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

by Paul F. Brissenden

This doctrinaire faction claimed to be the custodian of the original I. W. W. idea. It felt itself to be the keeper of the original tradition of the founders. This original tradition was expressed in the first preamble if it was expressed anywhere. The DeLeonites held to that original preamble, and the fact that they did so lends weight to their claim that they, and they alone, are the true exponents of the spirit and purpose which animated the first convention. They probably do represent the spirit of the fathers—the men of 1905—more exactly than does the "Bummery outfit" at Chicago. The Direct-Actionists might just as well concede this much to the "Impossibilists." The latter represent revolutionary unionism in the original bottle; the former represent the changed form of militant unionism toward which most of the I. W. W.s had drifted between 1905 and 1908—new red wine under the old label. The Direct-Actionists kept the old label to designate the Western American brand of "industrial unionism," invented (or blundered upon) by the proletarian from the provincial side of the Mississippi, simply because they had the power to keep it. And the whole philosophy of the so-called "Bummery outfit" is the philosophy of power—economic power.

A further reason for conceding to the Direct-Actionists the original name and label (as indeed the Detroiters wisely did when in 1915 they rechristened themselves "The Workers' International Industrial Union") is that the Direct-Actionists are the ones who, since 1908, have done by far the most extensive organizing and propaganda work. It was the "Bummery" which aroused hope and apprehension at Little Falls, at Lawrence, at Wheatland, and on the Minnesota iron range, and baffled the authorities in its dramatic "free speech fights" at Spokane, Fresno, Paterson, San Diego, Seattle, and Everett. Their membership, though small, is three times that of the Detroit organization.

Some more definite points of difference between the two organizations should be noted. They may be set down here as representing the contrasting viewpoints of Daniel DeLeon and Vincent St. John. The attitude of these two men can be tentatively accepted as representing the opinions of most of those in their respective followings. There is good reason, then, for saying that the lifting of the hyphen between DeLeon and St. John was largely due to their conflicting opinions about (1) industrial union structure—the arrangement of industrial groups; (2) sabotage and direct action; and (3) political action.

(1) DeLeon believed that the workers should be grouped in the local industrial union according to the product turned out but that within the local union the lines of demarcation for segregating trade or shop branches must be drawn with reference to the particular tool used.[456] St. John believed that production should be the criterion throughout, with all workers whose activities contribute toward the output of a given product enrolled in the same union. The driver of a brewery wagon contributes his labor power to the production of beer (as also does the stenographer in the office of the brewery!) and he should be in the Brewery Workers' Union, as indeed he actually is in this particular case.

(2) Direct action and sabotage were condemned by DeLeon and approved by St. John. DeLeon's opposition was not based upon moral grounds. He simply had no confidence in the efficacy of these methods. He was firmly convinced that the habitual indulgence in sabotage and in destructive tactics in general was a poor preparation for a working class which expected some day to manage and control the industries of the world. It was a poor educational policy.

(3) St. John was unconditionally opposed to political action. DeLeon advocated it as a temporary aid in the struggle for emancipation. He appears to have looked forward to the ultimate abolition of political or representative government and the establishment of a literal industrial democracy.[457]

The constitution of the I. W. W. is not anti-political. It is merely non-political. Any wage-earner is admitted regardless of creed, race or political opinion. But it is also true that in actual practice, as Levine remarks, "the Industrial Workers have played and are playing the game of antipolitics."

"Their spokesmen," he says, "ridicule the 'politicians'; severely criticized the Socialist party and insult its most prominent leaders. The non-political portion of the I. W. W. is therefore practically anti-political."[458]

The bitterness of feeling engendered in this controversy over politics can well be imagined. The two factions of the I. W. W. hate one another with a hearty fervor that is only equaled by their united opposition to the American Federation of Labor. Both claim to be the simon-pure revolutionary article. If any "malefactor of great wealth" thinks that he is being scandalously abused by the I. W. W.s, he should read some of the things the "red I. W. W.s" have to say about the "yellow I. W. W.s" and, a fortiori, the "yellows" about the "reds," or attend a debate between any kind of an I. W. W. and what he (the I. W. W.) calls a "coffin society" man of the American Federation of Labor.