Unity in the United States. (1917)

From the March 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the Unity cry has been filling the organs of the S.P. of A. and the S.L.P. of A. The latter party through a decreasing membership and vote has given a more willing ear to unity than it once did. But the spectacle of that party negotiating on unity with the organisation they are ever bitterly denouncing is a most ridiculous one.

A vote was taken in the S.P. of A. as to whether they should appoint delegates to meet the Socialist Labour Party’s delegates in conference on terms of unity, and it resulted in favour by 20,000 to 5,000. The Conference sat in New York City on January 6 & 7, 1917. The delegates for the Socialist Party were Louis B. Boudin, Geo. H. Goebel, Chas. H. Maurer, James Oneal and Samuel Beardsley. The Socialist Labour Party delegates: Arthur E. Reimer, Rudolph Katz, Boris Reinstein, Caleb Harrison and Arnold Peterson.

After coming to an agreement on the question of aim and reform policies the question of the attitude towards economic organisation came forward.

The Socialist Labour Party insisted on the following statement being adopted to bind the unified body to Industrial Unionism:

   Recognition and declaration in favor of the fact that the emancipation of the working class from wage slavery cannot be achieved by political action only; and therefore the unqualified acceptance of the fact that it s absolutely indispensable for that purpose to have the working class organised in the economic arena on the lines of what is known in this country as pro-political or Socialist Industrial Unionism; and that consequently, it is the duty of the party of Socialism to teach the essential principles of Industrial Unionism in order to enable the membership to advocate these principles both inside of the existing craft unions—to the extent as it may still be possible—and outside of the same, and thus carry on that educational propaganda which will sooner or later crystallise in a world-wide army of industrially organised workers.
   Declaration to the effect that the proposed united Party condemns the principle of craft unionism which defeats the very objects that the workers, consciously or otherwise, strive to attain.
   Declaration to the effect that the Socialists, while reserving their right to criticise and expose all wrongfully constructed and conducted labor organisations, owe it as a duty to stand on the side of the workmen whenever a bona fide strike or other conflict for improved conditions of labor occurs, either as spontaneous action of the workers or as a result of action taken by any labor organisation whatever.

These resolutions, of course, are unsound. Industrial Unionism is not essential or even useful to working-class emancipation. To call it “Socialist” is misleading as it is not necessary to be a Socialist to join. Styling it pro-political is untrue, as the S.L.U. holds “that the economic arm is the more important, first, because it is indispensable to the revolutionary act and next because it is the frame of the government of the Co-operative Commonwealth.” (“Unity,” by DeLeon. Page 23.) The resolutions advocate boring from within—in the craft unions, a line of action which the S.L.P. never tire of condemning on paper. The Socialist Party delegates refused to accept the whole thing. They offered in its place the complete resolution on economic organisation adopted by the Stuttgart International Congress in 1907. This resolution reads as follows:

  To emancipate the proletariat completely from the bonds of intellectual, political and economic serfdom; the political and economic struggle are alike necessary. If the activity of the Socialist Party is exercised more particularly in the domain of the political struggle of the proletariat, that of the unions displays itself in the domain of the economic struggle of the workers. The Unions and the Party have therefore an equally important task to perform in the struggle for political emancipation. Each of the two organisations has its distinct domain, defined by its nature and within whose borders it should enjoy independent control of its line of action, but there is an ever-widening domain in the proletarian struggle of the classes in which they can reap advantages only by concerted action and by co-operation between the Party and the trade unions. As a consequence the proletarian struggle would be carried on more successfully and with more important results if the relations between the unions and the Party are strengthened without infringing the necessary unity of the trade unions.
  The Congress declares that it is to the interest of the working class in every country that close and permanent relations should be established between the unions and the Party.
   It is the duty of the Party and of the trade unions to render moral support the one to the other and to make use only of those means which may help forward the emancipation of the proletariat. When divergent opinions arise between the two organisations as to the effectiveness of certain tactics they should arrive by discussion at an agreement.
  The unions will not fully perform their duty in the struggle for the emancipation of the workers unless a thoroughly Socialist spirit inspires their policy. It is the duty of the Party to help the unions in their work of raising the workers and of ameliorating their social conditions. In its parliamentary action, the Party must vigorously support the demands of the unions.
   The Congress declares that the development of the capitalist system of production, the increased concentration of the means of production, the growing alliance of the employers, the increasing dependence of particular trades upon the totality of bourgeois society would reduce trade unions to impotency if, concerning themselves about nothing more than trade interests, they took their stand on corporate selfishness and admitted the theory of harmony of interests between labour and capital.
   The Congress is of opinion that the unions will be able to more successfully carry on their struggle against exploitation and oppression, in proportion as their organisations are more unified, as their benefit system is improved, as the funds necessary for their struggle are better supplied, as their members gain a clearer conception of economic relations and are inspired by the Socialist ideal with greater enthusiasm and devotion. 

The S.L.P. delegation wished a clause added to this Stuttgart resolution as follows:

   In line with the above resolution and carrying out the spirit and applying the general principles expressed therein, the United Party declared that the proper application of it to American conditions calls for the Party’s pointing out the fallacies and shortcomings of the craft union form of organisation and the necessity for adopting the Socialist industrial onion form of economic organisation.

Around this resolution much discussion took place. The S.P. delegates claimed that the Stuttgart resolution did not mean industrial unionism. The S.L.P. delegates claimed that it was against craft unionism. “The thing to be done'" said Boris Reinstein (S.L.P. delegate), was to urge the workers to accept class unionism." In spite of this, however, he and other delegates of his party advocated industrial unionism—not class unionism.

“History shows,'’Said Reinstein (S.L.P.), “that no ruled class ever overthrew a ruling class without first gaining economic power, a power which the working class could only develop through industrial unionism.”

Such a statement shows how little the Socialist Labour Party understand history. Economic power depends for its full and complete exercise upon the possession of political sovereignty. And how little the working class could develop economic power by means of industrial unionism is another of “the secrets of the underworld.”

A deadlock was reached on both the S.L.P. and Stuttgart resolutions, 4 votes being given in favour and 4 against.

When they discussed the form of the united organisation the federative plan offered by the S.L.P. and also organic unity of the S.P. of A. was rejected. When Boudin finally drew up a basis for common electoral action the S.L.P. delegates commenced “bargaining” by offering to accept it if the S.P. delegates would accept the S.L.P. resolution on economic action.

On the second day of the Conference the end came. The S.L.P. “bargaining” failed and the S.P. idea of swallowing up the S.L.P. also died. In the editorial of the “Weekly People" (Jan. 13,1917) from which issue all the resolutions quoted have been taken, the S.L.P. claim that rock upon which the Unity Conference went to pieces was industrial unionism. Thereby showing conclusively that the thing which keeps the two parties apart is nothing to do with Socialist policy or Socialist aims—Industrial Unionism being a side issue of no value to working-class emancipation.

The attitude taken by our Party years ago still bolds good—that only by having a Socialist membership, and therefore a Socialist policy, can a real Socialist Party be secured. Neither the S.P. or S.L.P. of America fill the requirements.

Adolph Kohn

The "Movement" In America. (1917)

From the March 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Practical Politics!

For the first time in the history of Socialism in the United States, we have lost votes in a presidential election. Let us not blink the fact. In 1912 we had 900,000. Last November it now appears we fell back to about 660,000—not much more than the vote in 1910.

So writes Algernon Lee, one of the prominent leaders of the Socialist Party of America, in the “New York Call” (Jan. 7, 1917). In spite of the frenzied efforts of Allan Benson, the Presidential Candidate, the vote fell back by 240,000 compared to 1912. Such is the success of our eminently practical politicians. But that is not all. Lee writes further:

As a matter of fact, if only 5,000 more of the Californians who voted for Debs in 1912 had stuck to Benson in 1916 Hughes would have been elected”! ! !

Comrades!

Interviewed by the Socialist Party newspaper (see “Michigan Socialist,” Nov. 17, 1916) after the campaign of Nov. 7,1916, Benson was bitter and furious.

In April, 1912 we had a party membership of 135,000 and polled a vote of 901,000. . . . We entered the Presidential Campaign of 1916 with our organisation thoroughly discouraged, with our membership below 80,000.

Although a period of intense depression followed by intense “prosperity” had intervened between the two elections, 1912 and 196, the Socialist Party of A. lost 55,000 in membership! Speaking of the lessons of the election he said :

One thing we must do is to kick out the gentlemen in our Party who are fighting Socialists instead of outsiders. I mean the few intellectuals so called, who spend the time between campaigns criticising, fighting, hampering the Party and then, before election time, go to the capitalist papers with long statements as to which of the two capitalist candidates they prefer.

Permeation!

After referring to the Government spies in the Russian movement, Benson says:

  Why should we be blind to the probability that the same tactics are being worked in the Socialist Party? Why should we ignore the probability that these men who are fighting inside the Party and not outside it, are in the pay of the capitalist class to disrupt the Party?
  There are not many of these men. They are few. I know who they are, and by God! (his fist came down with a bang on the table) if they don’t quit, I’m going to blazon their names forth and nail their hides upon the wall. And you can say that one of them lives in Brooklyn.

Codlin, not Short.

If we had said that certain prominent men in the “Socialist” Party were paid by the capitalists we should have been called “foul slanderers.” But Mr. Benson is disappointed in not receiving his much talked of two million votes, hence his tears. One of the prominent men he was thundering at is Max Eastman, editor of the illustrated monthly review, “The Masses,” which widely circulates amongst the “intellectuals” styling themselves "advanced thinkers.” Like Wm. English Walling, “the great American Socialist,” he suggested to newspaper reporters that he would rather see Woodrow Wilson elected than Republican Hughes. But, of course, that’s permissible in the S.P. of A.

Socialism as It Is Not.

Max Eastman’s statement to the Woodrow Wilson Independence League was flashed to the newspapers of every part of the country and used to advantage. Here it is:

 I would rather see Woodrow Wilson elected than Charles Hughes because Wilson aggressively believes, not only in keeping out of war but in organising the nations of the world to prevent war. His official endorsement of propaganda for international federation in the interest of peace is the most important step that any President of the United States has taken towards civilising the world since Lincoln.
  His announcement that the best judgement of mankind accepts the principle of the eight hour day is another proof that he has vision and sympathy with human progress.

A “Great” Party.

In “The Masses" following the election, “Comrade" Max Eastman thus replied to his critics:

The American Socialist Party tends to become a religious sect, rather than the political instrument of the working class. This was shown in the selection of Allan L. Benson, a journalist of middle-class connections, to be the candidate for President, when a militant labor union leader of the ability of James H. Maurer was available. I like Benson; I have a special respect and admiration for his grouch; I voted for him; but I do not think he should have been the candidate of a working-class party, and I do not think he was. Sometimes I feel as though he were the candidate of a sectarian Sunday School.

The “intellectuals” of the Socialist Party of America are very busy explaining and regretting the slump in votes and treachery of shining lights. It reminds one of the controversy which has been carried on in Germany about the action of the great men in the Social Democratic Party.

“Feed America First”!

The nonsense taught by the “Appeal to Reason” here is like its circulation—immense. Just now, apart from Allan L. Benson’s reform rubbish, they are carrying on a campaign to “Feed America First.” Their argument is that the American working class should not have to pay high prices owing to necessities being shipped to Europe—thereby reducing supplies. In other words, they are preaching the narrow, insular doctrine so well known to us in tariff agitation. They appeal to the same narrow nationalism and patriotism they profess to condemn.

The chief point to be remembered by the workers is that while the capitalist class rule, and therefore as long as capitalism lasts, the national policy will be shaped and put into operation by the capitalists. Further, the cry of “Feed America First” creates the false view that the deep poverty of the working class here is due to the lack of wealth left for home consumption.

Debs Damns His Party.

In the “National Rip Saw” magazine for Jan., 1917, Eugene V. Debs writes on the “Decline of the Socialist Vote.” He says:

  There are doubtless a number of reasons why our vote declined so materially in the recent campaign but I think there is one principal and dominating reason and that this reason is responsible for the rest. This reason is that the Socialist Party has become too much of a political party and that in the late campaign it was controlled too largely by political considerations and paid too much attention to catching votes.
  The lesson of this decline is that the Socialist Party must pursue the straight and uncompromising course and steer clear of the vote-chasing, fusing, office-seeking, and grafting and boodling methods of capitalist politics.

After every election we read the same self-criticism but the opportunist methods still continue.

The Socialist-Labour Trimmers.

In New York City the S.L.P. joined with other organisations in an anti-militarist movement against military preparedness and it was announced as such in their “Weekly People.” In Buffalo their local reporter wrote to the "People,” saying, “We began the campaign here by holding an anti-war demonstration, jointly with the Socialist Party.” Such action, of course, demonstrates that the existence of the two parties is an anomaly. If there are sufficient points of policy upon which these two parties can agree to hold anti-war demonstrations it is time they ceased their separate existence. Let all the fools and befoolers get together and form a single target for a real Socialist Party. Mere opposition to war or to capitalism is not a common platform for Socialist workers, but unity for establishing Socialism must be the all- important object.

The New Unionism.

The Industrial Workers of the World, formed in 1905 at Chicago, which was to unite the working class economically and also politically, has had an eventful history. Since the S.L.P. separated in 1908 there have been two I.W. W.’s Recently, however, the original (S.L.P.) section of the I.W.W. changed its name to the Workers' International Industrial Union—the W.I.I.U.—thus giving a clear field to the Chicago I.W.W. for its claim to be the only I. W. W. Subsequently the speakers of the S.L.P. lectured through the country on “The death of the I.W.W.” The W.I.I.U. refuses, however, to endorse its parent, the S.L.P., and hence we have the conditions of 1905 over again. Men of every brand of politics and those without any can unite in the economic organisation.

A Revolutionary Union!

Evidence of this lack of real knowledge and also of unity, abounds. W. W. Cox, a well-known speaker of the S.L.P. in St. Louis and a member of the Party for 20 years wrote to the "Weekly People" (Dec. 30, 1916) as follows:

  The Workers’ International Industrial Union recognises no political party and it has a Republican, Democratic, Progressive, Prohibitionist and Socialist Party as well as S.L.P. membership. Confusion. I repeat it remains for the S.L.P. to dispel this confusion. It is no more the duty of the W.I.I.U. than it is the duty of the S.L.P.
  The S.L.P. as the educational movement should force the issue. How? By helping to build up the W.I.I.U. to the point where it will set on foot the political party of labor.

Evidently the Socialist Labour Party is not "“the political party of labour"!

Socialism and Religion.

The unsound position of the S.L.P. economically is on a par with its unscientific attitude towards religion. It takes the view that religion is a private matter and bitterly assails those who hold that religion is a matter of social origin and influence. The curious attitude of such a party claiming to accept the materialist conception of history makes one ponder on the water-tight compartments in which some people keep their religious views.

The materialist conception of history teaches that material conditions give rise to religious conceptions and organisations in harmony with them; hence one cannot oppose the economic system logically without opposing the ideological institutions it has generated in its defence. Further, religion has ever been a powerful weapon for poisoning the proletarian mind.

Jack London.

The death of Jack London recalls his burning criticism of the “Socialist" Party of America. London joined the Socialist Labour Party in Los Angeles in 1895. He was then a boy in his teens. Soon after the “Socialist Party" was formed in Oakland, California, J. London became a member. In 1896 he was chosen as Party candidate for State Senator but had to decline being under 21. In March 1897, whilst still a student at the University of California he was Party nominee for school director at large. When subsequently the Oakland authorities forbade Socialist street meetings London volunteered as a speaker and was arrested. He pleaded his own case and was acquitted. In 1899 he ran for Mayor in Oakland on behalf of the local “Socialist" Party. In 1905 he ran again. By this time his fame as a writer was spreading abroad but he was not elected.

Jack London’s Politics.

Unlike most of the noted members of the S.P. of America he gave a good deal of his time freely to lecturing for the Party. He was a dues-paying member of the Oakland local until a branch was formed at Glen Ellen, where his ranch is situated, in the beautiful Sonoma Valley (“The valley of the moon").

 

At a memorial meeting in Oakland (California) the following message was read from Charmian London (his wife):

  Mrs. London wishes you to know that she feels that this meeting to-night is the one meeting that will put Jack London in his true light, and that will bring out the character and purpose of his whole life. She also wants you to know that he never went back on a principle, and that he was as much a Socialist when he died as he ever was, and that the only position he ever took in opposition to the Party was that it was not radical enough in its battle against the evils of capitalism.

An Interesting Letter.

                                                                                                                           Glen Ellen,

                                                                                                                               Sonoma County,

                                                                                                                                            California. 

                                                                                                                               Sept. 21st, 1916.

To Wm. Davenport,

                        Secretary,

                The Socialist Party of the United States,

                       1056, Frederick St,

                                         Detroit, Mich.

Dear Wm. Davenport,

In reply to yours of Aug. 29th, 1916 with which I received copy of the "Manifesto.’’

Please read my resignation from the Socialist Party and find that I resigned from same for the same reasons that impel you to form this new party.

I was a member of the old Socialist Labour Party. I gave a quarter of a century of the flower of my life to the revolutionary movement only to find that it was as supine under the heel as it was a thousand centuries before Christ was born. 

Will the proletariat save itself? If it won’t it is unsaveable.

I congratulate you and wish you well on your adventure. I am not bitter. I am only sad in that within itself the proletariat seems to perpetuate the seed of its proletariat.

                                                                                                                     (Signed) JACK LONDON.

The New Party.

The above letter was sent to the Secretary of the new party recently formed in Detroit, in reply to the “manifesto” of the Party sent him. London’s letter, whilst inclining towards pessimism, at the same time establishes the fact that he still accepted political action. The I.W.W. created the impression that London was in favour of the General Strike, but not even the Iron Heel shows the success of the latter idea.

The new party (The Socialist Party of the United States) was formed in response to the utter disgust of several active local members of the “Socialist Party of America,” reinforced by members of the “Socialist Party of Canada” and the “Socialist Party of North America" who emigrated to the U.S.A. At the time of writing the Constitution of the new party has not been definitely drawn up and hence a full valuation of the Party’s position cannot be laid down. Its manifesto, however, shows signs of undigested statements besides erroneous views on questions of social importance. However, even the short few months the Party has existed has purged the organisation of useless elements and we look for a somewhat changed attitude and policy in the promised second “manifesto." The Party contains for the most part young, earnest and studious workers.

It is an open question whether the Party will survive, as the necessary work of preparing the ground throughout the entire country was not taken in hand prior to formation, and consequently small new organisations have grown up independently elsewhere. 

Adolph Kohn

'Points for Patriots'. (1917)

From the March 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Breathes there a man with soul so dead —
   Some modern slave at factory gate
Who never to himself hath said,
   In cynic bitterness and hate:
"This is my own, my native land" 

Breathes there a man with soul so dead —
   A numbered hand in a factory hell
Who never to himself hath said,
   When hurried to toil by the factory bell:
"This is my own, my native land"? 

Breathes there a man with soul so dead
   Mocked by flaunted wealth and power
Who never to himself hath said,
   As he sold himself for sixpence an hour:
"This is my own, my native land"?

F.