The I. W. W.: A Study of American Syndicalism

by Paul F. Brissenden

FOOTNOTES:

[78] The substance of chs. ii and iii was originally published in the form of a monograph: The Launching of the Industrial Workers of the World (University of California Publications in Economics, vol. iv, no. 1, Berkeley, 1913).

[79] The three letters, I. W. W., have lent themselves to various picturesque and derisive translations: "I Won't Work," "I Want Whiskey," "International Wonder Workers," "Irresponsible Wholesale Wreckers," etc. "The Wobblies" is a nickname by which they are quite commonly known, especially in the West. It is said that the I. W. W.'s were so christened by Harrison Grey Otis, the editor of the Los Angeles Times. And now, in 1917, Senator H. F. Ashurst, of Arizona, declares that "I. W. W. means simply, solely and only, Imperial Wilhelm's Warriors." (Congr. Record, Aug. 17, 1917, vol. lv, p. 6104).

[80] St. John, The I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods (revised edition, 1917), p. 2. Ernest Untermann, a writer prominently identified with the Socialist party, was also present at this conference, although he is not mentioned by St. John.

[81] "The Origin of the Manifesto," Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 82.

[82] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 82-3. The letter was signed by W. E. Trautmann, George Estes, W. L. Hall, Eugene V. Debs, Clarence Smith and Charles O. Sherman. A list of those invited is given in the Proceedings, p. 89. "Mother" Mary Jones seems to have been the only woman invited to the conference.

[83] Ibid., pp. 99-100.

[84] Proceedings, Thirteenth W. F. M. Convention, p. 21. At the same time and place it was definitely recommended that the Federation take part in the convention.

[85] Letter dated May 26, 1905, published in Proceedings, Thirteenth W. F. M. Convention, pp. 230-1.

[86] The Manifesto is reproduced in the writer's Launching of the Industrial Workers of the World, pp. 46-49. The committee's report is given in the Proceedings, p. 88.

[87] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 5-6.

[88] International Socialist Review, February, 1905, vol. v, p. 499. (Editorial.)

[89] Vide infra, ch. ix.

[90] International Socialist Review, vol. v, p. 501 (March, 1905). For typical press reports of the conference vide infra, p. 107.

[91] Editorial, "The Trade Unions to be Smashed Again," American Federationist, March, 1905.

[92] Private Correspondence, March 26, 1912.

[93] Feb., 1905, article entitled, "The Chicago Conference for Industrial Unionism." For a different interpretation of the Manifesto, vide Frank Bohn's article in the same journal for April, 1905.

[94] DeLeon-Harriman Debate. The S. T. & L. A. vs. The Pure and Simple Trade Union, p. 43.

[95] Among these dissenters were Max Hayes, Victor Berger and A. M. Simons. Cf. letter written by Mr. Hayes to W. L. Hall in Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 99-100.

[96] Affiliated with American Federation of Labor at the time.

[97] Affiliated with American Federation of Labor at the time.

[98] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 70.

[99] Now called The International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers.

[100] Among these were the Bakers and Confectioners, and the Carpenters and Joiners.

[101] The Journeymen Tailors and the Switchmen each had delegates from two locals.

[102] The United Metal Workers International Union was at least nominally affiliated with the A. F. of L. at the time of the January conference, but Secretary St. John writes "that the United Metal Workers ... as a matter of fact was out of existence before the I. W. W. convention, but existed on paper for the purpose of giving its old officials a standing in the new organization."

[103] Supra, pp. 68-69. Cf. also Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 80.

[104] Vide infra, p. 74.

[105] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 6. According to St. John this provision was drawn up on account of the fact that "all who were present as delegates were not there in good faith. Knowledge of this fact caused the signers of the Manifesto to constitute themselves a temporary committee on credentials."—I. W. W., History, Structure and Methods, revised 1917 edition, p. 3.

[106] The figures here given are those cited by William D. Haywood (Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 204), but cf. St. John (The I. W. W., History, etc., pp. 3, 4), whose figures are somewhat lower. Among the "individual" delegates were "Mother" Mary Jones, A. M. Simons, Eugene V. Debs, and Robert Rives LaMonte. It was assumed that individual delegates were in duty bound to become a part of the revolutionary organization. (Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 54.)

[107] The United Brotherhood of Railway Employees was at that time an integral part of the A. L. U., so that its membership must be deducted from the total. This represents nominal membership only. Hillquit (History of Socialism in the United States, rev. ed., p. 336), reports the A. L. U. as having only seven delegates, whereas there were ten besides the nineteen of the U. B. R. E., which are of course not included in his estimate. Cf. Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, pp. 610-611.

[108] According to its opponents, 600. Cf. Hillquit, History of Socialism in the United States, rev. ed., p. 337.

[109] Cf. supra, p. 71, note 3. The installment vote at the first convention records twelve organizations as voting in the affirmative (for list see Proceedings, First Convention, p. 614, and Brissenden, Launching of the I. W. W., p. 43). St. John (I. W. W. History, etc., p. 4) mentions but seven. H. Richter says that eleven organizations were installed by their delegates: "The I. W. W.: Retrospect and Prospects," Industrial Union News, January, 1912. p. 1, col. 3.

[110] "Coffin society," a term used in derision of a common tendency of trade-unions to place the emphasis on sick and death benefits, etc.

[111] I. W. W. History, etc., p. 5. St. John says (letter of January 5, 1914) that "there were so few anarchists in the first convention that there was very little need to classify them."

[112] I. W. W., History, etc., p. 3.

[113] Reproduced in Appendix i. It also appears in The Miners Magazine, vol. vi, p. 15 (Apr. 20, 1905), and in Carl Legien, Aus Amerikas Arbieterbewegung (Berlin, 1914), p. 176. A less unsophisticated draft by Wm. E. Trautmann is published in his pamphlet, One Big Union (I. W. W. Publishing Bureau).

[114] Proceedings, First I. W. W. Convention, p. 144.

[115] Ibid., p. 154.

[116] Speech before the first convention. Proceedings, p. 148.

[117] History of Socialism in the United States (rev. ed.), p. 337.

[118] Editorial, International Socialist Review, April, 1905 (vol. v, p. 626).

[119] DeLeon-Harriman Debate. S. T. & L. A. vs. The "Pure and Simple" Trade Union, p. 7.

---

[CHAPTER III]
The I. W. W. versus the A. F. of L.

The American Federation of Labor, as the alleged embodiment of everything "crafty," has always been the arch-enemy of the I. W. W. The convention opened with this thought to the fore, and throughout the eleven days of its session it was referred to again and again. William D. Haywood's speech calling the convention to order begins with this paragraph:

This is the Continental Congress of the working class.... There is no organization ... that has for its purpose the same object as that for which ... you are called together today.... The American Federation of Labor, which presumes to be the labor movement of this country, is not a working-class movement.... You are going to be confronted with the so-called labor leader—the man who will tell you ... that the interests of the capitalist and the workingman are identical.... There is no man who has an ounce of honesty in his make-up but recognizes the fact that there is a continuous struggle between the two classes, and this organization will be formed, based and founded on the class struggle, having in view no compromise and no surrender....[120]

"It has been said," remarked Haywood, "that this convention was to form an organization rival to the A. F. of L. This is a mistake. We are here for the purpose of forming a labor organization."[121] This common opposition to what they called the "American Separation of Labor" proved to be a fairly adequate "harmony plank" in the platform of these disaffected workingmen. The stress of opposition to the Federation was, of course, directed chiefly to its craft formation, but it also featured prominently the reaction against (1) its assumption of identity of interest between employer and employee, and (2) its absolute denial of the necessity of united political action on the part of the working class.

To these industrialists the American Federation of Labor was simply the symbol of the craft type of trade union. It was made the object of the most merciless criticism throughout the convention. One of its committees drew up a comprehensive indictment of "old line trade-unionism." "The A. F. of L., which is the fine consummate flower of craft unionism," it declares, "is neither American, nor a federation, nor of labor." This, they contend, because (1) it is adapted only to such conditions as existed in England sixty years ago; (2) it is divided into 116 warring factions; (3) it discriminates against workingmen because of their race and poverty; (4) its members are allowed to join the militia and shoot down other union men in time of strike; and (5) it inevitably creates a certain aloofness among the skilled workmen—the "aristocrats of labor"—toward those not skilled. "There are organizations which are affiliated," Haywood asserts, "with the A. F. of L. which ... prohibit the initiation of, or conferring the obligation on, a colored man; that prohibit the conferring of the obligation on foreigners."[122]

From the opening of the convention it was quite evident that an ideal labor union was conceived to be something more than an institution for improving the immediate condition of labor. Through it immediate interests must be advanced, of course, but its primary object must be to make an end of labor as a slave function and to establish in place of the wage or capitalist system an industrial commonwealth of co-operators. The convention was convinced that the craft union was not only comparatively helpless in the matter of advancing immediate interests, but was absolutely useless as a fulcrum for removing the capitalist system. "The battles of the past," declared the manifesto, "emphasize this lesson. The textile workers of Lowell, Philadelphia, and Fall River; the butchers of Chicago; ... the long-struggling miners of Colorado, hampered by lack of unity and solidarity upon the industrial battlefield, all bear witness to the helplessness and impotency of labor as at present organized."[123]

The craft form or organization creates three types very obnoxious to the industrial unionist, viz., the "aristocrat" of labor, the "union" scab, and the "labor lieutenant." The "union" scab—the man who continues at work at his particular trade when the men of an allied trade in the same industry are on strike—is a scab in the sense that he is often—through this indirect scabbing—a fatal, perhaps the only obstacle, to the success of the strike. Haywood gave an illustration of this in the butchers' strike in Chicago:

For instance, [he said] in the packing plants, the butchers' organization was one of the best in the country, reputed to be 50,000 strong. They were well disciplined, which is shown from the fact that when they were called on strike they quit to a man. That is, the butchers quit; but did the engineers quit, did the firemen quit, did the men who were running the ice-plants quit? They were not in the union, not in that particular union. They had agreements with their employers which forbade them quitting. The result was that the Butchers' Union was practically totally disrupted, entirely wiped out.[124]

It was quite evident that these men who laid so much at the door of the "union" scab, realized that the latter did not scab on his fellow union-men because he enjoyed it. He was forced to be a union scab because his craft had a contract—an agreement with the employer. Craftism is what it is, because it involves a separate binding agreement for each trade. These, being contracted independently by each craft, naturally expired at different dates, so that the several crafts in any given industry can never be free to act in unison. Little reverence for these agreements was shown in the convention.

It is a fact [said DeLeon] ... that it is not the unorganized scab who breaks the strikes, but the organized craft that really does the dirty work; and thus they, each of whom, when itself (sic) involved in a strike, fights like a hero, when not themselves involved, demean themselves like arrant scabs; betray their class—all in fatuous reverence to "contracts."[125]

Debs pointed to these same contracts as the cause of defeat. He cited the strike on the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad in 1888:

Some 2,000 engineers and firemen [he said] went out on one of the most bitterly contested railroad strikes in the history of the country. When they were out, the rest of the employees, especially the conductors, who were organized in craft unions of their own, remained at their posts, and the union conductors piloted the scab engineers over the line.[126]

"Union scabbery" helped to create a kind of "union snobbery." The craft idea tended to develop the idea of caste among workingmen, and the skilled were set off from the unskilled as the "aristocracy of labor." The industrial unionists emphatically declared that a true labor union must include all workers, the unskilled and migratory as well as the "aristocrats."

We are going down in the gutter [said Haywood] to get at the mass of the workers and bring them up to a decent plane of living. I do not care a snap of my finger whether or not the skilled workers join this industrial movement at the present time. When we get the unorganized and the unskilled laborer into this organization the skilled worker will of necessity come here for his own protection. As strange as it may seem to you, the skilled worker today is exploiting the laborer beneath him, the unskilled man, just as much as the capitalist is.[127]

But ultimately, according to Sherman, all workers—not merely the groups connoted by the term "working-class"—must be grouped in the proposed organization.

We don't propose [he said] to organize only the common man with the callous hands, but we want the clerical force; we want the soft hands that only get $40 a month—those fellows with No. 10 cuffs and collars. We want them all, so that when a strike is called we can strike the whole business at once.[128]

A third type condemned by revolutionary unionists was the so-called "labor lieutenant." This latter "mis-leader" of labor was the symbol of another objectionable feature of the A. F. of L., viz., the identity of interests assumption. Naturally the idea that the interests of employer and employee are identical, is the only consistent one for an organization based on the craft idea. It is said that Mark Hanna once referred to the organizers and officials of the trade unions as the "labor lieutenants of the captains of industry."

The revolutionary (industrial) unionists believed that collusion existed between the tool-owners and the labor leaders of the country. It was declared on the floor of the convention that "the trade-union movement has become an auxiliary to the capitalist class in order to hold down the toilers of the land."[129] The delegates from the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance (members of the Socialist Labor party, though not formally present as such) were especially uncompromising on this point. At the 1900 convention of the Socialist Labor party the following amendment to its constitution was adopted:

If any member of the Socialist Labor party accepts office in a pure and simple trade or labor organization, he shall be considered antagonistically inclined towards the Socialist Labor party and shall be expelled. If any officer of a pure and simple trade or labor organization applies for membership in the Socialist Labor party, he shall be rejected.[130]

Daniel DeLeon and the other Socialist Labor party men at the convention had absolutely no hope for the "pure and simple" union. DeLeon believed "that the pure and simple leaders give jobs to Socialists for the purpose of corrupting them, on the principle that the capitalist politicians give jobs to workingmen for the purpose of corrupting the working class...." "The labor movement," he said "has been prostituted in this country by the jobs ... that the capitalist politicians give to some individual workingmen...."[131]

The DeLeon faction was by no means alone in this attitude. The majority felt that the American Federation of Labor was hopelessly entangled in capitalist politics and irrevocably tied up to the captains of industry through its labor lieutenants. On the whole, the industrialists had no hope that the American Federation of Labor could ever become an industrial organization. Some of them, like A. M. Simons, believed it possible to further their industrial aim by "boring from within" certain of the constituent unions in the American Federation of Labor. Others differed—notably the DeLeonites. Their leader said that the theory of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was,

That boring from within, with the labor fakir in possession, is a waste of time, and that the only way to do is to stand by the workingmen always; to organize them, to enlighten them, and whenever a conflict breaks out in which their brothers are being fooled and used as food for cannon, to have the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance throw itself in the midst of the fray, and sound the note of sense.[132]

"We call upon the socialists of the United States," said another member of the S. T. & L. A., "to get out of the pure and simple organizations and smash them to pieces."[133]

Eugene Debs, too, was convinced of the futility of boring from within. "There is but one way," he said, "to effect this great change, and that is for the workingman to sever his relations with the American Federation and join the union that proposes on the economic field to represent his class."[134]

The industrialists were most at variance on the question of the proper political attitude of labor organizations; consequently, they were not unanimous in their condemnation of the Federation's political polity—or want of it. Moreover, as became evident during the hot debate over the political clause, even those who condemned the Federation's attitude on politics were quite at outs about the political position which should be taken on behalf of the new organization.[135]

President Gompers took up the cudgels for the American Federation of Labor. The new movement was inaugurated, he said, "under the pretext that the American Federation of Labor refuses to recognize the changes which are constantly taking place in industry. That it is a pretext inexcusably ignorant and maliciously false any observer must know." He goes on to say that "the permanency of the trade-union movement depends upon the recognition ... of the principle of [craft] autonomy consistent with the varying phase and transitions in industry."[136] Mr. Gompers cited, among others, the case of the Boot and Shoe Workers' International Union. The workers in Lynn, Massachusetts, in a branch of the shoe trade—they were makers of "counters"—applied for a charter in the American Federation of Labor. The Federation authorities advised them first to join the industrial union of their trade, viz., the Boot and Shoe Workers' International Union. This they declined to do, and being refused by the American Federation of Labor, joined the American Labor Union.

The first five days of the convention were taken up with the adjustment of credentials, the explanation of the manifesto, and the indictment of the American Federation of Labor—"the consummate flower of craft unionism." On the sixth day the principal piece of constructive work confronting the convention—the shaping-up of some sort of a workable constitution—was taken out of the hands of the committee and made the order of the day. Though Simons intimates[137] that the first days of the convention were too much given over to the reign of the "jaw-smith," yet mixed with all the chaff—unquestionably in evidence—was much intellectual grain. The ideas and suggestions brought out in all these discussions, the resolutions proposed, all these, after a crude but critical sifting at the hands of the committee and the speakers on the floor of the convention, became crystallized in the preamble and constitution. The following resolutions, selected and condensed from the report of the committee on resolutions, are fairly typical:[138]

1. To provide for the establishment and maintenance of an Educational Bureau comprising a Literature Bureau and a Lecture Bureau.

3. Resolved, that it be the sense of this convention that the labor of each individual unit of society is necessary to the welfare of society, and that all are entitled to equal compensation.

4. Resolved, that the first day of May of each year ... be designated as the Labor Day of this organization.

6. Resolved, that the seceding workers and seceding organizations in the A. F. of L. be required to make a public statement of the reason for their secession....

8. Resolved, that we recommend as a final solution of the class struggle the Social General Strike....

9. Resolved, that it is the sense of this convention to endorse and provide a perfect system of commercial coöperation.

13. Resolved, that it be the sense of this convention that only those who are wage-workers be eligible to membership in this organization.

16. Whereas, there is already established an International Bureau of those industrial unions which are based upon the class struggle, with headquarters at Berlin, therefore be it

Resolved, that this new organization enter into immediate relations therewith.

20. Resolved, that we condemn militarism in all its forms and functions, which are jeopardizing our constitutional rights and privileges in the struggle between capital and labor. Be it further

Resolved, that any members accepting salaried positions to defend capitalism, directly or indirectly, should be denied the privilege of membership in this organization.

To the discussion and emendation of the preamble and constitution was devoted the bulk of the time during the last five days of the convention.[139] The preamble drawn up by the committee on constitution was accepted by the convention practically in the form presented by that committee, and without dissent except for the second clause. The first two clauses read as follows:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among the millions of working people, and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political, as well as on the industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with any political party.

The reference to the "political field" in the second clause brought forth immediate challenge and the whole clause was the subject of exhaustive debate. Delegate Gilbert, who favored the clause, very concisely explained its significance.

We are here [he said] to effect an economic organization. There are two elements in this convention. One element proposes to do away with political action entirely. Another element is inclined toward political action. All that this paragraph is in essence is this: It first of all states very clearly and plainly that this is primarily an economic organization based upon the conflict of classes. Secondly, it says in essence this: That as individuals you are perfectly free to take such political action as you see fit. As an organization, you cannot.... Thirdly, it says this: You shall not as an economic organization stand committed to any political party at present in existence.[140]

Delegate Simons opposed it, declaring that, "as it stands it says that we are in favor of political action without any political party."[141] Delegate Richter also opposed it on the ground that the struggle has really only begun when the workers are brought together on the political and industrial fields,—whereas the preamble implied that at that stage the struggle ceases.[142]

Delegate DeLeon argued at length in support of the clause. To him this "political clause," as it has since been called, was quite essential to keep the proposed organization "in line and in step with civilization." "The barbarian," he said, "begins with physical force; the civilized man ends with that when force is necessary."[143] He believed it to be absolutely impossible to "take and hold" as the preamble puts it, without the protection—or at any rate the harmony—secured through political unity. Of course, the basis of this political unity was to have no organic connection—not the remotest—with the economic organization. The clause under discussion recognized the two truths "that political action and the means of civilization must be given an opportunity—and that in this country, for one, it is out of the question to imagine that a political party can 'take and hold.'"[144] This was the Socialist Labor party position. It had been foreshadowed in its 1900 convention when it endorsed the following resolution:

Genuine trade-unionism not only must fight in the shop ... but must especially, uncompromisingly, at all costs and hazards fight the political parties of capitalism on election day. Its chief motto must be—"No union card will justify the political scab. Here is a traitor to his class."... We recognize in the S. T. & L. A. the economic arm of the S. L. P. and its indispensable adjunct in its conflict between the working class and the capitalist class.[145]

The discussion brought out every shade of opinion on the ballot. These men were acutely aware of the fact that business is to a great extent the creator and controller of politics. As one delegate put it, "dropping pieces of paper into a hole in a box never did achieve emancipation for the working class and ... it never will...."[146] Even Daniel DeLeon had nothing but contempt for

the visionary politician, the man who imagines that by going to the ballot box and taking a piece of paper—and throwing it in and then rubbing his hands and jollying himself with the expectation that through that process, through some mystic alchemy, the ballot will terminate capitalism and the socialist commonwealth will rise like a fairy out of the ballot-box.[147]

The manifesto was very specific in proposing a purely economic organization. That the issue would be a political organization was the prophecy of Frank Bohn, an official of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance.

Every industrial unionist [he declared] who thoroughly understands the deeper mission of his organization will reach class-conscious political action. An industrial union cannot increase the average wage. In some cases it may be less likely than the craft unions to prevent the decrease in wages.... Socialist to the core must the new economic organization be—and when the June convention has painted the skull and cross-bones on the door of "pure and simpledom," that last working-class compromise with capitalism, there will probably issue a political organization strong in numbers, but stronger in principle, because raised by the revolutionary spirit high above "mere vote-getting subterfuge."[148]

In reply to this, A. M. Simons, the editor, declares that,

if it is true that the new union is to be less powerful on the economic field than the pure and simple unions, and is simply to constitute a new political party jabbering a lot of jargon about general strikes and installing its officers as rulers of the coöperative commonwealth, then it is doomed to a short and sickening life.[149]

A very reasonable interpretation of this political clause is that the working class must be united politically, but not necessarily that that union is, or is in, or has any connection with, the I. W. W. However, the sequel showed that it was fatal to the unity of the organization. Three years later it proved to be the rock on which the movement split, bringing about the bifurcated organization we know at the present time; with a direct-actionist wing, non-political, and with a new and expurgated edition of the preamble, and a DeLeonite or doctrinaire wing, pro-political—another Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance—with the same old preamble and the same old political clause.[150]

The constitution provided a highly centralized scheme of administration involving a mixed hierarchy of power. The general organization was divided into thirteen international industrial divisions (later called "departments"). Each of these departmental divisions was supposed to comprise an allied group of industries, grouped together for administrative purposes. In the original report of the constitution committee the industrial or occupational "sphere of influence" of each division was specified in detail. The world's industries were divided into thirteen administrative groups. The report provided that the organization should be composed of thirteen international industrial unions, designated as follows:

Division 1 shall be composed of all persons working in the following industries: Clerks, salesmen, tobacco, packing houses, flour mills, sugar refineries, dairies, bakeries, and kindred industries.

Division 2: Brewery, wine and distillery workers.

Division 3: Floriculture, stock and general farming.

Division 4: Mining, milling, smelting and refining coal, ores, metals, salt and iron.

Division 5: Steam railway, electric railway, marine, shipping, and teaming.

Division 6: All building employees.

Division 7: All textile industrial employees.

Division 8: All leather industrial employees.

Division 9: All wood-working employees excepting those engaged in building departments.

Division 10: All metal industrial employees.

Division 11: All glass and pottery employees.

Division 12: All paper mills, chemical, rubber, broom, brush and jewelry industries.

Division 13: Parks, highways, municipal, postal service, telegraph, telephone, schools and educational institutions, amusements, sanitary, printing, hotel, restaurant and laundry employees.[151]

This section provoked instant debate. In fact, two days and a half—about half the time given to the whole constitution—were given over to the discussion of this clause.[152] Many delegates considered that such a specific division was not only a practical impossibility, on account of the very definite limits to the jurisdiction of most industries, but was a very inconsistent step for an industrial organization to take, since in their opinion it was nothing more or less than a recreation of craft lines.[153] There was considerable feeling in evidence that this clause did not satisfy the provision of the manifesto for "craft autonomy locally, industrial autonomy internationally, and working-class unity generally." Flaws and inconsistencies without end could, of course, be found in such a categorical division, and they were pointed out by critical delegates with much gusto. The main idea in this attempt at departmental demarcation of industries was that a centralized administration was imperative. Most of the delegates agreed to this. They believed that even the industry, although the unit or cell of the new structure, should not be the dominant basis of the administration. That must be departmental.

Any of these industries [said Delegate Goodwin] are subsidiary and supporting the whole organization.... The tendency of capitalist development is concentration. We are going from industrial production to departmental production. It won't be many years ... till we have departmental production. The tendency in development in the early stages of capital is to go into industries, and the later tendency is to divide into departments, and these departments are international....[154]

As finally amended, the clause omitted any specific category of departments and industries and simply provided for thirteen departments with appropriate subdivisions. It read as follows:

Art. I., Sec. 2.—And shall be composed of thirteen international industrial divisions subdivided into industrial unions of closely related industries in the appropriate organizations for representation in the departmental administration. The subdivisions, international and national industrial unions, shall have complete industrial autonomy in their respective internal affairs; provided, the General Executive Board shall have power to control these industrial unions in matters concerning the interests of the general welfare.[155]

The list of specifically divided industries was later replaced in the constitution, but in a very much improved form. Wm. E. Trautmann has worked this up even further, and in 1911 published a still more improved outline in which the number of departments is reduced to six.[156]

The constitutional convention also made provision for other and subordinate bodies, i. e., industrial councils, which might be formed. These were to comprise seven or more local unions in two or more industries and the local industrial union. These local unions were the smallest units of organization then provided for, except that when isolated individuals applied for membership in a locality where no local union existed, such persons were admitted into the organization as "individual" members directly attached to the general organization.

The same principle applied throughout. In case, then, there were not a sufficient number[157] of locals in any one industry to form an industrial department, the local was directly responsible to the general organization. Then, as now, the great majority of local unions were chartered directly by the general organization. At the close of the first convention the Western Federation of Miners became the "Mining Department" of the I. W. W.; the Metal Workers became the "Metal Department"; and the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, the "Transportation Department." All local unions are industrial in character, i. e., each one makes the shop its unit and comprises all the crafts engaged in and around the shop. The mucker in the mine must belong to the same union as the man who runs the drill. The idea is to get into the same union all those workers who are coöperating for the production of a given class of products.

The officers provided for were: a General President, a General Secretary-Treasurer, and a General Executive Board composed of these two officers and the Presidents of the International Industrial Division.[158] The constitutional committee recommended

that this convention elect a provisional Board of seven to conduct affairs of this organization until the next national convention. The said provisional Board shall consist of the National President, National Secretary-Treasurer and five other members, two of these five to be elected at large, one to be elected from the W. F. of M., one from the United Metal Workers and one from the U. B. of R. E.... The provisional Board shall also have the duty of a committee on style to revise the constitution and submit a draft to the next convention.[159]

In accordance with this recommendation, the Provisional Board was elected as follows: C. O. Sherman, Metal Workers, General President; William E. Trautmann, Industrial Workers Club, of Cincinnati, General Secretary-Treasurer; John Riordan, American Labor Union, member at large; F. W. Cronin, American Labor Union, member at large; Frank McCabe, United Brotherhood of Railway Employees; Charles Kirkpatrick, Metal Workers, and C. H. Moyer, Western Federation of Miners. The General Executive Board was given great power. In its hands was placed the entire responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the organization between conventions. This board was given full power to issue charters to all subordinate bodies—industrial departments, industrial councils, and local unions; to supervise the work of general administration and audit the books of the general office; to levy special assessments when any of the subordinate bodies are engaged in strike and the condition of their local treasuries makes it necessary; to supervise and control the publication of the official organ and to elect its editor.

Specially worthy of note were the powers given the General Executive Board in regard to strikes and agreements. The clauses referring to these two points are here given:

In case the members of a subordinate organization of the Industrial Workers of the World are involved in strike, regularly ordered by the organization, or General Executive Board, or involved in a lockout, if in the opinion of the President and General Executive Board it becomes necessary to call out any other union or unions, or organization, they shall have full power to do so.

Any agreement entered into between the members of any local union or organization, and their employers, as a final settlement of any difficulty or trouble between them, shall not be considered valid or binding until the same shall have the approval of the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World.[160]

The President, of course, had more extended authority than the other members of the Board, and was given entire supervision of the organization throughout its jurisdiction; but his official acts and decisions, as well as those of the General Executive Board, were at all times subject to appeal to the general convention, the decisions of which body, in turn, might be put to the final test of ratification by a referendum to the general membership. Thus the rank and file were supposed to be the final arbiters. Throughout the hierarchy "home rule" was to be accorded in all matters of strictly local concern, such as details of administration, by-laws, etc., but matters connected with the general welfare were made subjects of industrial rather than craft autonomy. Revenues were derived from charter fees, initiation fees and dues, all of which were made very low. A fixed proportion of all such revenues was to be paid into a central defense fund.

It is quite apparent that matters which were of purely internal concern were much more narrowly interpreted than in the orthodox union. Most things affecting one craft are frankly declared to effect all crafts—even all industries—and only a few matters like by-laws and other routine affairs were considered to be of merely local concern. The constitution was built up around the socialistic motto, "An injury to one is the concern of all." The document was merely provisional, and in a crude way served as an initial guide for drawing up a more comprehensive and permanent constitution later on.

That the constitution was at least acceptable to most of the delegates was evidenced by the fact that it was adopted by a six to one vote,[161] and more definitely proven on roll-call for installation of organizations under the new constitution. Besides the five leading organizations—the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor Union, United Brotherhood of Railway Employees, United Metal Workers, and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, six local unions and thirty-nine individuals (representing no organization) unanimously voted for installation.[162] Having elected its officers and chosen Chicago as its headquarters, the Convention adjourned, sine die, July 8, 1905.

Delegate Kiehn (representing the Longshoremen of Hoboken, N. J.), among others, refused to install his union. He explained his vote, stating that in his opinion the constitution was "not according to the spirit of the manifesto." He believed that dividing the industrial activities of society into thirteen divisions meant the creation—not the destruction—of craft lines, and also that "it [the constitution] gives the President or the Executive Board of this organization czarish powers that are not given to the executive officers of any pure and simple organization in this country."[163]

Unquestionably the outcome of the convention was very different from what those most interested had anticipated. In its final form, the preamble and constitution were not exactly shaped to the provisions of the January manifesto—at any rate they did not seem to satisfy the authors of the latter document. This is partly to be explained by the significant fact that Daniel DeLeon was not present at the January conference, although the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and the Socialist Labor party were represented by one of their organizers—Frank Bohn. We have seen that the fear of Socialist Labor party domination or Socialist Labor party wire-pulling and the fear of the influence of DeLeon were one and the same. A. M. Simons declared several months before the Convention that "nothing could more thoroughly damn the work of the conference which meets in Chicago next June than the prevalence of the idea that it was an attempt to revive the S. T. & L. A...."[164] These fears were to a certain limited extent realized. The same writer says that "At the first conference [the June convention] Daniel DeLeon with a crowd of followers obtained such power in the organization as to destroy its original point of view. Later he was thrown out, or resigned, or threw the others out [according to who is telling the story]."[165] In precisely what way the original point of view was destroyed is not easily determined. Even Simons admitted that "the only line of cleavage between bodies representing any strength was over the method of organization." And "even here," he believed that "the difficulty was much less fundamental than the heat of the debate would indicate."[166]

Beyond any doubt the influence of the Socialist Labor party (through the delegates of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance), DeLeonism, as it was called, was wider than this statement would indicate. A "paper" organization, outnumbered by all of the organizations in what we have called the "Big Five," it unquestionably was influential to a degree quite out of proportion to its numbers, and in that way, at least, it dominated the convention. The political clause, which later proved such a rock of dissension and which was not passed in the first convention without considerable opposition, was one mark left in the constitution by DeLeonism. The virtual overthrowing of the "boring-from-within" policy was another mark left out of the constitution by DeLeonism. Both of these departures were of great importance but not the most vital by any means.

The primary importance of the Western Federation of Miners in these beginnings cannot be too much emphasized. In a quite real sense the I. W. W. was born out of the Western Federation. It was from this militant miners union that most of the financial bone and sinew came for setting in motion the machinery of the new union. The Federation constituted probably one-third of the membership of the organization which had in its mining department (while it did have it!) by all odds the most vigorously militant of all American unions. The Federation's bitter fights with the mine operators, especially in Colorado, Montana, and Idaho, prepared the ground and spread the sentiment for the extension of revolutionary industrialism beyond the relatively narrow limits of the metalliferous mining industry. It was not a coincidence that the I. W. W. sprang into being so hard on the heels of the strike terrors of Telluride and Cripple Creek. A delegate at the second (1906) convention declared that the Butte Miners Union was the father of the I. W. W.[167]

Despite the fact that the I. W. W. did continue to exist, and, periodically, to thrive after the Western Federation broke away, it is safe to say that had it not been for the Federation, with its practical strength and the stimulating example of its history, there would have been no I. W. W. It was Western-Federationism quite as much as DeLeonism that moulded the I. W. W. at its inception.

It certainly is not quite true that the first convention was "captured" by the DeLeon element, as so many insinuate. DeLeon was elected to no office and neither of the General Executive Board members elected at large were members of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. Debs insists that "DeLeon did not 'capture' the organization and Debs is not 'disgusted' with it."[168] The dominance of DeLeonism was, then, a supremacy of ideas. These ideas may have been "insane delusions" and finally disastrous to the harmony of the movement; but they were presumably defended by their chief sponsor and his followers, in firm conviction that they were essential to the growth of the movement. DeLeon said on the floor of the convention, "When I came to Chicago to this convention, I came absolutely without any private ax to grind or any private grudge to gratify. In fact ... I have had but one foe ... and that foe is the capitalist class."[169]

Hermann Richter, now general secretary of the Socialist Labor party wing of the I. W. W., writes in a recent number of their official organ: "During the proceedings of the [first] convention it became apparent that not all delegates understood, or were in free accord with the spirit and intent of the organization."[170] This was very natural considering the composition of the gathering. The sequel proved that this was the least of the troubles in embryo at that first convention.

All this friction and internal discord was naturally made to loom large in the editorials of the American Federationist; Gompers, in fact, squinted hard enough at the Chicago conference to see absolutely nothing in it. The August (1905) number contained the following, under the caption "Those 'World Redeemers' at Chicago":

After an effort of more than six months ... the distribution of tons upon tons of circulars and "literature" throughout America and every other country throughout the globe ... what was the result? The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse, and a very silly little mouse at that.... And out of this material [the S. T. and L. A. and the A. L. U.] they proclaim themselves the "Industrial Workers of the World." Their nerve is so colossal that it is positively ludicrous. Of course the two and a half million ... workmen in the trade-union movement are entirely oblivious that they are included.... The wheel of fortune, otherwise known as ex-Father Hagerty's chart, was adopted as a "plan" of organization. This plan is so unique and so fantastic that we accord it space in our columns and thus give it historic importance.... [And finally he prophesies that] as time goes on the active participants in the labor movement of the future, students, thinkers, historians, will record the Chicago meeting as the most vapid and ridiculous in the annals of those who presume to speak in the name of labor, and the participants in the gathering as the most stupendous impossibles the world has yet seen.[171]

But in spite of dissension on the inside and bitter abuse and misrepresentation on the outside, the industrialists were, on the whole, very optimistic about the prospects of the new-born I. W. W. and held high hopes for its future. In spite of the emphatic declaration of the manifesto that the I. W. W. "should be established as the economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with any political party," the newspapers and even the labor press persisted in representing the movement as a political one. Thus the Milwaukee Journal said:

The Socialists are still earnestly advocating the formation of a new national organization in the hope of downing the American Federation of Labor, as the Federation is opposed to making the labor union a political organization.[172]

The Advance Advocate, a labor organ, had this to say:

And now a new industrial union is to be launched in Chicago. It is going to revolutionize the whole labor movement according to the manifesto of its promoters. It is going into politics. We predict that it will fail.[173]

The Iowa State Federation of Labor issued the following statement:

A few disgruntled office-seekers and would-be politicians have seen fit to criticize the present methods of our trade organizations, and these same people have issued a call for a convention to be held in the city of Chicago, June 27, 1905, to form an organization, ... the avowed purpose of which is the complete annihilation of the present trade-union movement by political methods.[174]

The expectation that there would be a general secession from the American Federation of Labor to the new organization was not realized and there was practically no American Federation of Labor material in the new body. In numbers it seemed, in view of later shrinkage, to be at high tide. The reports of the convention estimated the membership at 60,000, and A. M. Simons estimated that at the very least the organization would in six months have 100,000 members.[175] The twelve organizations finally installed represented a membership of 49,010. This excluded the thirty-nine "individual" members. In regard to this Vincent St. John writes: "I know that the Annual Convention reports claim 60,000 members, but the books of the organization did not justify any such claim, and in fact the average paid-up membership, without the W. F. of M. (27,000), for the first year of the organization was 14,000 in round numbers."[176]

The I. W. W. was organized, as the constitution expressed it, to "subserve the immediate interests of the working class and effect their final emancipation." The attempt to realize this "final emancipation" was the thing which marked off the I. W. W. from the typical craft union. This latter body is craft conscious; the I. W. W. is class conscious. The structural and organic form it assumed at the first convention made for the stupefaction of craft consciousness and the stimulation of class consciousness. The idea of the class conflict was really the bottom notion or "first cause" of the I. W. W. The industrial union type was adopted because it would make it possible to wage this class war under more favorable conditions.

It is true the Socialist and Socialist Labor parties are working for the ultimate freedom of the working class, but the (Chicago) I. W. W. considers their method—political action—a snare and a delusion, and (here both the Detroit and Chicago factions came together) absolutely impotent when used alone. It is rather significant that every member of the provisional board elected at the convention was a member of the Socialist party. But they emphatically declared that the Socialist party was not to be involved in any way; and it never did become involved except as an enemy. On the other hand, the Socialist Labor party did, through the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, indirectly affect the work of the first convention.

The anarchist element was weak in 1905, and the anarchistic leanings now so prominent in the direct-actionist wing of the organization were then quite overshadowed by the socialistic and industrial phases of the movement. Carlton says that "the Industrial Workers may be compared with the Knights of Labor shorn of their idealism and saturated with class-conscious Socialism";[177] and he might have added, with their decentralized administrative system replaced by a very strongly centralized one—this constituting a fundamental distinction between the I. W. W. and the Confédération Générale du Travail, a decentralized organization. Nor should the Industrial Workers of the World be quite shorn of idealism. That must surely be idealistic which is "saturated with class-conscious socialism." This was amply demonstrated at the constitutional convention. Their idealism was given more of a pragmatic character by the persistent tendency to place socialism on an industrial rather than a political basis. The immediate struggle must take place primarily in the shop—at the point of production—only secondarily at the polls.

"By organizing industrially," claims the Industrial Worker, "we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."[178] And here he evidences an idea of the future state of society and the method of its realization, rather new even to the socialist, and somewhat akin to that of the anarchists. The First Convention surely laid its plans, crude as they were, with an eye to the future. The scope of organization implied that the proletariat of the future would include more, by far, than the unskilled; that all those gainfully employed in whatever kind or grade of work would some day become proletarians, in spirit at least, and get together in this "one big union."

The first constitution, crude and provisional as it was, made room for all the world's workers and so at the beginning is a vast and nearly empty structure, with groups of the lower grades of workers in some of the basic industries in their proper places in the scheme, but with all the rest a hollow shell. Whether this empty structure will ever be "filled up" is a question which time will decide. George Speed, formerly a member of the General Executive Board (direct-actionist wing), has characterized this convention as the "greatest conglomeration of freaks that ever met in convention." This may have been true, for freak ideas often did bob up in the convention and some of them got fixed in the constitution, but at heart this was a vital move, impelled by high and serious motives.[179]

---