Ford EC and Foster - Syndicalism

8/8/2019 Ford EC and Foster - Syndicalism

1/32

SYNDICALISM "The labor movement, owing to its peculiarnature, is especially fertile in and responsiveto the efforts of militant minorities of varioussorts, such as Syndicalists, Anarchists,Socialists, Craft Unionists, Clericals, etc., wh oare each striving to control it for their ownends. All over the world it will be foundfollowing the lead of one or more of thesemilitant minorities. The most potent of all themilitant minorities in the labor movement arethe Syndicalists, whose vigorous philosophy,ethics and tactics-which are those par excel-lence of the labor movement-coupled withtheir unflagging energy and courage, born ofthe revolution, make them invincible in thestruggle between the various militant minori-ties for the control of the labor movement.Scattered through c o n s e r v ~ J . t i v e unions, theysimply compel the great mass of workers intoaction and to become revolutionary, in spiteof the contrary efforts of other militant minor-ities. It was for the Syndicalist militants thatthe term 'militant minority' was coined, andit is ordinarily applied only to them... ,"

CHARLES H. KERR LABOR CLASSICSi


2/32

Earl C. Ford.&

William Z. Foster

SYNDICALISM A Reprint of the Original 1912 Edition

with a New Introduction byJames R. Barrett

a Labor Classics

CHICAGO Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company

1990


3/32

This book is a reproduction of the original edition of Syrulicalism,published by William Z. Foster i n Chicago, 1912. The type hasbeen slightly enlarged. to make for easier reading.

Reproduced on the cover is an ink drawing byHarvey Breitmeyer. It originally appeared on thecover of the November 1925 issue of Ihe Pro-letarian, official organ of the Proletarian Party.

Copyright 1990 Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company

~ 5 9 4

Send for our complete catalog.Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company

Established 1886 P. O. Box 914 Chicago, Illinois 60626

I

INTRODUCTION TO THE 1990 EDITIONIn your hands you hold a little piece of dynamite, an explosive politicalpamphlet with a good deal of significance for the history of labor andradicalism in the United States. Syndicalism, first published in 1912, offersprobably the most developed theory of pure syndicalism produced in the

United States.The pamphlet is important fur a number of reasons. It shows us a selfeducated worker trying to come to terms with the system he faces everyday of his life. In this way, the pamphlet brings theory down out of the cloudsand suggests its relationship to the experience of workers under capitalism.Syndicalism also provides an unusually clear picture of the ideas and" thementality associated with the movement that took its name. In the UnitedStates, the pamphlet represented the theoretical position of the SyndicalistLeague of North America, a small but important organization that pioneeredmethods and trained a cadre of organizers that shaped the twentieth-centuryradical labor movement.

To understand this pamphlet in a broader context, we need to look atWilliam Z. Foster, its primary author, the period in which the pamphletwas created, the Syndicalist League of North America, and finally at thelegacy of the man, the organization and the ideas.Syndicalism was shaped in part by Foster's own ~ x p e r i e n c e s . Born in1881 into an immigrant family of twenty-three, he was reared in the slumsof Philadelphia. His father, an amateur athlete, street brawler, and carriagewasher, was also an ardent Irish republican who passed his politics on tohis son. Foster's mother waS" a devout Catholic and hoped that William, thebrightest of her brood, would enter the priesthood. Instead, the family'spoverty forced Foster to abandon school after the third grade. He left homeas a teenager, and wandered around the country and around the world, working at a wide range of jobs from deep-water sailor and metal-miner tolocomotive fireman. His family's poverty and the misery he saw around himin his youth inspired in Foster a deep but inchoate resentment and frustration. Capitalism was a system he hated deeply without really understanding it.Foster encountered socialism on a Philadelphia street corner and later ,the Socialist Party in 1904, soon after its foundation. In 1909 hebecame a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a revolutionary labor union advocating industrial unionism and organization of theunorganized. His intellectual development throughout the early. twentieth

v


4/32

century was shaped by a series of dangerous and unhealthy jobs, and bya frustration with the bourgeois character of the Socialist Party and its reformprogram. He rejected electoral politics as a dead end and inclined more andmore toward an exclusively industrial strategy.Foster taught himself to read French and German, devoured the ciassicworks of Marxism, and in 1910-11 traveled around Europe in order to studythe ideas and strategies of workers' movements there. The frequent allusions in the pamphlet to labor organizations and particular strikes in France,Italy, England, Germany and elsewhere reflect the enduring influence ofhis European experiences. He was most impressed with the French syndicalists, and this influence can be seen throughout Syndicalism. Above all,he became convinced that the strategy of dual unionism, the notion thatradicals must establish separate revolutionary unions to comp ete with thoseof the American Federation of Labor, was a disaster. Insteao, he embracedthe French notion of a "militant minority" of syndicalists "boring fromwithin" the mainstream labor unions in order to win them over to a revolutionary program. This dedication to boring from within caused Foster tobreak with the IWW, with its structure of separate revolutionary industrial

and to formulate his own theory of syndicalism, a far more directreflection of the international movement than the IWW.Given this international influence and the blistering rhetoric of Syn-dicalism, the pamphlet was written in a most unlikely pramesand mrm communities of central Illinois and Indiana. Working as a canvasman for a traveling theatrical show during the summer of 1912, Fostererected and stowed the group's tents. But in the mornings and afternoonshe was free to do his writing in an empty tent or out in the fields. Workingwith Earl C. Ford, an old friend from the IWW, Foster hammere d out whatbecame the theoretical statement for a new syndicalist organization. (F ord'srole in producing the pa mphlet seems to have involved providing the fundsand discussing the ideas with Foster, who was the main author.)

To Some degree Syndicalism is simply part of a very old and rich tradition of workingclass social theory, an example of the kind of thinkinggenerated by self-educated workers throughout the history of capitalism andworkers' resistance to that system. It begins with the basics: What is thenature of labor's problem under capitalism and how can it be solved?"Something is radically wrong," Foster writes, "i n a society that produces (such extremes of poverty and wealth, and toil and idleness." Next, Fosterconsiders "Some Fake Causes and Quack Remedies." Rejecting very popularbourgeois arguments like Social Darwinism that explained the worker's statusas a natural product of immutable social and biological laws or of her/hisown depravity, Foster locates the sou rce of the probl em in the wage system,"the most brazen and gigantic robbery ever perpetrated since the worldbegan." "The wages system," he concludes, "must be abolished." To thispoint Foster is in good company. Both his questions and his answersat the very heart of the nineteenth-century labor re form imDulse. His analvsis

vi

is simple, straightforward, but also compelling, even today. The system haschanged enormously since 1912, but the system of wage labor continues toproduce both enormous wealth and widespread poverty and suffering.It is Foster's solutions to the problem of wage labor t hat distinguish Syn-dicalism from earlier theories and make it a prime example of early twentiethcentury labor radicalism. His emphasis on the primacy of industrial overpolitical organization and action; his faith in the militancy of industrialworkers; his forthright advocacy of restriction of output, machine-breaking,and other forms of sabotage; his cataclysmic description of the general strike;and his anti-statist vision of the future syndicalist society are all characteristicof a distinctive brand of labor radicalism. Workers created themovement in the. face of a new sort of political economy which weddedmonopoly capitalism to the centralized, bureaucratic and servile state. Duringthe first two decades of the twentieth century, large syndicalist movementsemerged in France, Spain, Italy and elsewhere; and even in England andthe United States, where .the movements were much smaller, syndicalist ideasand strategies were pervasive. The ideas in Syndicalism are important. Theyrepresent one wo rker's efforts to understand the capitalist system and devisea means of destroying it, but they also represent the theory behind a socialmovement which swept the world in the era of early monopoly capitalism.Foster's strong faith that science, technology and a systematic organization of industry and society could solve the problems of the world wascharacteristic not only of syndicalists but also of many of the era's intellectuals and reformers. The anarchist influence is also unmistakable. Indeed,Foster's vision of a new society owes a great deal more to anarchism thanto Marxian socialism. The sections on "Synd icali sm and Political Action"the syndic.alists' strong antipathy for the Socialist Party, its relianceon the state and its reformism. Yet in other respects Fo ster's syndicalismseems to foreshadow ideas and strategies that were later embodied in theearly Communist Party. Both the concept of a militant minority of activistswho will lead the movement to victory, and the profound distaste forbourgeois notions of democracy probably made it easier for manyto embrace Leninism during the revolutionary period at the end of the FirstWorld War.

But to understand the appeal o f syndicalism, the experience and the flavorof the movement as well as its theory, we also need to look closely at thepamphlet's language and tone. A bitter edge here suggests the mentality ofsome of the most advanced elements in the workingclass movement, thosewhom the syndicalists called the "militant minority." Foster himself wasrepulsed by the capitalist system quite early, and the bitter quality .of hisrhetoric and ideas stayed with him throughout his life. The scab is "s o muchvermin to be ruthlessly exterminated." Natural rights do not exist. Rightsgo to those with power, and the central task is to develop and direct w o r k ~ ingclass power against the "parasites" who now control the system. Laws,morals and ethics do not concern him when he turns to the problem of

vii


5/32

strategy, only the efficacy of the measures adopted.I f Foster's projections about a revolutionary movement based on the laborunions seem overly optimistic, this owes something to the. context in whi ch

they were shaped. Between 1909 and 1922 the United States experienceda gigantic strike wave, with more than a million workers striking in everyyear between 1916 and 1922. It was not simply the size of the movement,however, that caught the i magination of labor activists, but also its industrialand social breadth. Many of these were "mass strikes," organized and carried out by unskilled immigrants, including young women-people whomlabor leaders had considered unorganizable. Far from resisting organization, the immigrant laborers and factory operatives responded with aremarkable enthusiasm and fought their strikes with a spirit and ingenuityoften missing in those of the skilled and native born.

The Lawrence strike to which Foster alludes WdS one of these mass strikes.In the spring of 1912 a small group of Polish women spontaneously walkedout of their textile mill over a wage dIspute and sparked a strike of morethan 20,000 workers drawn from a score of ethnic communities. Here andin many other such strikes, radical minorities (in this case, the IWW) playedan important role. At Lawrence, the immigrant workers scored a smashingsuccess which fueled and provided an example for struggles in many otherindustries. In the decade between 1909 and 1919 similar strikes wracked theauto, steel, meat-packing, garment, petrochemical, mining, rub ber and other .industries as immigrant workers fashioned new forms of labor organizationand strike strategy. Although many of these movements were eventuallydestroyed during the political reaction and employers' offensive in the1919-1922 period, Foster wrote Syndicalism just as this strike wave was beginning to rise. I f he thought he saw the roots for a new, more militant labormovement being sown in the years before World War One, he was not wrong.

The Syndicalist League of North America (SLNA), which Fosterorganized with a number of other former Wobblies and workingclass anarchists early in 1912, was a small but significant part of this movement, andFoster himself was very much at its center. He published.Syndicalism privately when he returned to his home base of Chicago in September 1912. TheLeague remained a very loose, decentralized organization, never maintaining more than a dozen branches with a total membership of perhaps 2,000,most of these workers in western and midwestern cities. While eSP9usingthe radical theory outlined in Syndicalism, League activists c o n c e ~ r a t e d their daily agitation on bread-and-butter issues and played important rolesin union organizing and strike action in Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago.By "boring from within," the League's militant minority sank deep rootsin these local labor movements and created alliances w ith progressive tradeunionists that the IWW never achieved because of its adherence to the strategyof dual unionism.

Long after the decline of the SLNA in 1914, its former activists playedimportant roles in several local labor movements. They provided leadership

viii

during the massive organizing drives of the World War One years, and manyof them eventually abandoned syndicalism and helped to build the Communist Party in the decade following the war. During the conservative 19208,former syndicalists provided the party with much of its industrial base throughthe organization of the Trade Union Educational League (TUEL), an important radical opposition group within the American Federation of Labor(AFL).

Foster won a national reputation directing successful organizing drivesin the meat-packing and steel industries during the war, and leading the great1919 steel strike. Each of these experiences confirmed his faith in the tacticof "boring from within." His greatest successes came when he muted hissyndicalist rhetoric and entered the AFL as a paid organizer. In this capacity he showed a real brilliance in organizing and stri ke strategy, but his syndicalist past often returned to haunt him. During the steel strike, the companies reprinted thousands of copies of Syndicalism and distributed themthroughout the steel mill towns in order to discredit him in the eyes of theconservative AFL leadership and his own rank and file. Subpoenae d to appear before a special Senate committee investigating the strike, he was grilledat great length regarding his views and confronted with some of the mostextreme language and ideas in the pamphlet. While Foster weathered thestorm and actually received public endorsements from conservative AFLleaders, the situation underscores the dilemma faced by syndicalists whoheld to a revolutionary program while working in mainstream unions.

Foster repudiated his syndicalism in testimony before the Senate committee, but there is little doubt that he remained a revolutionary throughouthis time with the AFL. He was won over to Communis m on a visit to SovietRussia in 1921 and joined the Communist Party later that year. During theearly twenties he built and led the TUEL and retained many of his contactsin the mainstream labor movement, especially in Chicago. In the courseof the twenties, however, Foster beca me increasingly involved in party factional conflicts and more and more isolated from non-Communist activists.His reluctant support in late 1928 for the Trade Union Unity League, a duallabor federation of revolutionary unions, represented a decisive break withhis earlier theories and career, and increased this isolation. A severe heartattack and breakdown in late 1932 slowed Foster considerably, though heremained active in the leadership of the party, serving as its national chairman between 1932 and 1957 and representing an increasingly sectarian position, even in the era of the Popular Front. He organized the expUlsion ofEarl Browder, the architect of the party's Popular Front policies and Foster'scomrade in SLNA days. Foster also led. the party's reversion to a more orthodox Stalinist position and fought all efforts to reform and democratizethe organization following its decline during the McCarthy era. He died inMoscow in 1961 after a long illness, and was buried in Waldheim Cemetetyin Chicago. .

ix


6/32

I f we looked only at individual biography and organizational history, itmight be easy to conclude that the point of view represented in Syndicalismpassed from the scene rather quickly and that it has little relevance for thesituation of workers today. And indeed, Foster's detailed blueprint for adecentralized syndicalist society may sound strange in an era when the stateplays such an important role in labor relations and in the lives of workersmore generally. No major labor organization in the U.S. today adheres explicitly to a syndicalist program.But this would be a simplistic notion of where workers' ideas come from,why some decline and others become more popular. As a pervasive, if diffuse influence, syndicalist sentiments and strategies persist in labormovements around the world. Even in the United States we fmd such tendencies. Restrictions of output and various fonns of sabotage are not unusualin American factories. Workers, along with many other Americans, harbordeep suspicions about the motives and abilities of government officials andthe role of government in their lives. Abstention from voting, which isgenerally high in the United States, is particularly high among poor andworkingclass people, who have generally shown more inclination toward whatFoster tenned "direct action" in the workplace and the streets than towardpolitical militancy.

If we define syndicalism as the official theory of a particular organization, a fonnal body of thought, then, indeed, it would be difficult to findits influence among workers today. However, if we see syndicalism as atendency arising naturally from one's experiences at work; a set of strategiesdeveloped by workers themselves to deal with their problems in large-scale,bureaucratic, mass-production industry; an inclination to rely on industria)rather than political organization and struggle-if this is how we understandthe term, then syndicalism continues to be an influence.

James R. BarrettChicago, May 1990

Thanks to Vernon Burton, Diane Konker and Dave Roediger for readingthis Introduction.A NarE ON SOURCES

A number of excellent works provide a social and political context forSyn-dicalism, but the most provocative is David Montgomery, The Fall ofthe House lofLabor: The Workplace, the State and American Labor Activism (Cambridge,1987). The literature on the Industrial Workers Qf the World is enonnous; MelvyhDubofsky, "* Shall Be All: A History of the IWW (Chicago, 1969), remainsthe standard account, and Joyce Kombluh, ed., Rebel J-bices: An IWWAnthology(revised edition, Chicago, 1988) is also exceptionally valuable. Material on theSyndicalist League of North America is rather sparse. I have relied on Philip

x

Foner, History of the Labo r Movement in the United States, Vol. 4 (New York,1965) and Edward Johanningsrrieier, "Will iam Z. Foster and theSyndica1is tLeague of North America," Labor History 30 (Summer 1989): 329-353.Foster's own story is told in Working Class Giant: The Life of William Z.Foster (New York, 1981) by Arthur Zipser, who served as his private secretaryduring his final years. Foster's two autobiographical volumes, From Bryan toStalin (New York, 1937) and Pages from a Workers' Life (New York, 1939) helpto place Syndicalism in the context of his intellectual and political evolutionfrom socialism through syndicalism to communism. Edward Johanningsmeier'sdoctoral dissertation, "William Z. Foster: Labor Organizer and Communist"(University of Pennsylvania, 1988) develops this theme for the period from thelate nineteenth century through the mid-1920s, but it remains unpublished. Duringthe 1919 steel strike, a special Senate Committee grilled Foster at great lengthabout the ideas in Syndicalism."See U.S. Senate, Committee on Education andWelfare, Investigation ofStrike in the Steel Industry, 66th Congess, 1st Session,1919.For contemporary reactions to Syndicalism, suggesting divergent perspectives in the socialist movement of the early twentieth century, see William EnglishWalling, "Industrialism vs. Syndicalism," International Socialist Review 13(March 1913): 666-67, and Louis Fraina, "Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism," International Socialist Review 14 (July 1913): 25-28.

xi


7/32

'" SyndicalismBy Earl C. Ford& Wm. Z. Foster

\ , P"bI....... bY"WILLIAM z. FOSTER1000 S. P.ljli . 51 .. Ch,ulioTitle-page of the original edition (1912)


8/32

CONTENTS

Intr'oduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Th e Goal of Syndicalism.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Th e General Strike... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Th e Daily Warfare of Syndicalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Syndicalism and Political Action... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Syndicalism an d Political Action (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Th e Relations of Syndicalism to Anarchism, Socialism and

Industrial Unionism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 History of Syndical ism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Syndicalism and the American Labor Movement . . . . . . . . . . , . . " 36 Syndicalism and the American Labor Movement (continued) .. 43


9/32

INTRODUCTION TH E SITUATION-ITS CAUSE AND CURE.

The American workingman w1W arouses himself from thecustomary state of indifference characterizing workingmen andgazes about him in a critical mood, must be struck by the greatinequalities in the conditions of the beings surrounding him.

On the one hand, he sees vast masses of workers working longhours. often at most dangerous and nnhealthy occupations. andgetting in return hardly the scantiest of the necessities of life.He sees this starving, slaving mass of workers afHicted with theterrible social scourges of unemployment, crime, prostitution,lnnacy, consumption, and all the other forms of social, mental andphysical degeneracy which are the inseparable companions ofpoverty.

On the other hand, he sees a comparatively small number ofidle rich revelling in all the luxuries that modem society can produce. Though they do nothing useful for society, society pours itsvast treasures into their laps, and they squander this wealth inevery way that their depraved and sated appetites can suggest.The monkey dinners. dog suppers, pig luncheons. hiring of noblemen for servants, buying of princes for husbands an d cartloads ofvaluable ar t treasures for notoriety, and the thousand and oneother insane methods of the American aristocracy to flannt it swealth are too well known to n.eed recapitulation here. Ou r obsemng worker must indeed conclude that something is radicallywrong in a society that produces such extremes of poverty andwealth, and toil and idleness.

SOME FAKE CAUSES AND QUACK REMEDIES.His inquiries as to the cause of these inequalities are met by a

shower of answers from retainers of the rich. He is told thatthey are due to the trusts, the tariff, to the fact that the workersdon't "save," that they "drink," that they ar e uufit to survive inthe great social stmggle for the survival of the fittest from whichthe rich have emerged the victors, etc., etc. But even the slightestexaminatiou of these answers will show their superficiality an d in-ability to explain the great inequalities in modem society.


10/32

Poverty with its terrible co-evils and wealth with its luxuriesar e no t caused by the trusts or the tariff. They are to be foundin all industrial countries alike, whether they have trusts andtariffs or not.N either are they caused by the workers "squandering" theirwages in "drink" and the rich "saving up." A few years ago itwas shown that the yearly wages of the anthracite coal minersamounted to $40.00 less than the cost of the actual necessities oflife. I t has been recently calcula.ted that the street railway workersof Chicago receive wages enough to buy only two-thirds of thenecessities of life. Th e same is true, more or less, of every categoryof workers. Even if the workers spent no t a cent for drink theycouldn't "save," as they would still waut for prime uecessities.And even if a worker expended uothing of the two dollars pe rday average wages he received, and "saved" it al l fo r 2,000 years,his savings at the end 01 that time would amount to but a fractionof th e fabulous sums amassed by American multi-millionaires ina few years while revelling in luxury. To say that th e workersare poor because they "drink" and don't "save" is a ~ u r d . Th e argument that th e rich are rich because they are capableand the poor are poor because they are incapable is be ied everywhere. Thousands of wealthy stockholders are drawing dividendsfrom industries they have never even seen-let alone to know anything of them or their operation. A goodly share of this interestdrawing aristocracy-if not the majority-is composed of pervertsan d mental degenerates of various types, such as the Thaw an dMcCormick heirs of malodorous renown. To sa y that these degenerates and th e mediocre balance of the aristocracy occupy theirpresent positions of affluence because of their superior capacitiesis to insult common intelligence.

TH E TRUE CAUSE AND ITS CURE.Th e fallacies of the various other orthodox explanations for

the social inequalities and their terrible effects will at once beapparent to th e intelligent ipquiring worker. He must seekdeeper for the true explanation. He will find it in th e wagessystem. which is the foundation institution of modern society.

Th e Wages System.-The means whereby society gains itslivelihood: th e shops, mills, mines, railroads, etc., ar e owned byth e comparatively few individuals. The rest of society, in orderto work in th e industries and procure a living, must secure thepermission of these individuals. As the number of applicants forjobs is far greater than the needs of the industries, there is suchcompetition for the available positions that those who secure themare, in return for the privilege to earn a living, forced to give up

.to th e owners of the industries the lion's share (in th e United-2

States four-fifths) of the abundant products the highly developedmachinery enables them to produce. The owners of th e industriestake advantage of their strategic position and steal th e greaterportion of the workers' product, giving them, in th e shape ofwages, barely enough to live on.The wages system of robbery is responsible fo r th e great extremes of poverty and wealth to be found in modern society. I thas existed ever since the very beginning of industriaJism and itseffects grow worse daily. Every invention of a labor-saving device,by increasing the army of the unemployed an d making the competition for jobs keener, enables the owners of th e industries tomore thoroughly exploit their slaves. Thus the wages system hasthe effect of making inventions of labor-saving devices curses tothe bulk of society, instead of blessings as they should be.

Th e Revolution.-Th e wages system is the most brazen andgigantic robbery ever perpetrated since th e world began. So disastrous are its consequences on the vast armies of slaves withinits toils that it is threatening th e very existence of society. I fsociety is even to be perpetuated-to say nothing of being organized upon an equitable basis-the wages system must be abolished.The thieves at present in control of the industries must be strippedof their booty, and society so reorganized that every individualshall have free access to th e social means of production. Thissocial reorganization will be a revolution. Only after such a revolution will the great inequalities of modern society disappear.

TH E MEANS TO THE REVOLUTION.Th e Class Struggle.-For years progressive workers have realized the necessity fo r this revolution. They have also realized that

it must be brought about by the workers themselves.The wages system has divided th e immense bulk of society into

two classes-the capitalist class an d the working class. Th e interests of these two classes are radically opposed to each other.I t is the interest of th e capitalist class to rob th e workers of asmuch of their product as possible and the interest of th e workersto prevent this robbery as far as they can. A guerrilla warfare-known as the class struggle and evidenced by th e many strikes,working class political eruptions and the many acts of oppressioncommitted by capitalists upon their workers-constantly goes onbetween these opposing classes. Th e capitalists, wh o are heartlessness and cupidity personified, being the dominant class ofsociety and the shapers of its institutions, have organized thewhole fabric of society with a view to keeping the working classin slavery. 1t is, therefore, evident that if the workers are tobecome free it must be through their own efforts and directlyagainst those of the capitalists. Hence the revolutionary slogan,


11/32

"The emancipation of the workers must be wrought by the workers themselves."Rejection of Political Action and Acceptance of Direct Action.It goes without saying, that for the workers to overthrow capital-

ism they must be thoroughly organized to exert their combinedmight. Ever since th e inception' of the revolutionary idea thenecessity for this organization has been realized by progressiveworkingmen and they have expended untold efforts to bring itabout.

These efforts have been almost eutirely directed into the build-ing of working class political parties to capture the State--it beingbelieved that with such a party in control of the' State, the lattercould be used to expropriate the capitalists. The Socialist partiesin the various countries have been laboriously built with th.is ideain view. But of late years, among revolutionists, there ha s been apronounced revolution against this program. Working class poiitical action is rapidly coming to be recognized as even worsethan useless. I t is being superseded by the direct action* of thelabor unions. \

This rejection of political action and acceptance of direct actionhas been caused by the failure of the fonner an d th el success ofthe latter. Working class political parties, in spite of th e greatefforts spent upon them, have been distinct failures, while, on theother hand, labor uuions, though often despised and considered asinterlopers by revolutionists, have been pronounced successes. Fo ra long time, practically unnoticed, they went on all over the worldwinning the most substantial victories for the working class. I twas only the continued failure of political action that led revolutionists to study them and to make a dispassionate comparison oftheir achievements, possibilities, structure, etc., with those of theworking class political party. The result of this study is the growin g rejection of political action and the rapid development of therevolutionary labor unions, or Syndicalist movement, which isattracting the attention of the whole world.In the following pages the various phases of this new move-ment, designed to free the working class, will be discussed.

ThJs much-maJ1gned term means simply th e direct warfar__peacelu I Dr vIolent, as th e ca..s6 ma y be--of th e workers upon their employers,to th e exclusion of all third parties, such as pOliticians, etc.

-4

SYNDICALISM I

TH E GOAL OF SYNDICALISM.The Syndicalist movement is a labor union movement, which,in addition to fighting th e every-day battles of th e working class,intends to overthrow capitalism and reorganize society in such amanner that exploitation of ma n by ma n through th e wages system shaH cease. The latter phase of this triple task-the establishment of a society worthy of the human r a c ~ i s th e real goal ofSyndicalism and the end for which all its efforts ar e finally spent.Consequently, an understanding of the manner in which the newsociety shall be organized is a matter of first importance to Syn-dicalists and they have given it much thought.

TH E OPERATION OF THE INDUSTRIES.Anti-Statism.-At this early date, though many of the minordetails of the organization plan of the new society can only beguessed at, many of it s larger outlines are fairly clear. On e ofthese is that there will be no State. The Syndicalist sees in theState only an instrument of oppression and a bungling administrator of industry, and proposes to exclude it from the future society.He sees no need for any general supervising governmental body,and intends that the workers in each industry shall manage theaffairs of their particular industry; the miners shall manage themines; the railroaders manage the railroads, and so on through

aU the Jines of human activity.Current Syndicalist Theory.-Just ho w the workers shall be

organized to manage their industries has been a matter of muchspeculation. The current Syndicalist theory is that the laborunions in the various industries will each take over the management of their particular industry; that "the fighting groups of todaywill be the producing and distributing groups of tomorrow."tThis theory, while based on the correct principles, that theState is incompetent to administer industry, and that the mostcompetent ho.dies possib1e to do so are the workers actually engaged in the industries, is in all probability incorrect in itself. "Syndicallsm" Is th e French term fo r labor unionism. It 18 derivedfrom th e word "syndicat," or local labor union. To distinguish themselves from conservative unionists. French rebel unionists call themselves revolutionary Syndicalists. Th e former ar e known as conservative Syndicalists. In foreign usage the French meaning of the termSyndlcaUsm ha s been modified. I t Is applied solely to th e ..olutlona.TYlabor union movement.te . G. T. convention, Amiens. 1906.

~ S
http:///reader/full/olutlona.TYhttp:///reader/full/olutlona.TY


12/32


13/32

improvement of the industries. though in a different form, willexist then, as now. In the unlikely event of such a'rbitrariness onthe part of one -industry, the nse of direct action tactics on thepart of the other industries would soon make it reasonable again.Selection of Foremen,. Superintendents,. Etc.-In the futureSyndicalist society the ordinarily unscientific custom of majorityrule will be just about eliminated. I t will be superseded by therule of facts and figures. Not only will the industries be operatedin the undemocratic manner above ontlined; but, the responsiblepositions in them will be fi.I1ed in a manner all at variance with

democratic principles. The foremen, superintendents, etc.., will bechosen on the score of their fitness; by examination. instead ofon the score of their ability to secure the support of an ignorantmajority, through their oratorical powers, good looks, inflnenCe,or what not, as is the ordinary democratic procedure. Syndicalismand democracy based on suffrage do not mix;,DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL PRODUCT.

Th e question of the system for the division of the social product in the new society has not been the subject of much discussion by Syndicalists. However, they very generally accept theAnarchist formula: "From each a c c o r d i n ~ to his ability; to eachaccording to his needs." They will. abohsh all ownership in thesocial means of livelihood and make them free for each to takewhat he needs. *he y believe that when alI ar.e free to help the selves from theall-sufficing products of society they will no m re misuse theiropportunity than people now misuse the many enterprises undercapitalism-streets, roads, bridges, libraries, par)cs, etc..-which aremanaged according to the Anarchistic principle of each takingwhat he needs. The prevailing code of ethics will prevent would-beidlers from taking advantage of this system.Syndicalists generally repudiate the Socialist formula: "T o eachthe full social value of his .labor" and it s accompanying wages system of labor checks. They assert, with justice, that it is impossible to determine the full value that individual workers give tosociety, and that if this is tried it will mean the perpetuation ofsocial aristocracies.*

For fuller and very interesting details on a probable system ofdivision of th e social product, as well as that of the division of labor.in th e future society. the student Is I"(!commended to read Kropotkln's"The Conquest of Bread," procurable from Mother Earth PublishingCompany. 65 West Twenty-eighth street. New York City. Price. $1.00.

-8

'i

IITH E GENERAL STRIKE.

. Some Syndicalist EthiC1il.-The Syndicalist is characterized bythe harmony that exists between his theories and his tactics. Herealizes that the capitalist class is his mortal enemy, that it mustbe overthrown, the wages system abolished and the new societyhe has outlined established, if he is to live; and he is proceeding tothe accomplishment of these tasks with unparalleled directness.He allows nothing to swerve'him from his course an d lead him inan indirection.Th e Syndicalist knows that capitalism is organized robbery andhe consistently considers and treats capitalists as thieves plyingtheir trade. He knows they have no more "right" to the wealththey have amassed than a burglar has to his loot, and the idea ofexpropriating them without remuneration seems as natural to himas for the footpad's victim to take back his stolen property without paying the footpad for it. From long experience he haslearned that the so-called legal and inalienable "rights" of man arebut pretenses with which to deceive workingmen; that in reality"rights" are only enjoyed by those capable of e n f o r c i n ~ them.He knows that in modern society, as in all ages. might 1S right,and that the capitalists hold the industries they have stolen anddaily perpetrate the robbery of the wages system simply becausethey have the economic power to do so. He has fathomed thecurrent systems of ethics and morals, and knows them to be justso many auxiliaries to the capitalist class. Consequently, he hascast them aside and has placed his relations with the capitalistsupon a basis of naked power.In his choice of weapons to fight his capitalist enemies, theSyndicalist is no more careful to select those that are "fair," "just"or "civilized" than is a householder attacked in the night by aburglar. He knows he is engaged in a life an d death strugglewith an absolutely lawless an d unscrupulous enemy, and considershis tactics only from the standpoint of their effectiveness. Withhim the end justifies the means. Whether his tactics be "legal"and "moral," or not, does no t concern him. so long as they areeffective. He knows that the laws, as well as the current code ofmorals, are made by his mortal enemies, and considers himselfabout as much bound by them as a householder would himselfby regulations regarding burglary adopted by an association ofhousebreakers. Consequently, he ignores them insofar as he isable and it suits his purposes. He proposes to develop, regardlessof capitalist conceptions of "legality," "fairness," "right," etc., agreater power than his capitalist enemies have; and then to wrestfrom them by force the industries they have stolen from him byforce and duplicity, and to pu t an end forever to the wages system.He proposes to bring about the revolution by the general strike... Th e General Strike Theory.-By the term "geneI.'al strike," usedIn a revolutionary sense, is meant the period of more or less general cessation of labor by the workers, during which period, theworkers. by disorganizing the mechanism of capitalist society, willexpose its weakness and their own strength; whereupon, perceiving

-9


14/32

themselves possessed of the power to do so, they will seize control of the social means of production and proceed to operate them intheir own interest, instead of in the interest of a handful of parasites, as heretofore. Th e general strike is the first stage of therevolution proper.

There is nothing strained or abnormal in the general striketheory, neither in the supposition that the workers can so disorganize capitalist society as to be able to seize th e industries, nOrin th e supposition that they will do so once they realize they havethe power. Both conclusions flow naturally from th e everydayexperiences of the workers.Th e power of the workers to 'disorganize and paralyze the delicately adjusted capitalist society and th e inability of th e capitaliststo cope with this power are shown by every large strike conductedby modern methods. This has been even more clearly demonst ratedthan usual by th e recent great strikes in England. Th etwo-day strike of the railroaders paralyzed England, and the franticcapitalist class hastily brought it to a close. Th e recent strikeof th e coal miners was even more effective-the capitalists franklyacknowledging that England faced the most desperate situationin its whole career. I f the English capitalist class wa s in suchdesperate straits during these strikes of single categories of conservative workers, what condition would it be in before a generalstrike of a revolutionary working class? I t would be helplessan d would have to accept any condltions the workers saw fit toimpose upon it. rthe everyday tactics of the workers st r gly indicate the truthof th e conclusion that they will expropria e the capitalists as soonas they learn they have the power to do so. In their daily strikesthey pi t their strength against that of their employers and wringfrom them whatever concessions they can. They don't remainlong content with these concessions, an d as soon as they are ablethey proceed to win more. They are insatiable, and, when thegeneral strike proves their ability to do so, they will have noscruples against expropriating the capitalists. This expropriationwill seem the more natural to them then, as they will be fortifiedby the Syndicalist conception that the capitalists ar e thieves andhave no " r i ~ h t " to their property.Th e parual strike of today, in which a comparatively few worker s disorganize an industry an d force concessions from their employers, is bu t a miniature of the general strike of th e futur!'!, inwhich the whole working class will disorganize al l th e industriesan d force the whole capitalist class to give up it s ownership ofthem.

The General Strike and the Armed Forces.-Once the generalstrike is in active operation, the greatest obstacle to its successwill be the armed forces of capitalism-soldiers, police, detectives,etc. This formidable force will be used energetically by the capitalists to break the general strike. Th e Syndicalists have givenmuch study to the problem presented by this force and have foundthe solution fo r it. Their proposed tactics are very different fromthose used by rebels in former revolutions. They are not goingto mass themselves an d allow themselves to be slaughtered bycapitalism's trained murderers in the orthodox way. Theirs is asafer, more effective and more modern method. They ar e goingto defeat the armed forces by disorganizing and demoralizing them.A fruitful source of this disorganization will be the extreme

- 1 0

difficulty the armed forces wiII experience in securing suppliesand transportation. Modern armies, to be effective, must haveimmense arsenals, powder works an d other industrial establishments behind them to furnish them their supplies of ammunition,arms, food and clothing. They also must have th e railroads .constantly at their disposal fo r transportation. Wnen the generalstrike has halted these industries the army will be stricken withparalysis. Another source of disorganization will be the divisionof the armed forces into minute detachments to guard the man}beleaguered gates of capitalism. Th e strikers, or revolutionists,will be everywhere, and will everywhere seize or disable whatevercapitalist property they can lay their h-ands on. To protect thisproperty the armed forces will have to be divided into a myriadof guards and scattered along the thousands of miles of railroadsand around the many public buildings, bridges, factories, etc, Th ewealthy capitalists themselves will also need generous guards.Th e most important industries, such as transportation, mining, etc.,will have to be operated in some manner. To do this will requiremany thousands more of soldiers and police.

Th e result will be that the armed forces will be minutely subdivided, and through the loss of the solidarity an d discipline, fromwhence they derive their strength, they will cease to be a fightingorganization. They will degenerate into a mass of armed individuals scattered far and wide over the country.* These individualscan be easily overwhelmed an d disarmed, or what is more likely,as they will be mostly workingmen an d in sympathy with the general strike, induced to join the ranks of their striking fellow workers. Once the disorganization of the armed forces is complete therevolutionists will seize the unprotected industries an d proceed toreorganize society.

Syndicalists in every country ar e already actively preparingthis disorganization of the armed forces by carrying on a doubleeducational campaign amongst the workers. On the one hand,they are destroying their illusions about the sacredness of capitalist property and encouraging them to seize this property wherever they have the opportunity. On the other, they are teachingworking class soldiers not to shoot their brothers and sisters whoare in revolt, but, if need be, to shoot their Own officers and todesert the army when the crucial moment arrives. This doublepropaganda of contempt for capitalist property "rights," and antimilitarism, ar e inseparable from the propagation of the generald ~ ~ .

OBJECTIONS.Preliminary Organization.-A favorite objection of the oPPPnents of the general strike theory (mostly Socialists) is that the 'success of the general strike implies such a degree of preliminaryorganization and discipline on th e part of the workers that, wereThis is no far-fe tched theory. I t Is jURtltled by every modern greatstrike. The bi g French ra i l road str ike of 1910 Is typical. Thousan ds ofsoldiers were used as 8trike breakers. and thousand>! more scat teredalong th e railroads to guard them. Many more were u"ed, in ones an dtW?S, to guard the bridges , public buildings , etc. , In Par is an d otherCities.tThe student Is recommended to read Arnold Roller ' s excellent10-cent pamphlet , "The Social General S tr ike," procurable from GeorgeBauer, P. O. Bo x 1119, N ew York City.

- 1 1


15/32

they possessed of it. they wouldn't need to strike in order to enforce their demands.( Preliminary organization unquestionably aids very materially' to the success of strikes, but all great strikes-which differ only'in degree from the general strike-prove to us that this preliminary organization by no means has to be as thorough as the obje

refusing to part with their products in exchange for worthlesspaper money. Th e Syndicalists have learned this lesson well andintend to give the farmers the substantial commodities they desirein exchange fo r their products. Th e army will be so busy protecting capitalist property and so permeated with rebellion that it willhe at once incapable and unwilling to prevent this method ofprovisioning th e revolution.Bloodshed-Another favorite objection of ultra legal and peaceful Socialists is that the general strike would cause bloodshed.This is probably true, as every great strike is accompanied byviolence. Every forward pace, humanity has taken has been gained'a t the cost of untold suffering and loss of life, and th e accomplishment of the revolution will probably be no exception. But theprospect of bloodshed does not frighten the Syndicalist worker, asit does the parlor Socialist. He is too much accustomed to riskinghimself in the murderous industries an d on th e hellish battlefieldsin the niggardly service of his masters, to se t much value on hislife. He wilt gladly risk it once, if necessary, in his own behalf.He has no sentimental regards for what may happen to his enemies during the general strike. He leaves them to worry overtltat detailTh e Syndicalist knows that the general strike will be a success,and the timid fears of it s opponents will neVer turn him from it,any more than will their arguments that it is an "illegal," "unfair"and "uncivilized" weapon.

- 1 3


16/32

IIITH E DAILY WARFARE OF SYNDICALISM.

Th e Partial Strike.-The Syndicalist is a possibilist. While attending the time he will be strong enough to dispossess his mastersby the general strike, he carries on a continual guerrilla warfarewith them, winning whatever concessions he can from them. Inthis daily warfare he uses a variety of tactics-chosen solely be-cause of their effectiveness. Of these, the one most commonlyused is the partial strike.Th e Syndicalist is opposed, on principle, to the partial strike,as he would much rather settle with capitalism by the generalstrike. But realizing the impossibility of accomplishing the general strike at present, owing to the uneducated and unorganizedstate of the working class and knowing, also, that strikes offer theworkers the best opportunities to secure this education and organization, he does the next best thing by provoking strikes whereverthey have a reasonable chance for success. He makes these strikesas large, as revolutionary and as nearly approaching his generalstrike idea as possible.The result of this policy is that in countries where the. Syn

dicalist movement is strong strikes are taking on an extent andrevolutionary character, and achieving a success unknown in countries with conservative labor movements. A typical instance ofthe success of Syndicalist tactics is seen in the case of the printersand building trades' laborers of Paris. Th e unskilled buildingtrades laborers are Syndicalists, an d use revolutionary tactics.The skilled printers ;:Lre Socialists, and use conservative tactics.Result: "Three-fourths of the printers earn no more, perhaps less,than the building trades laborers." Of this success, Emile Vanderveld, a prominent Belgian Socialist, and, by no means, a friendof Syndicalism, was forced to admit in a recent address that theSyndicalist C. G. T. (General Confederation of Labor) of France,with about 400,000 members, has accomplished more practical re-sults than the numerically five times stronger Socialist unions ofGermany.tThe Scab.-A large portion of the Syndicalists' success in theirstrikes is due to their energetic treatment of the strikebreaker.According to Syndicalist ethics, a poverty stricken workingman,in his predicament, can do anything save scab. He may beg,borrow, steal, starve or commit suicide. an d still retain the friend-ship an d esteem of his fellow workers; but. le t him take the placeof a striker and he immediately outlaws himself. He becomes somuch vermin, to be ruthlessly exterminated. Th e French S r n ~ dicalists are especially merciless towards scabs. They are makmgstrikebreaking such a dangero'Us profession that scabs are becoming pleasingly scarce and expensive. They literally hunt scabsas they would wild animals. This war on scabs is popularly knownas ."La chasse aux renards" (The fox chase). "La Vie Ouvriere," April 20. 1912, p. 110. tP1erre Ramus. "Gen(>ralstre1k un d Direkte Aktion," p. 26.

-14--

Sabotage.-Next to the partial strike, the most effective weaponused by Syndicalists in their daily warfare on capitalism issabotage.. Sabotage is a very general term. I t is used to describeall those tactics, save the boycott and the strike proper. which are,used by workers to wring concessions from their employers byinDicting losses on them through th e stopping or slowing downof industry, turning out of poor product, etc. These tactics, andconsequently, the forms of sabotage, are very numerous. .Manyof them are closely related in character. Often two or morekinds of sabotage are used simultaneously or in conjunction withthe strike.Perhaps the most widely practiced form of sabotage is therestriction by th e workers of their output. Disgruntled workersall over th e world instinctively and continually practice this formof sabotage, which is often referred to as "soldiering." The English labor unions, by the establishment of maximum outputs fortheir member, ar e widely and successfully practicing it. I t is afruitful source of their strength.The most widely known form of sabotage is that known as"putting the machinery on strike." Th e Syndicalist goes on striketo tie up industry. I f his striking fails to do this, if strike breakersar e secured to take his place, he accomplishes his purpose by"putting the machinery on strike" through temporarily disablingit. I f he is a railroader he cuts wires, puts cement in switches,signals, etc., runs locomotives into turntable pits, and tries in everypossible way to temporarily disorganize th e delicately adjusted

railroad system. I f he is a machinist or factory worker, andhasn't ready access to the machinery, he will hire out as a scaband surreptitiously put emery dust in th e bearings of the machinery or otherwise disable it. Oftentimes he takes time by theforelock. and when going on strike "puts the machinery on strike"with him by hiding, stealing or destroying some small indispensable machine part which is difficult to replace. As is the case withall direct-actton tactics, even conservative workers, when on strike,naturally practice this form of sabotage-though in a desultoryand unorganized manner. This is seen in their common attackson machines, such as street cars, automobiles, wagons, etc., mannedby scabs.Another kind of sabotage widely practiced by Syndicalists isthe tactics of either ruining or turning out inferior products. Thus,by causinfS their employers financial losses, they force them togrant their demands. The numerous varieties of this kind ofsabotage are known by various terms, such as "passive resistance,""obstructionism," "pearled strike," "strike of th e crossed arms,"etc:.

The French railroad strike of 1910 offers a fine example of thistype of sabotage. The strike was lost and 3,300 men were dis-charged because of it. As a protest against this wholesale dis-Tbe term "sabotage" is derived from th e ol d an d widespread habit.of oppressed an d poorly paid workers. acting on th e prlneiple of "Poor~ o r k fo r poor wages," to deliberately lessen th e quantity and quality ofel r products. This custom, whlcb Is th e basic one of all sabotage,known In Scotland as "go eanny:' was described In France by th e argot

; ' X h ~ r e s s l o n "travailler a coups de salX>ts." (Pouget. Le Sabotage, p. 3.)s may be freely translated: "To work as on e wearing wooden shoes;"that is. to work a little slower and more clumsy than on e more favorably shod. I t wa s from this argot expression that Emile Pouget. aprominent Synd1cal1st, derived an d eoined th e word "sabotage" (literallywooden shoeage"), now In universal use amongst Syndicalists.- 1 5


17/32

charge. an extensive campaign of passive resistance on th e railroads which rebellious workers can spoil cloth without fear of detection.was started. The workers worked, but only fo r the purpose oi "Badigeonagen (literally, stone colorage) is another variety ofconfusing the railroad system. In the freight sheds shipments of sabotage that has been effectively used. The barbers of Parisglass were laid fiat and heavy boxes piled npon them; ..this side forced their employers to grant them their demands by throwingup with care" shipments were turned wrong side up; fragile and eggs filled with acid against the painted fronts of the barber shops,".luabJe articles were "accidentally" broken; perishable goods were which, after such treatment, had to be repainted. Of . the 2.300buried and "Jost," or ruined by being placed close to other ship- barber shops in Paris 2,000 were subjected to this treatment fromments. such as oils an d acids. that spoiled them.. Also a complete ]902 to 1906. while the "badigeonage" campaign lasted.confusion was caused by the deliberate mixture an d missending "La bouche ouverte" (the open mouth) is another type ofof shipments. On the roads engines broke down or "died" unac- sabotage often used. By "l a bouche ouverte" workers financiallycountably; wires were cut; engines "accidentally" dumped into hurt their employers by telling the latter's customers of the decepturntable pits; passenger train schedules were given np. trains tions practiced upon them. Building trades workers tell buildingarriving and departing haphazard. Bnt the worst confUSIon came inspectors and architects of pOor material used an d cause it to befrom the missending of cars. Thonsands of cars were hauled all condemned an d the work to be done over again, striking waitersover France in a haphazard manner. Fo r instance, the billing of a expose the filthiness of the restaurants, etc. ca r of I?erishable goods intended for the north of France would be Workers engaged in selling their masters' wares directly to theso m a n J P u l . a t e ~ t h a ~ . th e car woule! be sent. to the s ~ t h of France public have effective. even though unnamed, methods of sabotage:an d p r o ~ a b l y lost. At a , F l a c ~ Just outSIde of Pans there we:e. Th e waiter gives extra large portions of food to his customersat


18/32

physicians nor the paid appeals of patriots. He has no race prideand but little fear. He sees in "race suicide" an effective methodof fighting his masters, therefore he uses it.Another interesting and effective Syndicalist method of solvingthe child problem is to send strikers' children to s u r r o u n d i n ~ districts, where they are taken care of by other workers until thestrike is Over. These tactics have been used with telling effecttime and again.Th e Syndicalist is as "unscrupulous" in his choice of weaponsto fight his everyday battles as for his final struggle with capital

ism. He allows no considerations of "legality," religion, patriotism, "honor," "duty," etc., to stand in the way of his adoption ofeffective tactics. Th e only sentiment he knows is loyalty to theinterests of the working class. He is in utter revolt against capi.talism in all it s phases. His lawless course often lands him injail, but he is so fired by revolutionary enthusiasm that jails. oreven death. have no terrors for him. He glories in martyrdom,consoling himself with the knowledge that he is a terror to hisenemies, and that his movement, today sending chills along thespine of international capitalism, tomorrow will put an end to thismonstrosity.

- ~ J 8 -

IVSYNDICALISM AND POLITICAL ACTION.

Syndicalism is a revolutionary labor union movement andphilosophy calculated to answer all the needs of the workingclass in its daily struggles, in the revolution, an d in the organization of th e new society. It rejects entirely and bitterly opposesthe working class political movement-whose chief representativeis the international Socialist Party-which has se t the same taskfor itself.Syndicalism's rejection of political action an d opposition to theSocialist movement are due to : (1) the superiority of direct actiontopoiitical action; (2) that the Syndicalist an d Socialist movements are rivals and cannot co-operate.

(1) Superiority of Direct Action.Achievements of Direct Action and Political Action.-The superiority of direct action to political action in winning concessionsfrom capitalism is clearly seen in a comparison of the achievements to date of the direct action an d political action movements.All over the world practically all substantial concessions, suchas shortening of the working day, increases of wages. protectionin industry, etc., wrung by the workers from their masters, havebeen won through th e medium of the labor unions. The politicalparties, on the other hand, have accomplished practically nothingfor th e working class. Karl Kautsky, a prominent Socialist writer,writing of what the workers have accomplished by political actionin Germany-where they have by far the largest political party inthe country-says:"The period of rapid change after the fall of Bismarck broughtsome little progress in Germany and France. In 1891 was enactedthe law which established for women-who until then were unprotected-the eleven-hour maximum workday. In 1892 this regulation was also introduced in France."That was all! Since then no progress worthy of the name hasbeen achieved. In Germany we have, in the entire seventeen years,come so far that just now the ten-hour workday fo r women has

been established. The male workers yet remain fully unprotected.On the field of protection for male workers, as welt as those of allother social reforms, complete stagnation reigns."tThis is the proud seventeen-year record of the gTeat GermanSocialist Party, which has absorbed untold efforts of German revolutionists. It s previous twenty-five years of history are even stillmore barren of results. Compared to the achievements of theGerman labor unions, which, by no means, use modern tactics, thepetty conquests of the Socialist Party dwindle into insignificance.Th e labor unions, though considered of minor importance and*I n thls pamphlet the term "political action" Is Ul5ed In It a ord1narYand correct sense. Parliamentary action resulting from the eXerciseof th e franchise Is political action. Pa.rliamentary action eawsed bTth e Influence of direct action tactics, such as th e passage of the minimum wage bill In England durIng the recent coal strike. Is no t politicalaction. It Is simply a registration of direct action. tKautsky. "Der Weg zur Macht: ' p. 77.

- 1 9


19/32

neglected, and even opposed, by the political leaders of the German working class, have in all cases secured great advances inwages, shortening of the workday, and other important benefits,too nnmerons to mention, for their members. Ha d the workerscomposin& them been without labor unions and dependent solelyupon the Socialist Party to defend their interests. they would havebeen reduced to a condition of serfdom.The same political stagnation that Kantsky complains of inGermany exists in every capitalist country. This is especially trUeof th e United States, where the workers. in spite of their COn-tinual dabbling in politics, have ~ i n e d practically nothinJ bypolitical action. Wherever they enJOY higher standards of hving,safeguards in indnstry, etc., these are directly traceable to theirlabor nnions. Unorganized workers are ordinarily wretched slaves.Wleting the lowest standard of living, the greatest exploitationand exposure to danger in industry. They lead a mere animalexistence and are a fair example of what workers of all kindswonld be were they destitute of labor uuions.

Reasons fo r Superiority of Direct Action.-The chief cause forthe greater success of th e labor unions than the political party isfound in the snperior efficacy of direct action to political action.The former is a demonstration of real power, the latter merely anexpression of public sentiment. A couple of instances. taken fromlate labor history, will illustrate this point:During the recent Lawrence textile strike, 24,000 workers, inthe course of a couple of months. won important concessions inwages and improved working conditions, no t only for themselves,but also for some 350,000 other workers in the same industry whotook no part in the strike. In England, 1,000,000 coal miners, during their recent short strike, forced the British government toadopt the so-called "revolutionary" minimum wage bill. Thisstrike shattered the } o n g ~ a c c e p t e d doctrine of the i r r ~ s p o n s i b l e relations between employer and employed in England. I t is nowcoming to be a recognized principle that the workers have a rightto a living wage at least.Fo r either of these groups of workers to have secured the sameends by political action would have been next to impOSSIble. Ofthemselves alone they never could have done so, as minorities arenegligible quantities in politics. To have accomplished even thepreliminary steps to Such victories they wonld have had to secur:eth e political support of practically the whole working class. Even

then they would have had uo guarantee that their efforts had notall been in vain, as the financial powers--who are only to becoerced by demonstrations of force-have time and again flagrantlydisobeyed th e political mandates of th e working class. The manyworking class laws declared unconstitutional by the United StatesSupreme Court and the hunoreds of "dead letter" laws on' th estatute books of the various states are sufficient proofs of themasters' contempt for working class political action. 1 is to beremarked that the Supreme Court hasn't the power to declareunconstitutional the eight-hour day, improved working conditions,or any other concessions won by direct action, even though theyhave been won by the most insignificant minority of workers. Thisis an eloquent testimonial to the efficacy of direct action.Another tribute to the value of direct action-next in importance to the growth of the Syndicalist movement itself-is thegrowing tendency of Socialist politicians to recognize and concede

functions to the labor unions. At first these politicians could seeno good whatever in the labor unions and openly fought them.'"However, little by little, they have had to, at least partially, recognize their worth and to quit their open warfare upon them, untilnow they have been universally forced to assign to them the taskof maintaining the standard of living of the workers under capitalism. Many European Socialists even advocate winning the universal franchise by the general strike, which they have vainlytried to win by political action. Th e Belgian Socialist Party tookthis humiliating stand at its last convention.Another cause of the inferior achievements of working classpolitical action is that the Socialist Party does not take advantageof . even th e slight opportunities it has to help the workers. TheSocialist Party, al l over the world, unlike the labor unions, whichare composed solely of workers with common economic interests,is composed of individuals of all classes-however conflictingtheir interests may be. I t necessarily organizes on the basis ofpolitical opinion, no t economic interests. Th e non-working classelements control it everywhere and inject themselves into whatever offices the party wins. Once in office these ambitious politicians fritter away their time with various v o t e - c a t c h i n ~ schemes,such as the reduction of taxes, "clean government," "SOCial peace,"etc., while the working class is starving. They neglect to exploiteven the few opportunities political action offers to improve theconditions of the working class. .Political Action as a Revolutionary Weapon.-In addition tobeing superior to the political party .in accomplishments to date,the labor unions are also manifestly superior as the means tobring about the revolution.Socialists, from time to time, have indorsed several theories forthe expropriation of the capitalist class. Th e founders of Social

i s ~ under the influence of the French revolutions, believed thatthe workers would violently seize control of th e government andexpropriate the capitalists. This theory was almost universallyheld by Socialists until the military systems in Europe reachedthe point of development where a mere fraction of the people, inthe army, could defeat the balance in open warfare.t I t was succeeded by the ridiculous makeshift theory that the workers, aftercapturing th e government by the ballot, will peacefully vote thecapitalists' expropriation-the latter being supposed to stand unresistingly by while their property is being "legally" taken awayfrom them. This absurd notion is in turn being snpplanted bythe theory that the workers, after getting control of th e government, will buy the industries from their present owners. ModernSocialists, with but few exceptions, generally indorse one or theother of these two latter theories. We will consider them in turn.Confiscation Without Remuneration.-Forty-three yea.rs ago,Liebknecht, who believed "the social question a question of power,and, like all questions of power, to be settled on the streets andbattlefields," disposed of those dreamers who supposed the capitalists will allow their property to be voted away from them. In hispamphlet "Die politische Stellung der Socialdemokratie, etc.,"II>An early German political argument against th e labor unions wa stha.t they were reUcs of th e old guilds, an d that th e workers composing them were the most reactionary of the working class.tThe failure of th e Paris Commune wa s another factor In th e re jection of this theory. (s"e cha.pter VII).

- 2 1


20/32

amongst other gems he has the following; "However, le.t it beaccepted that the government makes no use of its power, and, asis the dream of some Socialistic 'phantasy politicians,' a Socialistmajority of the Reichstag is secured-what would this majoritydo? Hic rhodus hie salta. This is the moment to revolutionizesociety and the State. Th e majority passes a 'world's historical'law, the new era is born-alas, no; a company of soldiers chase theSocialists out of the temple. And, if the gentlemen don't submitto this calmly, a couple of policemen will escort them to the cityjail. where they will have time to think over their quixotic project."Since Liebknecht wrote the above th e developments have allbeen such as to render it still more unlikely that the capitalistscan be "legally" expropriated without remuneration. No t onlyhas th e Socialist Party become so conservative that it is inconceivable that it could e.ver rise to the revolutionary heights ofLiebknecht's supposed parliamentary majority, bu t even representative government itself is, as far as the workers are concerned,obsolete. Th e great capitalist interests have corrupted it root andbranch. They buy wholesale whatever legislators, judges, etc.,they need, just as they buy other commodities necessary in theirindustries.* I f the puppet government, for some reason or other,does anything contrary. to their wishes, they either coerce it intoreasonableness again or calmly ignore it. To suppose that thislickspittle institution, and especially under the stimulus of theSocialists, can ever forcibly expropriate the capitalists, is absurd.

Confiscation With Remuneration.-Th e Socialist plan of buyingthe industries is also a dream. Th e capitalists will never voluntarily sell the industries that lay them their golden eggs. I f theydo dispose 'Of them to the State it will only be because th e newfinancial arrangements suit them better. Th e inherently weakState can never force them to make a bargain unfavorable to themselves. To do this will require power, and this power lies alonein direct action.But it is idle to even speculate on the aroused workers cowardlystooping to try to buy back the industries stolen from them.When the psychological moment arrives, th e working class, hungering for emancipation, will adopt the only method at its dis1)osaland put an end to capitalism with the general strike, as outlinedin a previous chapter.

TJ:tus, in both achievements to date and in promise for th efuture, direct action is far superior to political action. Th e politicalparty has accomplished almost nothing in the past and offers evenless promise for th e future; whereas the labor union has won pracically all the conquests of the workers in the past and also offers f ~ them the only means to the revolution. !Ii

The much-heralded custom ot demanding signed resignations tram IfSocialist candidates to r office ha s proven a. distinct fa.ilure In keepingSoclal1st office holders free from this universal corruption, whIchImplies nothing short at th e bankruptcy at representatlve government.

-ZZI';'.j

v. SYNDICALISM AND POLITICAL ACTION-(Continued).

(2) Rivalry Between Syndicalist and Socialist MO'9'eIDeIlts.Th e Syndicalist movement does no t co-operate with, but, on th e

contrary, opposes the Socialist movement, becanse, from long experience, it has learned that the two movements ar e rivals to eachother and cannot co-operate together. This rivalry ftows naturallyfrom the conflicting .theories upon which the two movements arebuilt.

The Socialist "Two WUlg'6" Theory.-According to this universal 5


21/32

insist that the labor unions alone represent the interests of theworking class and that the Socialist Party is an interloper and aparasite.*TH E WAR BETWEEN SYNDICALISTS AND SOCIALISTS.

The result of these opposing conceptions of the functions ofthe labor union is a world-wide fight between political and directactionists for the control of the labor union movement. Both ar eendeavoring to model it according to their theories. Th e Socialistsare trying to subordinate it to the Socialist Party and the Syndicalists are bitterly contesting this attempt and trying to give thelabor union its full development.

Causes of the War.-The fight between the Syndicalists andSocialists is inevitable. On the one hand. the Syndicalists, believing in the all-sufficiency of the labor union, "naturally resist aUSocialist attempts to limit its functions. while. on the other band.the Socialists, for the sake of their party. are forced to combat theencroachments of the labor union. This latter statement admits ofeasy explanation. Th e first consideration fQr the success of theSocialist program is the capture of the State by the Socialist Party.To do this requires the support of practically the entire workingdass. Logically, any inftuence tending to alienate any of this support is an enemy to the Socialist Party and is treated as "such.Everyday experience teaches that revolutionary labor unions, bywinning great concessions for their members, by successfully operating in the so-called political "field," and by carrying on anincessant anti-political campaign-which is inevitable if a unionis to escape the political apron strings and take vigc;rous act ion. have a" decided" tendency to make these workers slight, or evenreject entirely, the much-promising but little-accomplishing Socialist Party.

The Socialists have noted this and correctly view the Syndicalist movement-even as the Syndicalists do the Socialist movement-as a rival to their own. They recognize that every greatvictory it wins J?ulls working class support from their party and isa defeat for theIr movement, and that every defeat the Syndicalistmovement suffers. by driving workers back to the Socialist Patty.is a victory for the latter. They know that the Syndicalist andSocialist movements, both claiming jurisdiction over the wholeworking class, cannot exist in harmony. Hence, they logicallylight the Syndicalist movement and attempt to subordinate thelabor unions to the Socialist Party. In their efforts to conserve theinterests of the Socialist Party they even go so fa r as to deliberately break strikes, and thus compromise the interests of the working class. Modern labor history is futI of such instances. To citebut a few:

Socia1i8t T r e a c ~ . - I n 1904-6 the French labor unions, in theface of strong Sociahst opposition, carried on a vigorous nationalpropa,ganda fo r a universal eight-hour day, to take effect May 1,1906. As the appointed day approached an epidemic of strikesbroke ou t all over France and a revolution seemed imminent. Atthis critical juncture, the Socialist journal "L e Reveil du Nord""discovered" that the whole movement was a conspiracy to over-The same attitude obtains towards all other so-ealle4 working claas

poUtIcaJ. partie=!. .....u-:.

throw the republic and re-establish the monarchy. 'l'he govern'ment, using the supposed conspiracy as a pretext, threw some50,000 troops into Paris and many of the strike leaders into jaiLThis action, coupled with the evil effects on the workers of sucha statement coming from so-called revolutionists, unquestionablydid much to detract from the success of the movement.*.In 1910, the French railroad unions declared a national generalstrike on aU the railroads in France. Th e Socialists, fearing theconsequences to their political party of such a great direct-actionvictory as this strike promised to be, deliberately broke the strikeby keeping at work the railroaders on the strategic East R. R.,whose unions they dominated. This road, the most strongly or ganized in France, at the behest of the notorious Socialist PrimeMinister Briand, hauled scabs and soldiers to break the strike.Th e failure of the East R. R. to strike threw confusion into theranks of strikers and the strike was almost completely lost. I twas, though a wonderful exhibition of the power of direct action,in many respects a great Syndicalist defeat, and, consequently, indirectly, a great Socialist victory.Arnold Roller, in his pamphlet, "The Social General Strike,"cites many similar instances of Socialist betrayal of working classinterests. To quote but one:-"I n February, 1902, the proletariat of Barcelona rose underthe call of th"e general strike and was able to resist the police andarmy for a whole week. Pablo Iglesias, the leader of the SpanishSocial Democracy, requested his followers everywhere to ac t as

strike breakers and denunciators of the general strike. In somedistricts the Socialists even went so fa r as to send, during thegeneral strike struggle, deputations to the government to announce their loyalty and to assure them that they, as law-abidingcitizens, had nothing to do with the 'revolt.'''The Campaign Against Direct Action.-In addition to lightingSyndicalism by breaking revolutionary strikes, Socialists universally combat it by carrying on a contmual warfare upon it in al lits manifestations, both in and out of the unions. Indeed, it is oneof the regular functions of Socialist politicians to drug labor unionsinto quietude by telling the workers by word and pen what cannotbe done by direct action.tTh e Socialists are naturally inveterate enemies of the generalstrike-the general strike many of them favor as the means to the

conquest of the nniversal suffrage is distinctly understood to bevery different to the general strike of the Syndicalists; it is anauxiliary to political action, not a substitute for i t -and they haveeven forbidden the discussion of it in the German labor unions.They are also rabid opponents of sabotage. Pouget, in "L e Sabotage," says that in the C. G. T. conventions in France the numberof Socialist delegates present could always be determined by thevote against sabotage as a workin,g class weapon. At its last convention the American Socialist Party showed itself "true to name"by adopting a resolution recommending the expulsion of all partymembers advocating the use of sabotage.Krltsky, "L'Evolution du Syndlcalisme en France," p . 369-370.tThe immense labor unions of Germany, which ar e controlled by th eSOCialists. are fair types of Socialist unions. They seldom strike. andnever us e modern tactics. Possessed of th e latent power to overthrowcapitalism they content themselves with serving as voUng machines and

mutual benefit societies.-2S-


22/32

Retaliation by Syndicalists an d Some Consequences.-The Syndicalists are no t tamely submitting to these attacks from th e Socialists but are vigorously resistlDg them. Their opposition iscarried On chietly by a campaign of anti-parliamentarism, by abstainence from voting and by getting control of the labor unionsand plainly showing them to be more effective organizations thanthe Socialist Party.In France, where the Syndicalists have secured almost complete control of the labor unions, they have clearly shown the inherent conflict of jurisdiction between the Syndicalist an d Socialistmovements, and the necessity for the SUbjugation of the former tothe latter if they are to co-operate together. A couple of yearsag o the Socialist Party had an old-age pension bill (popularlyknown as "Viviani's old-age pensions for the dead") enacted. Th eC. G. T., the French general labor organization, condemned thelaw and decided to resist its enforcement by all th e means at it sdisposal. In the resultant attempt of th e government to force thelaw upon th e unwilling workers th e Socialist Party openly allieditself with th e government against the C. G. T.This incident made it clear that i f the labor movement is to bespared the humiliation of having one of its "wings" fighting againstwhat the other one has fought for, either the labor unions mustbe subordinated to the Socialist Party and forced to unquestioningly accept whatever doubtful bargains it makes, or the SocialistParty must go ou t of existence.

uTbe Nigger in the Woodpile." -This unseemly warfare between the two "wings" of the labor movement ma y seem incomprehensible to th e novice. He may ask: " I f the two movementsar e incompatible, an d if the Syndicalist movement has p'roven it self so far superior to the Socialist movement, wh y isn t the Socialist Party given up and the labor unions developed?" Th eexplanation is simple: Though there are undoubtedly many sincere workers who honestly believe in the superiority of politicalaction to direct action. and who are conscientiously active in thenpbuilding of the Socialist Party, they ar e bu t a minor factor inth e latter's constant betrayal of th e interests of the workers. Thisis natural, as it is incomprehensible that rebel workers woulddeliberately betray their own interests for th e sake of an organization that wins them nothing. Th e real force behind the Socialistwa r on Syndicalism is th e horde of doctors, lawyers, preachersand other non-working class elements nniversally infesting an dcontrollin(f th e Socialist Party. These elements, who have noeconomic lDterests in common with the workers, see in tb e workin g class revolt simply a fine opportunity to worm themselvesinto the innumerable rich places of power an d affluence in theState. Consequently they defend; by sophistry and treachery toth e working class, th e political movement necessary to their conquest of the State.

The prosaic, but aspiring, Syndicalist movement, with its fewmiserable official positions-the C. G. T. of France has but threeregularly paid officials at $50.00 pe r month each--which are, moreover, often fraught wtih great personal danger of imprisonment,has no attractions for th e ambitious politicians. Th e fact that itis more effective in defending the interests of the working classthan is the Socialist Party is of no moment to them. It doesn't"pay" as good as th e Socialist Party, and, as it is a competitor ofthe latter, it must be suppressed--26

Harmonizers of Socialism an d Syndicalism.-There is a groupof Socialists in the United States who are attempting to harmonize the Socialist political movement and the revolutionary directaction movement on a somewhat original theory. They wouldhave th e labor movement consist of revolutionary labor unionson the on e hand, an d the Socialist Party on the other. The laborunions would be the superior organization, the Socialist Partybeing a sort of helper to them. Th e functions of the SocialistParty are described by Wm. D. Haywood and Frank Bohn intheir pamphlet, "Industrial Socialism," p. 54: "The great purposeof the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of government andthus prevent them from being used by th e capitalists against theworkers. With Socialists in political offices th e workers can strikeand not be shot. They can picket shops an d no t be arrested andimprisoned. Freedom of speech and of the press, now often abolished by the tyrannical capitalists, will be secured to th e workingclass. Then they


23/32

proposes to defend its interests even before those of the workingclass. Karl Kautsky, the well-known German Socialist writer.expresses the Socialist position when he says: "Social developmentstands higher than the interests of the proletariat, and thecia1ist Party cannot protect proletariat interests which stand in th eway of social deve1opment."*Th e chief result of this theory and the reason for it s inventionis tbat in great strikes, where th e welfare of Society is alleged tobe in danger, th e Socialists have a good excuse for breaking thesestrikes. This was the excuse of th e Socialists fo r keeping therailroaders at work during the recent great Swedish strike. Recently Emile Vandervelde, th e leader of the Belgian Socialists,questioned as to his attitude to strikers in the public service, incase he became elected Minister, replied: "What would I do?Exactly what we do when there is a strike in th e personnel of oneof our co-operativ.es. I would exhaust al l the' means of conciliation; I would do everything to avoid th e struggle. But, if in spiteof my efforts, the strike broke ou t I would say to th e personnel:'I have exhausted al l means of conciliation, I have satisfied yourdemands as far as possible, bu t I can coucede nothing morewithout compromising the general welfare. And now, since youforce me to defend this general welfare against the tyranny ofyour trade interest, I oppose to your incontestable right to strike,the right, no t less incontestable, to replace you by workers moredevoted to th e interests of the community.' "t Thus the government employes are warned that if they strike they will be replacedby Socialist scabs. 'Th e Syndicalist takes no cognizance of Society. He is interested only in th e welfare of the workinf class an d consistentlydefends it. He leaves the rag-tag mass 0 parasites that make upth e non-working class part of Society to look after their own interests. I t is immaterial to him what becomes of them so long asthe working class advances. He is no t afraid of "turning thewheels of progress backward," in thus constantly confiniug himself to the interests of the working class, as he knows that byfreeing the working class entirely he will give social developmentthe greatest stimulus it has ever known.

The State.-The Socialist is a statist. He considers the Stateas the logical directing force of Society and proposes to perpetuateit in the future society by confiding to it s care the ownership andmanagement of all th e industries. He is a vigorous advocate of"law and order" and preaches implicit obedience to th e State'smandates. good, bad and indifferent. He recognizes th e legalrights of the capitalists to their property and propose

Documents

Ford EC and Foster - Syndicalism