. The political movement is not a class movement, for capitalists and “intellectuals” may join, while the I.U. only admitting workers, was a class movement. In Warsaw during the late troubles, the workers struck and drove out the capitalists, who had to ask to be allowed to come back and take the works again. He again asked how the S.P.G.B. intended “seizing the political machinery” without the necessary force to seize it.

Fitzgerald in his 20 minutes reply pointed out that “revolutionary” speeches and actions born of more excitable temperaments, easily carried on waves of enthusiasm and as easily correspondingly depressed, did not constitute revolutionary tactics. The Confederation General du Travail (C.G.T.) had been referred to. Let it be clearly understood that that body was a loose conglomeration, controlled by a small body of Anarchists, who showed their individualistic proclivities with their accompanying thimble-rigging and wire-pulling, by insisting upon “one group, one vote,” which means that a precious “group” of about six carried equal weight with a genuine association of a thousand. Truly, this showed the close relationship and connection of the I.U. with the avowed Anarchists.

The C.G.T. had cal1ed a “general strike” every May Day for the last three years, and the Industrialist said they were promised one this year. All of them had been miserable fiascos and the only “revolutionary” action that took place this year was the singing of “L’Internationale” by some men while marching

TO WORK ! !

The whole tenor of C.G.T. thought is “leadership,” and “leadership” had meant, and will mean, a shambles for the workers. Organisers charged to carry out intelligently the democratic will? Yes! The S.P.G.B. stands by that. “Leaders,” in the sense of the bourgeoisie, of the I.L.P., of the S.D.P., looking meekly for direction and guidance to their middle-class tin gods ? A thousand times No !

THERE IS NO ROOM

for the “middle”-class “intellectual” on the make, if the movement was truly democratic and therefore clean. On the “Industrialist” basis Marx and Engels would have been kept out of the movement. Marx had been quoted to bolster up the “non-political” character of Industrialism. Let his opponent read that brilliant monograph and cease to drag the lustrous name of Marx in the mire. “Parliamentary idiotcy” was a disease attaching to the “pure and simple” politician. In the case of the coup-d’état of 1851, it refers more particularly to the action of the fatuous “Party of Order” in calling Napoleon the Little to “concentrate the whole executive power in his own person” (pp. 50-51). Reference by any fair-minded person to the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B. would dispel any illusion to the effect that his Party could be charged with such “idiotcy,” as it distinctly states that the workers must obtain control of the fighting forces. And then as to Warsaw. What a specimen of “revolutionary” education ! When the capitalists “asked ” they were allowed to go back and recommence exploiting those who had turned them out!

Allen in his ten minutes round averred that the strong minority must lead the majority. History proved his contention. As for Parliamentary action, did not “Pride’s Purge” demonstrate the uselessness of that? Members were expelled ruthlessly by the soldiers. The Parliament did not control the militia, for when Charles went to Nottingham the majority of the trained bands followed him. As to the C.G.T., could it be denied that an organisation claiming to be out for the expropriation of the capitalist class was revolutionary ? The General Strike implied a revolutionary upheaval, animated by sheer unconstitutionalism, ignoring individual safety in looking for the salvation of the whole. It was minorities made all movements. They started the idea and dinned it into the heads of the others.

Fitzgerald, reviewing the whole situation in his last ten minutes, rammed home by apt quotation and scathing humour several points previously touched upon. The mention of “Pride’s Purge ” by Allen was peculiarly unfortunate. Above all things that event showed the enormous leverage which the seizure of political power gave. In the struggle between sections of the bourgeosie which “Pride’s Purge” illustrated, the victory was to that section effectively controlling the army as part of the political machinery. The North v. South slave struggle of 1861 in America illustrated the same point. Temporary and brilliant successes of Southern generals were bound to be rendered nugatory in the long run by the political force wielded by the North. As for the trained bands going to Charles, according to Gardiner, when the first call was made by Parliament in London, 40,000 fully armed and 100,000 lesser armed men responded—a splendid start for the Parliament. A final word as to “agitation in the workshop,” which is claimed to be so educationally efficient. Why ? In these days of speeding up, when is this propaganda to go forward? From a sheer common-sense point of view, surely, in his hours of leisure, however scant, the workman is more accessible to Socialist thought and teaching. At any rate the task-master won’t be immediately present.

The General Strike and minorities being right—well, let us see again what Roller has to say. Judge for yourselves the discrepancy between Roller’s picture and that drawn by Allen. “The immense advantage of the General Strike is that it begins

ENTIRELY LAWFULLY

and without any danger to the workers, and for this reason thousands will take part who would never have thought of taking part in a revolution, but would have stayed at home behind the grate.” What sort of “revolutionaries” are these ? Directly action in revolutionary lines was needed they would disappear and leave the others to be crushed. Is the ”General Strike” the last word of “Industrial Leagism” ? It stands self condemned.

A few harmless humourosities from the chairman closed the proceedings. That some “Industrialists” went away sadder if not wiser men is the firm hope, not to say conviction, of

REGINALD.

Trade Unionism. A Debate. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard.

[To save repetition and for convenience of reference we have numbered the paragraphs in the reply of the Advocates, and will answer under those numbers.]

Reply of Advocates.

The loose and inaccurate habit of thought of the S.P.G.B. is well typified by the sub-heading of their answer, which attempts to make out that the present debate is with the S.L.P. instead of with the A. of I.U.

(1) When we speak of the S.P.G.B. wandering away from the correct position, it is in the sense that they totally fail to put into practice the principle expressed in their Manifesto, “that the basis of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the worker’s position under capitalism and the class struggle resulting therefrom,” by advocating the formation of such a union in Great Britain. Instead they deliberately attack those who are seeking to establish an industrial union based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the Socialist Republic.

(2) The S.P.G.B., after publishing in its official organ the statement that “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” reject another later article because it asks for the same thing. For the S.P. to contend that a union could not be a class union, that is, based on the class struggle, because it would be organised according to industries, cuts the ground from under their own feet, for if economic grouping in an economic body robs it of its class character, then geographical grouping in a political body must do likewise.

(3) There is no jumble of unions in our organisation. Our object is to organise the workers in a compact body along the same lines in which modern industrial conditions compel them to work together, that is united according to industrial, and not divided along craft lines. The object of our union is the taking over by and for the workers themselves the productive forces they now operate for a boss. Anyone knows that the General Federation of Trade Unions is simply out to federate the existing craft unions, duplicates as well, leaving their internal organisation absolutely intact. What we are out for is to organise one union of the whole working class, divided for administrative and other purposes into industrial departments and local industrial unions, just as an army is divided into regiments or a political party into local branches.

(4) The I.W.W. of America, in spite of the alleged split (a split only in the sense that the fakirs were kicked out) has now over 28,000 fully paying members. Several European countries, France, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Germany, etc., have unions organised on industrial lines, both before and since the I.W.W. was started, and now Australia is starting an industrial union, with the title, preamble and constitution of the I.W.W.—facts which prove the efficiency of revolutionary industrial organisation.

(5) To say that because we wish an economic organisation as being the chief means to overthrow capitalism and to form the foundation of the Socialist Republic, that we are Anarchist as believing in direct action, places the loyal S.P’ite in the same category should he become involved in a strike and should he not attempt to conduct it through the ballot box.

(6) We claim that were the working class organised in a revolutionary industrial union, we could prevent to a large extent the use of armed forces against the workers. Transport, food, clothing, ammunition, etc., are necessary factors in warfare, and the workers industrially organised could prevent the hired assassins of the capitalist class from using them. In the railway strike in Italy the Government used armed force to compel the men to run certain trains, but the organised workers in Milan and elsewhere called a series of strikes in these towns which made the Government withdraw the troops and grant the workers’ demands.

(7) If the revolution is to be effected by armed force, how are the workers going to get it ? because if the capitalists can prevent the organising of a revolutionary union because of their strict supervision, are we to suppose they will allow an armed force to be got together ? And if they did, how are workers ever to obtain sufficient wealth to purchase “the modern weapons of precision and death-dealing ?”

(8) Although the capitalists could not starve the industrially organised workers into submission, seeing we will have possession of the means of production, what would there be to prevent them starving a “Socialist” government out of power by refusing to give up control of the fighting forces and the means of production to the Socialist M.P.’s ?

(9) To say that the capitalist class laid the foundation of their control by building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax begs the question as to how they got control of this army, which we contend was only by the capitalists having since the time of Henry 8th been developing and getting economic power, thereby being able to purchase the munitions of war, pay their soldiers, etc., when the question of feudal or capitalist supremacy finally became relegated from Parliament to battlefield.

(10) We were wrong in describing the S.P. as “neutral,” for to actively oppose, as they do, those who are attempting to organise a union “based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic,” amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. To say that Allen’s article was allowed in because it asked for a Socialist union when it stated “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” and to reject a second article because it asked for the same thing, is equal to saying that a union “based on the class struggle,” etc., is not a Socialist union.

(11) The statement that Kent’s resolution did not say an industrial organisation “affiliated to and controlled by the S.P.G.B.” is a distinct suggestion of falsification. The facts are that these words were added to Kent’s resolution as an amendment by Anderson. The resolution as amended was carried, and Kent himself voted for it. If the S.P. attitude is not one of “boring from within” when it allows its members to hold office in existing unions that deny the class struggle, thus helping to build them up and extend their influence, we should like to know what is. They have some members who have denied the need for economic organisation at all.

(12) With regard to the I.W.W. excluding men on account of high dues, when first established the Executive Board had power to lower and forgive them if it so wished. The S.P. likewise conveniently overlooks the differences in the money rate of wages in America and here. Since Sherman & Co. were kicked out, the I.W.W. has organised men who were on strike without the payment of initiation fee or dues. The Paterson silk workers had their dues reduced 25 per cent., and they won their strike. In their official organ for July 27th, ’07 they report the winning of the Paterson Locomotive Workers’ strike, and in the same issue report Local 95 as exempted from paying assessments. Bridgeport I.W.W. machinists won their strike. The big strike in the mills of Skowhegan was won by the I.W.W. Case after case can be given proving it a lie to say that the I.W.W. has never won a strike, and also that it makes dues and initiation fees so high as to keep workers out. In Schenectady the I.W.W. had only 3,000 men : the rest of the 12,000 in the Works were in craft unions, and it was these remaining at work blacklegging on the I.W.W. that lost the strike. In Buffalo several new unions have been started. The I.W.W. has won more strikes than it has lost. Even if it had not, it does not prove industrial unionism wrong, because anyone with sense knows a union must have a certain proportion of workers inside to strike successfully ; while young and weak some strikes are sure to be lost. The S.P.G.B. has never won an election, therefore it is a fraud.

(13) With regard to the split, the S.P. should be the last to talk of splits seeing that it is simply the result of a split from the S.D.F. itself, and has since had splits at Islington and elsewhere in its own ranks.

(14) We attend workers political bodies, trade union branches, trades councils, etc., at their invitation just as the S.P.G.B. was prepared to let Lehane go to the Parliament branch U.I.L. when there was a chance to go. To drag in the S.L.P. is quite irrelevant as this is a debate with the A. of I.U. and not the S.L.P. The S.P.G.B. allows its members to hold office in unions that deny the class struggle, that are going to moralise the capitalists like the O.B.S., establish mutual relations between employer and employed, and that are affiliated to the bogus Labour Party which is supposed to be fought by the S.P. If industrial unionism is so bad and against Socialist principles why does the S.P.G.B. fail to tell us the methods on which a union should be organised, and then set about organising it to prove their honesty ?

S.P.G.B. answer to Advocates.

(1) Both on the platform and in our paper we continually point out to the working class the necessity for political and economic action and for building up their organisations from their class basis. To call a new organisation an “industrial” union merely conveys to the average worker the idea of a union similar in most respects to the existing unions and differing only in some details. Call it a “Socialist” union and attention is at once directed to the fundamental differences between that and the present unions. If the Advocates are in favour of a Socialist union why do they attempt to start unions that sectionalise the workers according to industry and then try to hide their stupidity by saying that this sectionalism is on a class basis ?

(2) As people usually live in different localities, geographical subdivision of organisation becomes necessary, and the I.W.W. has been compelled to adopt this form despite their denouncing this method as wrong. The S.P. is an organisation with geographical sub-divisions, but the I.W.W. is composed of Industrial and Local Unions—that is, of complete organisations or entities—not branches of an organisation, and is merely a conglomerate similar to the General Federation of Trade Unions.

(3) This is answered by No. 2 above.

(4) This is so clumsy an evasion of the truth that we can only suppose the Advocates to imagine their opponents know nothing of the facts. When the I.W.W. was formed it claimed 100,000 members. At the next Annual Convention these figures had dropped to 60 or 70,000. Now they are given as 28,000. Nor is this the most important fact. The union that formed the back-bone of the I.W.W., and was lauded in their press and speeches as the most clear-cut revolutionary union in America, is the Western Federation of Miners ; and it is just this union, stated to number 30,000 members, that has withdrawn from the I.W.W. No talk of “alleged splits” can cover the seriousness of these facts and figures.

If the existence of so-called industrial unions on the continent of Europe proves the efficiency of this form of organisation, then the so-called ”craft” unions must be immensely more efficient as they exist with a far greater membership.

But the truth is that these industrial unions are Anarchist unions and fight Socialism at every opportunity. The strongest and most important of them all—the General Federation of Labour of France—has for years bitterly opposed the Socialist party and propaganda there ; while— a curious fact —the Australian S.L.P. has withdrawn from the Socialist Federation in Australia that endorsed (not started) the I.W.W. there.

(5) Utter inability to refute our case showing how the A. of I. U. adopt the Anarchist position is proved by the absurd paragraph in question. To talk of conducting an economic strike through the ballot box is sheer idiocy.

(6) While this paragraph is the first attempt to come to anything like close quarters in the discussion, it carefully evades our previous statement. In the first place they have utterly failed to show how unarmed workers could prevent the armed “hired assassins” from using the immense stores that are under the control of the capitalist class, in the Arsenals, victualing yards, etc. ; and in the second place the only “demands” granted the railway workers in Italy were doses of lead in Milan and Barra Bridge. Far from the men winning they were completely routed by the use of the soldiers in running—and compelling the men to run—the services in question.

(7) This paragraph shows how completely the Anarchist notions have bitten into the Advocatee, as the only alternative to an economic struggle they appear capable of grasping is the Bakunine position of street riots with such arms as the workers can secure by purchase or theft. They fail to see that with the control of the political machinery there is control of the ordering departments, and therefore control of the fighting forces already in existence ; and until this control is obtained by the workers they cannot hold the means of production.

(8) This reiterates the same old fallacy that, “industrially” organised, the workers are invincible, the absurdity of which we have shown above.

(9) The contention that the capitalists in the seventeenth century were only able to control the Army because they had the means to purchase munitions of war and pay soldiers is entirely inaccurate. Leaving out the point, so well established in the Thirty Years’ War, that an Army can support itself while production exists at all, the bourgeois class obtained their army in the first place from the militia existing in England and which was under the control of Parliament. When they had conquered political power in the Commons they were able to use this militia to protect themselves, while the King had to rely upon his courtiers and their retainers for an army to fight them, showing in a striking manner the importance of the working class gaining control of the political machinery to accomplish their emancipation.

(10) The naive admission made here well shows how the Advocates merely repeat parrot-like phrases and statements used in America even against facts existing here. The American S.L.P. denounces the Socialist Party there for claiming to be “neutral” on the trade union question. Then the Advocates here—formed by, and largely consisting of members of, the Scots S.L.P.—must use the same phrase against the S.P.G.B., although the subject was debated on Peckham Rye with G. Geis in August, 1906 and again at Plumstead in January, 1907, with Allen ; in the latter case the debate was, technically, on the political question, but it was almost wholly taken up with with industrial unionism. This is now the third encounter we have had on the subject, yet the Advocates only discover in their second contribution that we are not “neutral” but in opposition ! This they say amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. The fact that we have lately had to defend ourselves in a libel action, due to our criticism of some of these reactionaries, is by itself a sufficient refutation of the statement; but in truth, from the publication of our Manifesto onwards, we have always opposed all organisations that are non-Socialist, whether political or economic.

The almost pathetic reiteration of one sentence from an article by E. J. B. Allen is best met by further quotation from that article.

“We must carry on an organised agitation and education within the existing unions to which our members belong, so as to form a nucleus of sound Socialists in each. They should proceed with the educational work … so that they can get a sufficient number of sound men within the unions, so that when we are strong enough and conditions are ripe, we can call them out to form the foundation of the Socialist union. . . . Better do this and build a solid foundation by education . . . than pass pious resolutions instructing the E.C. to form Socialist unions at a time when it is a numerical and financial impossibility.”

In an article two months previous to the above the same writer stated :—

“The question therefore arises can the unions be made of service to the working class ? The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

And further on it is said :—

“They (the Socialist trade unionists) should, it seems to me, endeavour to effect the sound economic organisation of the workers by systematic propaganda of Socialism inside existing unions—a work which, it must be remembered, has, hitherto, never been seriously undertaken.”

In face of these quotations it is unnecessary to labour the point further.

(11) It is now admitted that Kent’s resolution did not contain the statement questioned. It is not true that Kent voted for the resolution as amended. The next point is “boring from within.” It is stated that “the S.P. allows its members to hold office in existing unions.” So do the Advocates ! G. Geis, a prominent member of both Advocates and S.L.P., has held office in his trade union as late as last November. Evidently everyone but an “Advocate” holding office is only “helping to build them up and extend their influence.”

(12) The opening statement here is entirely false. Nowhere in the constitution is any provision made for remitting dues, nor is any power given to the Executive Board to do so and where this has occurred, the Executive have acted outside the rules. Every union that entered upon a strike has found itself compelled to organise the non-members without payment of dues, as such payment is obviously impossible then. Local No. 95 were exempted from payment to headquarters because they were supporting an organiser entirely by their own efforts, thus saving the centre a good sum.

In Secretary Trautmann’s Report to the I.W.W. Convention it is stated that the “Paterson Silk Workers’ strike is still pending” and up to time of writing no further report has appeared. In their official organ for June 15th it is pointed out that the blacksmiths, hammermen and helpers of Paterson Locomotive Works all belong to an independent union, and that the I.W.W. helpers worked jointly with them when the strike was called. The above is a sample of the bluff indulged in by the Advocates, but more can be quoted. In the report of July 27th it says a telegram was received saying “Paterson strike won” but neither then nor since have the details of the “victory” been published. The Skowhegan strike was so “big” that in his first report, organiser French described the firm as “a cockroach concern that cannot stand for any long period without going into bankruptcy,” and while it was only claimed that the women in the finishing department were in the I.W.W., the whole of the employes came out on strike and received support from various quarters. But here again no details are given of the “victory,” while in the case of Bridgeport Machinists, not only is there no mention of the strike in the secretary’s report, but it is not claimed anywhere that the strike was won, though it is stated it was “settled.” The significance of this silence as to details is vividly shown by the solitary case where they are given and we cannot do better than quote the secretary :—

“In the strike of the smeltermen of Tacoma, Wash., the workers made a splendid showing. The company settled on the terms of the 8 hour day and 15 per cent. increase of wages, but singled out all officers and active workers of the union for the black list. They had to leave the town, after the spokesman of the company had succeeded in having the organisation dissolved. The concessions of the company, however, will not be lived up to, and the misguided few may soon again see the necessity of organising so as to preserve what was conceded on account of the splendid fight conducted by those who were finally made the victims.”

Did ever “craft” union win such a “victory”? It must be left to the imagination to picture what the “victories” were on the details of which they are silent.

We are then told that it was the craft unions remaining at work that lost the Schenectady strike. Secretary Trautmann says it was due to leading individuals, who afterwards received their rewards in the shape of well-compensated foremen’s positions for having delivered the goods (Ind. Bulletin, Sept. 18th, 1907), and later on it is stated that “It was C. W. Noonan” who sold out the strike. Our readers may take their choice.

But superior to all these petty details, however, is the point made in our last contribution, namely, that attempts to form Socialist unions with non-Socialist material was a stupid farce and merely encouraged further labour faking. The Advocates have entirely ignored this point, while, in addition to the quotation given above, the following, from the same report, clinch the argument:—

“But the unions in Schenectady had hardly gone through the transitory stage of development, unions formerly connected with the American Federation of Labour had joined in full force the Industrial Workers of the World without sufficiently understanding the difference in the basic principles. The change of name did not materially change the structure of the organisation, . . .”

And this section of the report closes as follows:—

“It is essential that in every organisation at least a good minority be fully possessed of the knowledge of the aims and objects of the Industrial Workers of the World, so that in times of conflicts this element can assume control of the situation and rise fully to the occasion required in critical and crucial hours.”

So ! not only are the rank and file in mass not required to know the principles of the organisation they join, but not even a majority need know them. All that is wanted is a minority to control and guide the rest. And this is called a Socialist organisation ! Nothing we have ever said is so strong a refutation of such a claim as the secretary’s own statement given above.

Trade Unionism. S.L.P. versus S.P.G.B. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To prove our proposition in this debate we shall first state the true Socialist position on the trade union question and then proceed to show how the wanderings of the S.P.G.B. away from that position have landed them into great confusion.

In this paper the word “political” will cover all action affecting the state, including the political ballot, the political strike and the political rising. “Economic” will be held to mean “on the field of industry.” The basis of all Socialist tactics is the class struggle, which arises economically and is developed into politics.

Every member of the working class is employed by a member or members of the capitalist class. The antagonism of class interests in the workshop, mine, or factory, arising from the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production, is expressed by the formula “more wages, less profits ; less wages, more profits,” and is the basic, the original and the most obvious expression of the class struggle. When this is thoroughly grasped by any worker, he will readily proceed further to understand that just as he and his shopmates have a common interest against their employer, so he and his class have a common interest against the employing class as a whole, organised in the state. Therefore from the point of view of making Socialists, revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means.

The class antagonism in the workshop forces itself more or less clearly on the notice of all the workers and drives them to unite in unions the better to carry on their side of the contest.

Trade unions in this country had their origin in an age when the handicraft industry was only beginning to be supplanted by machine industry, and they therefore took the form of unions of craftsmen. As the development of machinery is rapidly making the craftsman as extinct as the dodo, these craft unions have gradually lost all the usefulness they ever had, to the working class at least; and now by artificially dividing the workers along the lines of supposed craft interests, they obscure their common class interest and so are stumbling blocks in the way of working-class emancipation. These craft unions are constantly quarrelling and blacklegging on each other ; they foster and encourage that mischievous division of the workers into mechanics and labourers, which is such an obstacle to working-class solidarity. Again they have become a great vested interest and have brought into existence a powerful group of permanent officials whose chief interest in life is to keep their jobs intact and who dominate the great mass of the workers on both the industrial and political fields. By truckling to the craft unions and their officials more than one revolutionary movement in this country which started out full of promise, has been finally engulfed in a bog of opportunism and compromise.

Economic organisation then, being necessary and inevitable, must to fulfil its proper functions, be based on class not on craft lines, and must have as its object the real interest of the working class, namely, the overthrow of the parasite capitalist class and the taking over and holding the means of production by and for the workers themselves. In other words, the economic organisation of the workers must be a revolutionary class union. To be a class union it must unite all wage workers according to industries, in other words according to their actual economic groupings. Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union which would form part of the Union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to start in Great Britain, and we claim that, without it, the overthrow of capitalism will be impossible. History teaches very clearly that economic power invariably precedes political. It was only after they had gained complete control of the means of production, that the capitalists attained political power, and so must the working class. The bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property, but the working class who have no property, can only do so through organisation. It is they that carry on every operation of production, and, if organised industrially, they can control every productive process.

The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism, and usher in the Socialist Republic. Whatever of good there is in electoral action, it is obvious that the master class will never surrender their privileged position to votes alone, unless behind those votes stands the organised might of the workers, ready and able to enforce the mandate of their ballot.

The industrial union is then necessary to the workers under capitalism, and is necessary for the overthrowing of capitalism, and its existence must precede effective political action of any kind. It is therefore the clear duty of every revolutionary Socialist to join us in forming such an union.

And now what is the position of the S.P.G.B. ? Their Manifesto, issued in 1905, states that trade unions should be supported if they act on sound lines, and opposed if they act wrongly—a neutral position, which, when applied to politics, the S.P.G.B. repudiates. Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism. No clear and definite tactics are outlined for the guidance of a party which above all else prides itself on the clearness and definiteness of its position, as witness the phrase—now well-worn even to shabbiness—anent “clear and unmistakable principles interpreted in plain and unequivocal tactics.” On the other hand a facing-both-ways attitude was adopted which leaves every situation, as it arises, open to doubt, discussion and hesitation.

At the first Conference of the S.P.G.B. a motion in favour of a straight and uncompromising position was rejected, and a vague and indefinite resolution adopted instead.

In as much as all articles in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD were first approved by the executive committee, who made a practice of rejecting matter they considered unsound, the appearance of Allen’s article on “Boring from Within” in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD for November, 1905, was hailed by well-wishers of the Party as a sign that they had at last come down from the fence on the union question and had adopted a straight, uncompromising attitude. In this article, we find the following :

“We Socialists want to see industrial unionism, that is, we want to see all the workers in each trade organised, and the various trades in each industry affiliated, thus forming one huge, cohesive organisation of the workers.”

But, however bright the hopes raised by the publication of “Boring from Within,” they were doomed to be dashed to the ground. A further article by Allen on the same lines was in March, 1906, rejected as unsound, and at the annual conference of that year, a motion in favour of revolutionary industrial unionism was defeated and the question referred to a Party meeting.

This was held in four instalments in May—June, 1906. Several resolutions were put on the agenda, including one by the then Bexley branch, which gave expression to the position outlined at the beginning of this paper. All were, however, defeated but two—Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s. Space is too short to recite these in full, but their mutual contradictions may be summarized as follows :

Kent’s resolution

(a) declares war on existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist industrial union. (Though insisting that such union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B.),

(c) adopts as method, therefore, what is known as “boring from without,”

Fitzgerald’s resolution

(a) does not declare war against existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist craft union—”the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation,”

(c) adopts as method “boring from within.”

It had been decided by the 1906 Conference that a poll should be taken on any resolutions passed by the Party meeting. This was not done till the beginning of the present year—the S.P.G.B. being left for 6 or 7 months in the extraordinary position of having provisionally adopted at one and the same time two mutually destructive positions.

When at last the poll was taken the party rejected both the resolutions. For this we commend them. But to destroy what is unsound is not enough ; construction is needed. The rescinding of Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s resolutions simply brought the S.P.G.B. back to the nebulosity of the 1905 Manifesto, and there, so far as we can ascertain, they still remain.

The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party meeting last year to define their attitude on the union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined. After the best wisdom of the Party had been expended during the four sessions of this meeting in adopting, not one but two positions, the membership has by its action declared both of these to be also unsatisfactory. But instead of at once endeavouring to define a sound policy, they have been satisfied to return to an attitude, which by their action they have already declared to be unsound.

We therefore maintain that on the question of trade unionism, the position of the S.P.G.B. is one of hopeless confusion.

LONDON ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

____________

REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

To talk of the S.P.G.B “wandering away” from the true position practically asserts that the S.P.G.B. at one time held the true position—otherwise they could not have wandered away from it—a thing the “Advocates” deny later on.

After a reference to the position of employer and employed, we are told by our critics that “revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means” though they are curiously silent as to how this is to be done today under the strict supervision that exists in most modern factories and where any attempt to propagate Socialist ideas, or push literature, is usually followed by dismissal.

Paragraph 6 says—

“Economic organisation . . . must be based on class not on craft lines”

and then goes on to say—

“To be a class union it must unite all the wage-workers according to industries (!)”

Perhaps this is a specimen of New Scots humor but the contradiction in talking of forming a “class” union according to “industry” should have been obvious even to the “Advocates.” It is then said—

“Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union, which would form part of the union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to form in Great Britain.”

From the above jumble of local unions, departments, industrial organisations, etc., forming finally a general union one can only draw the conclusion that the time thus occupied will be wasted since the General Federation of Trade Unions is in the field to carry on that work.

In paragraph 7 we are told that—

“The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism and usher in the Socialist Republic”

This is begging the entire question for it is exactly the question of what power that is in dispute. The Anarchist claims that the strike, particularly the “general” strike, is the method to be followed—an attitude to-day re-christened “direct action.” If the “Advocates” mean the power of the economic organisations on the industrial field they are preaching the same stupid fallacy. The power of the workers to carry on or stop production depends entirely upon their control of the fighting forces, and even if all men were inside their industrial unions they could no more “take and hold” the means of production and distribution by that form of organisation than by the present ones. With the modern weapons of precision and rapid death-dealing, the unarmed and undrilled workers would be easily driven out of the mills and factories, while, with the large stores at their command, the capitalist class could sit down and let starvation complete the work.

Just previously the “Advocates” stated that “the bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property” (as though means of production were not property) while as a matter of historical fact the bourgeoisie laid the foundations of their control by first building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax to fight the Army of the Feudal Aristocracy.

After what we have stated paragraph 8 is quite gratuitous as not one of the so-called “necessary” things have been shown to be even useful, let alone necessary.

The criticism of the S.P.G.B. position then begins. We are told that this position is “neutral.” This must be another joke, for how a position that opposes one side and supports another can be “neutral” will puzzle the “Advocates” to explain. They state—

“Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism”.

But the Manifesto on p. 10 says:—

“The basis of the actions of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism and the class-struggle necessarily resulting therefrom : in other words they must adopt the Socialist position if they are going to justify their existence at all.”

Can the “Advocates” put the position better ? Yet they call this a “facing both-ways attitude.”

The quotation from THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, in paragraph 11, is carefully selected, for the whole of the article with the exception of that sentence is devoted to advocating a Socialist union, and when Allen openly advocated industrial unions in his next article it was rejected.

At the Annual Conference, when the industrial union resolution was moved, it was the “Advocates” who opposed having an open discussion on the matter and wanted it rushed through there and then. Space is too short to give the resolutions in full they say. This must have been fortunate for the “Advocates” as it enables them to make false statements under the cover of want of space.

The resolutions are given in full in the July, 1906 and February, 1907 SOCIALIST STANDARDS, where it will be seen that Kent’s resolution did not state that the union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B., while Fitzgerald’s advocates a Socialist union on a class basis—the rest being matters of detail—and urges propaganda outside as well as inside the trade unions and cannot be called “boring from within” in any sense of that much abused phrase.

The “Advocates,” in commending us for rejecting these resolutions, seem unaware that the reasons given for this rejection were that the position laid down in the Manifesto, coupled with the Declaration of Principles, was a sufficiently clear exposition, of the Socialist position on Trade Unionism.

The next paragraph says:—

“The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party Meeting last year to define their attitude on the trade union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined.”

This is a piece of cheap, specious pleading that will deceive few. At every one of our propaganda meetings we invite discussion of the Principles of Socialism. Does this admit that those Principles are not satisfactory ? Certainly not. When a few members had been bitten with the I.W.W. fever and tried to get their views adopted without adequate discussion, then the meetings were called to openly discuss the position and see if these supporters of the I.W.W. could show any flaw in our standpoint. This they entirely failed to do and the vote of the Party resulted as above. In face of these simple facts the rest of the paragraph is sheer nonsense and on the whole question they have completely failed to show that any confusion or unsoundness exists on the side of the S.P.G.B.

But what is the position of the “Advocates” ? Why are they so peculiarly silent on the question of existing industrial unions ? It may be said that none exist as yet in Great Britain. If for the sake of argument we assume this, then whence does Industrial Unionism arise ? The answer is America. When the Industrial Workers of the World Union was formed in Chicago in 1905 certain persons in this country adopted the idea without examination or discussion and tried to form a branch of that organisation here through the Advocates of Industrial Unionism.

At the beginning the I.W.W. was endorsed in full, its literature distributed, and phrases and terms used in America imported here. And one of the chief arguments used by the I.W.W. supporters in America was that the present unions manufactured their own blacklegs by their high initiation fees, dues, etc. which must be paid or the member is excluded.

Any union that excludes members for non-payment of dues—which non-payment is largely due to unemployment—manufactures its own blacklegs, and this is exactly what the I.W.W. does. Its entrance fee and minimum dues are larger than several English unions, while its period for arrears of dues ordering exclusion, is 60 days as against the 180 days allowed by the majority of existing unions.

Tho I.W.W. therefore tends to make its own blacklegs faster even than the ordinary unions mentioned and accentuates the very evil complained of. This point by itself is sufficient to condemn the I.W.W., but it is not all. The organisers and officials of the I.W.W. tell the workers that their “pure and simple” strikes are failures because conducted on “craft” lines but that an I.W.W. strike would be victorious because their position is invincible. Yet every strike they have undertaken has been a failure ! The Buffalo Garment Workers’, the Wichita Bakers’ and the Schenectady Electrical Workers’ strikes—all organised and run by the I.W.W. —were complete victories for the employers. A split has lately taken place and we have the encouraging spectacle of the workers being indivisibly and economically united into two I.W.W’s. Inability to decide which Workers of the World they should endorse is perhaps responsible for the attempt to form a third—and British—Workers of the World here, and curiously enough by the very means so readily condemned in others. Not only are they ready and willing to attend any craft or other union for the purpose of advocating their views, but as in the case of members of the S.L.P., they appear upon the platforms and support men and organisations, (under the cover of it being a meeting for Industrial Unionism) that at other times they condemn as misleaders of the working class. Such actions would not be tolerated for a moment by the S.P.G.B. On this point our position has been clear and consistent. No deliberate support of capitalists or capitalism has been allowed, and in one or two cases where such occurred the members offending were at once put outside. No excuse—trade union or other—has been allowed to cover any voluntary action in support of capitalism, but adherence to the Declaration of Principles insisted on in every case.

The fact that Industrial Unionism is the latest of many attempts that have been made to form a Socialist organisation with non-Socialist material is not only bound to produce failure, but, as is shown in America, also adds another organisation to the long list of those that provide a field for, and give encouragement to, the “Labour Fakir” and misleader. The position of the S.P.G.B., on the contrary, is to carry on Socialist education towards the building up of the Socialist economic organisation that will aid the Socialist Party to abolish capitalism.

The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club, May 26th, with Comrade Gifford in the chair Comrade Fitzgerald moved :

“Under term of reference No. 1

That as under capitalism the workers sell their labour power—inseparable from themselves—as an article of merchandise, and being subject to the same economic laws which prevail in other commodity markets, it is necessary for the workers to debate the fluctuations in price with the employers. Organised action being more advantageous than individual action, be it—

Resolved that the S P G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is a necessity under capitalism, to prevent the workers being continuously driven to sell their labour power below its value.

Under term of reference No. 2

That as the establishment of Socialism will mean ”the administration of things instead of the government of people,” as Engels said, and as the administration of the various detail processes of wealth production can only be carried on effectively by those possessing the requisite technical knowledge being organised for that purpose, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

If term No. 3 be considered

That as the position of the workers in modern Society is one of a propertyless class in opposition to the propertied capitalist class, the form of organisation adopted in the economic field must of necessity be based upon this class position as a first principle, while, for the reasons given under resolution No. 2, the chief detail unit of organisation must be the trade or occupation, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that the form of organisation must have a class basis as first principle and the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation ; other sub-divisions, either geographical or economic, to be arranged as circumstances demand.

Under term of reference No. 4

That as the economic arm is required to act in conjunction with the political arm to establish Socialism, and as the only form of organisation which is in harmony with the political basis of Socialism is the one given above, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. urges forward the propaganda of the economic position laid down in conjunction with its political propaganda both inside and outside the present unions with the object of establishing the Socialist Trade Union required for this work.”

The mover said it was not necessary to spend much time here discussing the class basis, as we all realised that it was the lack of class-consciousness which kept the workers divided. The chief detail of organisation must be the trade or occupation because only those in a given trade knew the actual conditions, as was shown in the late strike of Daily News compositors. Moreover the other sub-divisions must depend on circumstances. The Leeds Fire Clay Co. in one district employed workers in several distinct industries, such as coal mining, clay working, building and stone quarrying, while the L.C.C. employed building operatives, tramway men, steamboat employees, clerks and draughtsmen. These were instances where the geographical sub-division was necessary, and where the industrial sub-division would be useless. The firm of David Allen & Sons was an example where the industrial sub-division would be suitable, all their employees being in the same industry.

An amendment was moved by Phillips and Kent to delete words from “while” to “occupation,” and all words after “class basis.”

Kent said to enter into detail questions was premature.

Killick said the question of detail was not essential; Fitzgerald should have made that clear.

Leigh said the question of geographical position did not affect industrialism at all. Are not the clay workers divided into various trades ?

T. W. Allen said Fitzgerald’s illustration could be applied to the building industry. The Socialist parties had failed to unite the revolutionary working class. The I.W.W. would unite the various parties. It was common sense to say the workers will recognise the political position when they are in an economic organisation.

Neumann opposed the I.W.W.

The meeting then adjourned.

_____________

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club June 9th, T. A.Jackson continued the discussion on Kent’s amendment.

Jackson said the object of the amendment was stated to be that the movers did not think the particulars entered into in the resolution were necessary. Leigh and Allen had urged that the details should remain in, since they favoured an industrial form of organisation. But neither Leigh nor Allen knew what they meant by industrial organisation. With regard to the objection of Phillips and Kent, he (Jackson) thought it was necssary to give the details. We had recognised that an economic organisation would be necessary. The question Fitzgerald had considered was how far an economic organisation could be made to take on its proper function of supplementing the work of the Socialist Party in accomplishing the revolution. Under certain circumstances it might be necessary to organise on geographical lines, under others it would be necessary to federate the organisations, but those questions would have to be decided at the particular time when action was necessary.

Let us assume that capitalism was tending to that stage of monopoly when industry could be divided into thirteen different trusts. Even then it would be difficult to postulate what the form of organisation should be. To those who said the economic organisation should be industrial he would point out that even the I.W.W. made provision for certain governing bodies called district councils—purely geographical divisions. When a strike took place and a portion of the workers went on strike it would depend on the understanding of the workers of the class position as to the action the remainder would take. He did not think it advisable therefore, to adopt any a priori scheme of specialisation. The question of federation could only come upon the agenda when a large number of the workers were sufficiently class conscious to perfect their organisation for the revolution.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 5.

Anderson moved the deletion of all the words after “position” down to and including “occupation.” The amendment was seconded by Pearson.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 3.

Fitzgerald in reply to the resolution said Killick had said he did not think it was well to go too much into details in the matter. But we should lay down the broad lines upon which we intended to travel. On a previous occasion he had read out extracts from the I.W.W. convention which showed the position of that party. But T. W. Allen had said that it was yet to be shown that the I.W.W. was not a sound economic organisation. Therefore he had brought along some more extracts dealing with the subject. What he had said about the W.F. of M. in Colorado supporting capitalistic candidates was still further supported by T. J. Hagerty of Butte, Montana. A resolution was proposed to the Executive that the members should not be allowed to support any capitalist candidate or party. Clemensic pointed out that that would put many of the members of the W.F. of M. in a very funny position, because some of them were members of the Republican Party. Hagerty said :

”It is true that back in the State of Montana we have a peculiar condition of things. Some five or six years ago I attended a convention of the State labour movement in the city of Helena, in September, 1890. . . . After the party had been organised the capitalist parties commenced to lay plans to seize upon it. We found the Amalgamated Mining Company on one side and Senator Clark and F. E. Heinze upon the other, at war. There was an opportunity that we could not miss. We seized upon the opportunity. Clark wanted to become a United States Senator, and F. A. Heinze wanted something else, and we knew it. I maintain that we did not go to them, but compelled them to come to us, but nevertheless there was a capitalist combination with a labor party, and hence it became capitalistic. We went to the polls and united our movement to theirs. Twelve men went to the legislative body from that county. In the division we got six of the twelve. We got the sheriff of the county, the coroner, and others. I was nominated for the office of county Commissioner and was elected.” (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Chicago.—Page 272.)

Some said that the W.F. of M., the backbone of the I.W.W., had in it a portion of the Republican Party in Butte, showing how class-unconscious those members were. When the I.W.W. was formed they sent over to what they called the various industrial organisations in France, and Trautmann got a very fine letter from the General Confederation of Labour in France. Here was the reply of the French organisation :

“Our Committee took with pleasure, notice of your Manifesto and call. It is happy at the constitution of your organisation and it hopes that your federative group, which, itself planted upon the field of the class struggle, will have at heart the necessity of conducting the battle upon that field where all equivocation vanishes; upon the economic field.

It is not for us to meddle in your internal organisation : it is for you to constitute yourselves according to the lay of the land where you are called upon to struggle. Nevertheless, allow us to observe that the French economic organisations have had cause only to congratulate themselves for having eliminated from their midst all discussions and questions concerning electoral and governmental parliamentarism. In fact, we hold that the political opinions of a workman are secondary to his class interests. Consequently whatever may be the opinion of a workingman upon that head his interests are ever supreme and, upon the field of interests, in the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, all opinions can blend into one.”—E. Pouget, Secretaire adjoint. (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Page 289.)

They did not, however, get that sort of reply from all the organisations on the continent. Another organisation in Denmark made the following reply:

“As to our own opinion on the economic organisation we, here in Denmark, take the absolute and decided stand that the same must be built—as so well expressed in your Manifesto—upon the recognition of the class struggle in Society. But how that can be accomplished if the unions—as you again proclaim in the Manifesto—will abstain from co-operation with any political party, even with that one which indulges solely in the politics of the working class, we cannot understand. We are of the opinion that everywhere, when needed, the economic organisation and the Social Democratic party must work hand in hand, in order to promote the interests of the working class where the interests of the toilers have to be taken care of. We hold that the passage in your Manifesto where it reads “without affiliation with any political party” has only been inserted to manifest the complete neutrality of the union.” —(Page 290-1.)

The I.W.W. started out with the statement that the present trade unions don’t organise the unorganised. Now in the first place we could point to the experience of other organisations to prove that this was all right in theory, but with the exception of the Gasworkers’ Union when Aveling was organising it, not one organisation had yet organised the unorganised. The I.W.W. was devoting all its attention to try and capture the already organised workers. Again E. J. B. Allen himself had only found a platform for the statement of his position inside a trade union, the O.B.S.

One of the arguments used by the I.W.W. was that the present trade unions built a Chinese Wall round the union. He (Fitzgerald) belonged to what was called a pure and simple organisation. Now the initiation fee of the I.W.W. was two-thirds greater than that of his organisation. Again, in the O.B.S. he could run six months without paying dues, but the I.W.W. members could only run 60 days. Again the I.W.W. made no provision for seeing to its members when they were out of work. Leigh seemed quite lost as to the base given by the speaker as to the formation of the organisation. He had given the case of the Leeds Fire Clay Co. with various industries working together. True those workers were split up into industries, but the point was that there were all these workers working together in one geographical division, under one roof, so to speak. T. W. Allen said it was a credit to the I.W.W. to discuss for two-and-a-half days the meaning of the industrial sub-division. But the Committee had said at the very beginning that they had laid what they had called the industrial principle, and it was no use discussing it any longer because it was going to be railroaded through. As regards the credit due to discussion, the men who favoured the I.W.W. position had laid it down when they first met that “academic discussion would not be allowed.”

A man who refused to recognise political action was not a true revolutionary. Now if he did not declare himself how could it be known that he was a member of the revolutionary working class? So much for the I.W.W. uniting various “Socialist” parties. We did not attempt to reconcile irreconcilable interests, but attempted to form a sound organisation of the working class.

Again, merely being in an economic organisation would not make the workers recognise their position any quicker. Marx pointed out we could learn lessons from countries more advanced, and one of the lessons we could learn was to profit by their mistakes. We take lessons wherever we can get them, but don’t think that what took place in countries more advanced was necessarily right. It often happened that when a strike took place there appeared to be worse conditions when they went back, whereas really they had a slightly better position.

The resolution was carried by 13 to 3.

Fitzgerald, in moving his fourth clause, said for the time being we could do nothing more than be propagandists. How were we going to build up that Socialist economic organisation required ? We should act as Socialist propagandists at every place and time. Seeing that we were at present unable to form an economic organisation we should carry on our propaganda and point out the importance of the political organisation to capture that which would determine the real battle, while pointing out the necessity of the economic and political organisations working together. In this country no real, solid, attempt had been made to convert men inside trade unions. Writing in the Socialist Standard not long ago, E. J. B. Allen said the question of carrying on propaganda inside the trade unions had hardly been attempted, yet in a letter to the Peckham Branch he said that long and bitter experience had proved the futility of trying to change the trade unions. He (Fitzgerald) thought it would be easier to get the trade unions to throw off their old form than to get men to come out and form any new body.

Jackson seconded the resolution and said all we could do was to endeavour to create that class consciousness without which a sound economic organisation could not exist. He would like to point out that this position made it clear that we were to propagate this principle, and point out to the workers that they had got to understand their economic organisation could proceed to use the means of production whilst they were controlled and after they had been taken by the political party. De Leon had said in the address on Preamble of the I.W.W., “It is not a political organisation as the Preamble indicates and I shall prove—that can ‘take and hold’ the land and the capital and the fulness thereof. That—as the Preamble proclaims and I shall prove —is the function reserved for the economic organisation of the working class.”

Anderson said he disagreed with the importance that even in this resolution was being given to the economic side of the question. If we viewed the international concentration of capital all this organisation was proved not only futile but dangerous. We must go on propagating our Socialist principles. We could only teach one great point that the overthrow of capitalism must be the work of the class-conscious workers themselves. If we were going to say we should change the trade unions in the meantime, we must defend those organisations at present—if not we should be pledging ourselves to change in the future an organisation that might disappear in the interim. Why not point out that all economic organisation was futile against the attacks of international capital. Let us carry on our propaganda, and when we have a class-conscious working class we can decide on the most expedient way of establishing the Socialist Republic.

Neumann said Anderson knew full well that those who had been the founders of scientific Socialism had not written in the strain he had spoken in. They had pointed out that the workers should use every means in their power to at least resist the encroachments of the capitalist class. The full teaching of Socialism was not only to teach the working class to go for the transformation of Society, but to form a class-conscious organisation to resist the encroachment of the capitalist class inch by inch. We could not for one moment say that economic organisation under present Society was not just as necessary as political. The resolution showed that we were in favour of economic organisation, but that that organisation should be on Socialist lines.

He wished to either have added to the resolution, or if the mover was not willing to accept the addition to move the following addition :

“And as all organisations, economic as well as political, on a basis other than laid down by the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B., are unsound from the standpoint of our Party ;

Be it further resolved that the S.P.G.B. is compelled to oppose the formation of any organisation of the workers the membership of which is open to non-Socialists.”

We wanted to show that the Socialist trade union should not only be Socialist in name but Socialist in character.

Fitzgerald not accepting the addition, Neumann moved it as an amendment.

The amendment not being seconded, fell through.

W. G. Killick said as the workers became politically revolutionary so they would alter the form of their economic organisations.

Barker said it was just a question of what was the best method of making the workers class-conscious. He believed the best method was by a political organisation. As soon as they became class-conscious they would understand their position perfectly well. Recognising that even trade unions were useful to keep the workers from being driven on the down grade, we could not prevent our members belonging to trade unions.

J. Crump said Anderson seemed to have misconstrued the purport of the resolution. When we had made the workers Socialists the existing trade unions would also become Socialist trade unions. We were not out for the establishment of Socialist trade unions in particular, but for the propagation of Socialist principles.

Pearson said we were told to go inside our unions and prepare to transform them. To do this he thought was absolutely useless.

Neumann moved the deletion of the words “both inside and outside the present trade unions.”

The amendment not being seconded fell through.

Fitzgerald in reply said that at one of the previous meetings it was urged that economic organisation was more important than political, and it had been said that Engels supported that view. Here was what Engels, in his “Socialism Utopian and Scientific,” said:

“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.”

He used the word “state” there, but there was no ambiguity or lack of clearness, for he went on to say with reference to the word “state” :

“But in doing this, it abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organisation of the particular class which was pro tempore the exploiting class, an organisation for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and therefore, especially for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The State was the official representative of Society as a whole ; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented, for the time being, Society as a whole ; in ancient times, the State of slave-owing citizens ; in the middle ages the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie.”

The phrase ”the political . . . state property ” was italicised. Anderson said the capitalists were organised internationally in such a way as to render economic organisation unnecessary. Marx pointed out in “Value, Price and Profit” that if the workers were not prepared to debate the price of their labour day by day in the labour market, they would not be fit material for a future revolution. Economic organisation would have its place all the while under capitalism. With regard to the “capturing” of the trade unionists, that was the old theory of the I.L.P. playing to the rank and file and patting them on the back. We were going to carry on the work of propaganda for Socialism in the trade unions in an open and above-board manner. Boring from within by the S.D.F. had been very erratic. In the main it had consisted of going in and mentioning Socialism only when there was no danger. It was not a question of capturing the trade unions but of educating the workers inside as well as outside. So long as a member of a union had the evidence for every statement he made and fought openly there would be little danger of his being thrown out.

The resolution was carried by 19 to 4.

Motion by Neumann and Carter to rescind Kent’s resolution passed at previous meeting.

Neumann said his reason for re-moving the rescindment was that it was not declaring war on the unions so long as we allowed our members to remain in the trade unions. Again how could a Socialist organisation permit itself to be controlled by another organisation ? We should be as one body.

Carter concurred.

The resolution for the rescindmeut was lost by 14 to 12.

Anderson moved the following resolution :

“That only by political organisation can the workers emancipate themselves.”

Anderson said ever since any one of us became Socialist the question had been, not whether or not we were fighting the trade unions, but how we were to fight them. Trade unionism was concerned with palliating capitalism.

Betts seconded the resolution.

Neumann opposed the resolution, saying that it said something contrary to fact, viz., that the working class could fight the capitalist class without fighting them on the economic field.

The adjournment was moved and defeated.

Anderson, in reply, said just as we told the workers in the trade unions they may fight against a reduction but nevertheless they would ultimately have to suffer reductions, we could point out to them that by political action they could overthrow the capitalist system.

The resolution was lost by 15 to 5.

[Conclusion.]

Important Notice. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Next month's issue will contain an article on the Labour Party Conference in Belfast; an interesting letter on "Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B." and a reply by "Economics"; a report of a Debate held last month at Plumstead between E. J. B. Allen (S.L.P.) and our Comrade J. Fitzgerald, etc.

Help the Cause of Socialism by subscribing to the Socialist Standard. See terms on p. 44.

Correspondence: The S.L.P. And the S.P.G.B. (1906)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gents.,—It is a fitting finish to the two years and more of cowards’ silence that a feeble, unsigned attempt has been made to explain the differences between the S.L.P. and the S.P. Anyone of average intelligence can easily see that the writer defeats his own object. To give a detailed history of the London “Impossiblists,” and to correct Mr. Jack Fitzgerald’s fables in full I should require an issue or more of your paper, therefore I shall simply point where he has mis-stated the truth, and, if my Party (the S.L.P.) are disposed to re-open the matter, I shall go fully into the matter in the columns of our Party Organ (The Socialist). If your readers obtain a copy of our paper for July, 1906, they will find therein a reply to some questions of Comrade E. J. B. Allen, a reply to some of the fiction circulated by Mr. Fitzgerald and others. There were several members of the S.D.F. in London who corresponded with our Scotch comrades ; and as the so-called London section was unorganised it would be interesting to know who gave Mr. Fitzgerald power to act as correspondent. Granted that Fitzgerald was asked, or took upon himself the task, of writing to London men to turn up to the joint Conference at “Cock and Hoop,” on Easter Sunday, 1903, that had nothing to do with his supposed official correspondence with our Scotch comrades after Friedberg had left this country. The London section (so-called) did not suggest that Anderson and MacGregor be invited to that Conference, and I don’t imagine for one minute that Anderson would have showed his face there if such an arrangement had been made. Fitzgerald and McNicol were not asked to tell Comrade Geis he was not wanted, and ask him not to turn up to Conference. But there, I see that Mr. Fitzgerald has forgotten to mention that fact. I might state here for the benefit of your readers that I was Chairman of that Meeting, and also elected Secretary of the London Section that really came into being in an organised manner that night, therefore I am competent to know what took place. Yates did not state “that they had been building up a new party during the last two years.” What Yates did say was “that they had built up an organised section during the last two years, consequently they had the necessary organisation to form a new party when necessary, and after the 1903 S.D.F. Conference that was the only thing they could do.” Elrick who also spoke said “that no self-respecting man could remain any longer in the S.D.F. He was in favour of a London Party affiliated to a Scotch Party.” Yates said he “did not want merely a Scotch Party but a party covering England, Scotland and Wales.” L. Cotton of Oxford also spoke for formation of a new party covering Great Britain and said we should not succeed as mere local societies. Matheson did the same. If Fitzgerald really believed the fables of Alexander Anderson why did he not bring the so-called charges against the Scotch section forward at that meeting. There was plenty of time after he had returned from seeing Matheson and Yates off at St. Pancras, and if necessary, we could have arranged for a meeting on Easter Monday. No ! Fitzgerald preferred to wait until the Scotch Delegates had returned before spreading his charges that have never been proved. His fable about De Leon and his actions at the Amsterdam Conference was refuted before De Leon came to London, and he could have put the question to De Leon at that meeting if he desired, but somehow he did not desire that. My information re De Leon and his credentials came from De Leon himself when I put to him the tale that I had heard from Elrick and that was being circulated among members of your Party. I believe that De Leon also dealt with the yarn in the “Post Box” of the Weekly People, but as I have lent my back copies of that paper I cannot say definitely. In conclusion I would point out one can prove anything by merely taking certain sentences out of a man’s speeches or writings. Mr. Fitzgerald has done this in his anonymous article (A Statement of Differences) and while it proves him to be a tricky debater it does not say much for his honesty of purpose.

—Yours etc.,

W. S. Jerman

Reply:

[We are sorry Mr. Jerman has preferred to prejudice his criticism of our article by an exhibition of bad manners that may well be taken as evidence of an ignorance—deplorable in a correspondent of the mere decencies of discussion. A case is not improved by random and entirely unsubstantiated charges of cowardice and deliberate misrepresentation; nor is it benefited by the laboured irony of, for example, the suggestion that to anyone of average intelligence, our article defeats its own object. Mr. Jerman, of course, does not himself believe that or he would not have been at such pains to endeavour to defeat what had already been defeated. Irony is a two-edged weapon which may only be handled by the literary tyro at the imminent risk of damage to himself.

That Mr. Jerman is a tyro is clear from the fact that he does not understand that unsigned articles are always editorial. The article in question is from the E.C. of the S.P.G.B., not, as Mr. Jerman so hastily concludes, from our Comrade Fitzgerald writing anonymously.

As, however, Mr. Jerman’s letter largely consists of personal references to Fitzgerald, we have asked our comrade for his comments upon the points raised and append his notes. To those notes we have nothing to add except, in all friendliness, to suggest to Mr. Jerman the advisability of seriously endeavouring to free himself from the limitations of a vocabulary and the heavy handicap of a literary style which are not better but worse for having been imported from America and imperfectively transmitted to us through a sadly defective Scottish gramaphone.—ED.]

A careful comparison of Mr. Jermau’s letter with the article mentioned will, I think, render anything in the nature of an extended reply unnecessary. For Mr. Jerman’s benefit, however, and as my name is so frequently mentioned, I will briefly deal with the points he attempts to raise.

1. He asks “who gave Fitzgerald power to act as correspondent ?” As mentioned in the article, and as Mr. Jerman well knew, when Friedberg, who was the recognised correspondent of the section, left England he handed that business over to myself.

2. Mr. Jerman says “the London section did not suggest that Anderson and McGregor be invited to meeting.” Quite true, as a section, but several members made the suggestion, as Mr. Jerman was aware.

3. As the question of Mr. Geis is not raised in the article Jerman’s remarks are entirely gratuitous. I asked Geis to stay away on my own responsibility as he was not a member of the S.D.F. at the time and he promised to do so but broke that promise and came to the meeting place.

4. It is true that Mr. Jerman was chairman of the meeting but there was no secretary, nor were any minutes taken at that meeting. He was appointed secretary to the committee elected to receive information from Scotland and is, therefore, in no better position to speak of what occurred at that meeting than any other member present. His attempted quibble about the words “organised section” as against “New Party” for what difference there may be in them can be refuted by the evidence of several others attending the meeting besides myself, but it is best met by the fact that at the next meeting of the London section held at the “Hope” Coffee Tavern when I repeated the statement now disputed Mr. Jerman did not deny or in any way question that the words “New Party” had been used by Yates.

5. Mr. Jerman’s next point re. Anderson’s fables would be charming in its naivete were it not so clumsy an attempt to avoid an awkward point. Nowhere in the article is anything said about “Anderson’s charges.” What is said is that it was the Scotchmen who made the charges against Anderson and then refused to meet or face the man they charged and this also Mr. Jerman knew well. The only occasion upon which Anderson’s name is used is on the point of forming a New Party behind our backs which Mr. Jerman admits when he says that they (the Scotchmen) “had an organisation ready” and which is fully admitted by J. C. Matheson in the September issue of the Socialist. Moreover, if Mr. Jerman was so convinced on these points it is a wonder he did not at once join the London Branch of the S.L.P. instead of waiting several months, before doing so.

6. Regarding De Leon’s position at Amsterdam, why did Mr. Jerman ignore the points made in the article and try to shuffle out of it by saying he spoke to De Leon himself ? Why at the London Meeting did he not bring the matter up while I was speaking to De Leon as he was leaving the Hall ? Mr. Jerman will, I think, find the points in the article are posers enough for him to answer—whenever he makes a genuine attempt to do so.

Jack Fitzgerald