Chapter XIII: Dual Unionism and Decentralization

In 1913 the visit of Tom Mann, the well-known English labor leader and advocate of revolutionary unionism, revived the discussion of "dual unionism" and the respective merits of what the French Syndicalists called _la pénétration_ and _la pression extérieure_,[596] or what the American "Wobbly" calls "boring from within" and "hammering from without," respectively. Even before his visit a growing minority had been feebly protesting against the accepted I. W. W. policy of creating a new organization without regard to existing labor (or craft) unions in the locality instead of allowing the unorganized--and especially the radicals--to enter the old unions (of the A. F. of L.) and "bore from within" their conservative shells to let in the light of revolutionary industrial unionism. This renewed interest was largely due to the exchange of ideas with European radicals at international congresses. The policy in Europe and in England has been precisely "the boring from within" policy, and European unions--especially the _Confédération Générale du Travail_ of France--has prospered by it both in numbers and influence. In 1911, William Z. Foster, a member of the I. W. W., visited Europe and made a careful examination of the labor organizations there. He returned fully convinced that the I. W. W. should change its policy on "dual unionism" and begin to "bore from within" the American Federation of Labor.

In connection with the proposal of his name for the office of editor of the _Industrial Worker_ he sent a letter on the subject to that paper. He makes such a cogent exposition of the case against dual unionism that the greater part of it is here given:

The question, "Why don't the I. W. W. grow?" is being asked
on every hand, as well within our ranks as without. And
justly, too, as only the blindest enthusiast is satisfied at
the progress, or rather lack of progress, of the organization
to date. In spite of truly heroic efforts on the part of our
organizers and members in general ... the I. W. W. remains
small in membership and weak in influence. It is indeed time to
examine the situation and discover what is wrong.

The founders of the I. W. W. at its inception gave the
organization the working theory that in order to create a
revolutionary labor movement, it was necessary to build a new
organization separate and apart from the existing craft unions
which were considered incapable of development. This theory and
its consequent tactics has persisted in the organization, and
we later comers have inherited them and, without any serious
investigation, accepted the theory as an infallible dogma.
Parrot-like and unthinking, we glibly re-echo the sentiment
that "craft unions cannot become revolutionary unions," and
usually consider the question undebatable. Convincing arguments
in favor of the theory I have never seen nor heard--I used to
accept it without question like the vast majority of the I.
W. W. membership does now, and in practice it has achieved
the negative results shown by the I. W. W. today with its
membership of but a few thousands. The theory's strength is
due to its being the one originally adopted by the founders of
the I. W. W., and to me this is but a poor recommendation, as
these same founders, in addition to giving us a constitution
manifestly inadequate to our needs and the changing and
ignoring of which occupies a large share of our time, made
the monumental mistake of trying to harmonize all the various
conflicting elements among them into one "Happy Family"
revolutionary organization--a blunder which cost the I. W.
W. three years of internal strife to rectify and one that
gives these founders--who have mostly quit the organization,
anything but an infallible reputation. And if we look about us
a little, at the labor movements of other countries in addition
to considering our own experiences, we will be more inclined
to question this theory that we have so long accepted as the
natural one for the revolutionary labor movement. It has been
applied in other countries and with similar results as here.

The German syndicalist movement, with a practically stationary
membership of about 15,000, is a pigmy compared to the giant
and rapidly growing socialist unions with their 2,300,000
members. The English I. W. W. is ridiculously small and weak;
the German syndicalist organization, the English I. W. W. and
the American I. W. W., using the same dual organization tactics
in the three greatest capitalist countries, are all afflicted
with a common stagnation and lack of influence in the labor
movement. On the other hand, in those countries where the
syndicalists use the despised "boring from within" tactics,
their revolutionary movements are vigorous and powerful.
France offers the most conspicuous example. There the C. G. T.
militants, inspired by the tactics of the anarchists who years
ago, discontented at their lack of success as an independent
movement, literally made a raid on the labor movement, captured
it and revolutionized it, and in so doing developed the new
working-class theory of syndicalism, have for one of their
cardinal principles to introduce [_sic_] competition in the
labor movement by creating dual organizations. By propagating
their doctrines in the old unions and forcing them to become
revolutionary, they have made their labor movement the most
feared one in the world. In Spain and Italy, where the rebels
are more and more copying French tactics, the syndicalist
movements are growing rapidly in power and influence. But it
is in England where we have the most striking example of the
comparative effectiveness of the two varieties of tactics. For
several years the English I. W. W. with its dual-organization
theory carried on a practically barren agitation. About a
year ago, Tom Mann, Guy Bowman and a few other revolutionists,
using the French "boring from within" tactics, commenced in the
face of a strong I. W. W. opposition to work on the old trades
unions, which Debs had called impossible. Some of the fruits of
their labors were seen in the recent series of great strikes in
England. The great influence of these syndicalists in causing
and giving the revolutionary character to these strikes which
sent chills along the spine of international capitalism, is
acknowledged by innumerable capitalist and revolutionary
journals alike.

Is not this striking success of "boring from within" after
continued failure of "building from without" tactics, which is
but typical of the respective results being achieved everywhere
by these tactics, worthy of the most serious consideration on
the part of the I. W. W.? Is it not time that we get up off our
knees before this time-honored dual organization dogma and give
it a thorough examination? And I'll promise--or threaten--that
if I am elected editor the matter will get as thorough an
investigation as lays in my power.... At Berlin a few months
ago Jouhaux, secretary of the C. G. T. [_Confédération Générale
du Travail_], in a large public meeting advised them to give
up their attempt to create a new movement and to get into the
conservative unions where they could make their influence felt.
At Budapest he extended the same advice to the I. W. W. _via_
myself, and I am frank to state that I am convinced that it
would be strictly good tactics for both movements to adopt it.
I am satisfied from my observations that the only way for the
I. W. W. to have the workers adopt and practice the principles
of revolutionary unionism ... is to give up its attempt to
create a new labor movement, turn itself into a propaganda
league, get into the organized labor movement and by building
up better fighting machines within the old unions than those
possessed by our reactionary enemies, revolutionize those
unions even as our French syndicalist fellow-workers have so
successfully done with theirs.[597]

Upon the arrival of Mr. Mann, Mr. Foster again took up the cudgels for the opponents of dual unionism.

Among many of the syndicalists [he said] the sentiment is
strong, and growing ceaselessly, that the tactics followed by
the I. W. W. are bad, and that endeavors should be made inside
the A. F. of L.; that it is in the existing unions that the
syndicalists must struggle without ceasing....[598]

Mr. Mann agreed with him. In a speech published in the _International Socialist Review_[599] he expressed his belief that "if the fine energy exhibited by the I. W. W. were put into the A. F. or L. or into the existing trade-union movement ... the results would be fifty-fold greater than they now are." He went on to "urge the advisability, not of dropping the I. W. W., but certainly of dropping all dual organizations and serving as a feeder and purifier of the big movement." William D. Haywood replied that "it might as well be said that if the fine energy exhibited by the I. W. W. were put into the Catholic church, that the results would be the establishment of the control of industry."[600] He went on to show that it is well-nigh impossible for the unskilled man to get into the A. F. of L., even when he does desire to do so, because of what Haywood characterizes as "a vicious system of apprenticeship, exorbitant fees," _etc._[601] Mr. Haywood's fellow-worker, Joseph J. Ettor, joined him in his attack on Tom Mann's position:

The theory that what is needed to save the Federation is the
energetic and vigorous men who are now in the I. W. W. is on
a par with the "socialist" advice of [_sic_] how to save the
nation; but we don't want to save the Federation any more than
to save the nation. We aim at destroying it. The Socialists
advised us to roll up our sleeves and become active politically
within capitalism--"We must capture the government for the
workers," _etc._ We tried, but the more we fooled with the
beast the more it _captured us_. Our best men went to "bore
from within" capitalist parliaments, and city councils, only
to be disgusted, thrown out, or fall victims of the game and
environment in which they found themselves.... We learned at an
awful cost particularly this: That the most unscrupulous labor
fakers now betraying the workers were once our "industrialist,"
"anarchist" and "socialist" comrades, who grew weary of the
slow progress we were making on the outside, went over, and
were not only lost, but ... became the greatest supporters of
the old and [the] most serious enemies of the new.[602]

Mr Mann's attitude was not appreciably changed during his trip through the United States. His reaction to the situation so far as the principle of "dual unionism" is concerned is explained in an article contributed to a French journal. He wrote:

As the situation appears to me after many deep conversations
and discussions with working men of all conditions, I say
very emphatically that the I. W. W. should work in harmony
with the American Federation of Labor. There is not the least
necessity for having two organizations. The field of action is
wide enough for all to be able to coöperate in the economic
struggle....

The greatest danger to which it [the A. F. of L.] is subject
at present is the firm hold the politicians have on it. Their
influence grows in the unions as well as in the Federation, and
that because the energetic, militant, enthusiastic men (_les
hommes énergiques et ardents_) who comprise the I. W. W. refuse
to work on the inside of the unions, so that they leave a free
field to the politicians, to whom the task becomes relatively
easy.... We know what comes to pass when politicians get
control of the unions and direct them.[603]

In reporting the eighth convention of the "Bummery" I. W. W., the _Weekly People_[604] declared that the St. John crowd was in control and that a wooden shoe was made use of in calling the convention in order and attempting to maintain it in order. This meeting continued in session from the 15th to the 29th of September, 1913. There were present thirty-nine delegates and the seven members of the Executive Board. Three national industrial unions were represented: the Textile Workers by two delegates having thirty-one votes; the Forest and Lumber Workers (formerly the Brotherhood of Timber Workers) by one delegate with thirteen votes; and the Marine Transport Workers by one delegate with forty-two votes. The other thirty-five delegates represented eighty-five local unions with one hundred and ninety-two votes.[605]

Attention has been called to the rather tepid discussion of the problem of centralization at the 1912 convention.[606] During the intervening year this question had called forth such bitter factional animosity in the organization that we find it in 1913 divided into two hostile camps and threatened again with disruption. The issue is significantly comparable to the "states' rights" controversy in our political history. The I. W. W. _administration_ and its supporters were, very naturally, "centralists." They favored a strong federal government for the I. W. W. and attacked the "decentralizers'" program for the emasculation of the general administration and the establishment of a loose confederation of sovereign local unions--the states' rights program in industry. The states' rights doctrine failed of acceptance in the I. W. W. as it has failed in American politics. Nevertheless, the decentralization crisis in the I. W. W. deserves more than passing notice. In the first place, the doctrine was not annihilated in 1913; it was merely smothered. The I. W. W. may yet be "unscrambled." In the second place, this issue is perhaps the most fundamental one ever given wide discussion by the I. W. W. membership. It involves directly the whole question of the structure of the organization, the proper distribution of functions and authority among the several parts of the organization and, indirectly, questions of efficiency in carrying on propaganda and organizing work and of the relative merits of authoritarian (state) socialism and so-called "voluntary socialism." As the two groups lined up at Chicago in 1913, we may say that the controversy between the administration's supporters and the defenders of the local unions was, on the whole, a struggle between the western membership, individualistic and tainted with anarchism, and the eastern membership, more schooled to subordination--infected with state socialism.

The attack of the decentralizers took the form of specific resolutions for the abolition of various features of the general administration and the restriction of the powers of the Executive Board and general officers. The abolition of the office of president in 1906 was in part an expression of this revolt against centralized authority. But now, with the presidency eliminated, with very little organization at the best, with a degree of central power and authority which the United Mine Workers of America would consider mild indeed, and with a constantly shifting membership of less than 15,000, we find that there is actually a little group of western locals which assumes that there is already a dangerous centralization of power and authority at "Headquarters." Some five hundred resolutions were introduced at the convention and a large number of these were assorted decentralist proposals for giving the local union relatively greater power--demands, in other words, for readjustments which were expected to result in increased "local autonomy." This local autonomy was to be secured for the benefit of the "rank and file," _i. e._, the individual members, and particularly for the "rank and file" membership of the "mixed" locals so predominant in the western part of the country. From the standpoint of the mixed local, "the disease within the I. W. W. is ... the gigantic machine formation attempted to be [_sic_] foisted upon it by the authoritarian socialists who presided at its birth...." "Decentralization deals essentially," we are told, "with the right of the locals to _control_ themselves and through their combined wills to run the general organization."[607] Following up the attack, the knights of the rank and file proposed to abolish, _inter alia_, the General Executive Board, the office of the General Organizer, and the national convention![608] One wonders that the Constitution itself was not put bodily on the _index_! Indeed, a year later, a leader in the movement in California did write an article to show that the I. W. W. Preamble is syndicalistic, and the Constitution state-socialistic, therefore that the latter should be abolished.[609] For two weeks the delegates wrangled over propositions of this kind and the general subject of decentralization. Two and a half days were devoted to the proposal to abolish the General Executive Board. This action was desired by locals in southern California and other parts of the West, as well, as by a few of the eastern locals.[610] Concerning their demands, a supporter of the administration said:

They [the decentralizers] claim they will never submit to the
rule of a minority of four or five men.... They do not want to
submit to the rule of the G. E. B. composed of four or five,
but they will submit to the authority of the General Secretary
and the General Organizer whom they want to function in the
place of the G. E. B. The authority of the minority of five or
seven men is something terrible, but the authority and rule of
the minority of two is not so terrible.[611]

The locals of Calgary [Canada], Portland, Oregon, Seattle and Spokane, Washington, and Phoenix, Arizona, presented a resolution asking that "the function of the headquarters [_i. e._, the general administration] be reduced to a mere correspondence agency." No action was taken.[612] "We ... are working ... to overthrow this [wages] system," said a decentralist fellow-worker, "and we claim ... that the rank and file of the proletariat will have to do this themselves." The General Executive Board members, according to this delegate, "place themselves in exactly the same position over these people [the workers] and put themselves in the same [position of] unique power over them as the capitalist class."[613] Said another: "The minority in this organization is ... ruling ... today, namely, the G. E. B. I am certainly in favor of abolishing the G. E. B. I don't see any use for it. I don't see what they can do for the rank and file."[614] According to the majority report of the constitution committee (which was lost) all authority was, in the absence of the G. E. B., to be vested in the General Secretary-Treasurer and the General Organizer, both responsible to the rank and file.[615] In line with the foregoing was a resolution providing for a reduction in the per-capita tax of "mixed" locals from fifteen to five cents per month. The proponents of this resolution insisted that the "mixed" locals bore more than their share of the financial burden--that they practically supported the national organization.[616] The proposition was given extended debate and finally killed. Naturally it was opposed by the General Executive Board.[617]

This attack on the already weak central authority took the form of an attempt, first, to abolish the G. E. B.; second, to cut down the financial support of the general office; third, to abolish the convention and substitute for it the initiative and referendum; fourth, to place agitators under the direct control of the rank and file; and fifth, to make the general officers mere clerical assistants. The only real success achieved by the decentralizers in these efforts in 1913 was the introduction into the I. W. W. constitution of a provision for the initiative and referendum.[618] The introduction of the referendum feature is another illustration of the unconscious tendency to follow the lines of our political development. Note, too, that the I. W. W. referendum advocates hailed from those very states which have recently attracted attention by introducing this feature into their political structure. The I. W. W. is now much more decentralized than it was in 1905 or even 1913, and it appears to be drifting toward further changes in that direction. So far, the movement away from what little centralized power it could boast may be seen in two phases: (1) The abolition of the presidency; (2) the placing of the General Executive Board under the control of a general referendum which can be initiated at any time and upon any subject by request of not less than ten locals in not less than three different industries.

In discussing the proposed abolition of the convention, Delegate B. E. Nilsson asserted that only at the second and fourth conventions had anything worth while been done, and that in both these cases all that had been accomplished had been done against the constitution, and concluded with the statement that "this [eighth convention] has cost us over $3,000 and it isn't worth three cents."[619] Delegate Elizabeth Gurley Flynn advocated the abolition of the convention. She said that it was not genuinely representative, inasmuch as all the locals could not afford to send delegates.[620] The proposal was finally defeated. In general, the decentralizers--anarchistic advocates of the doctrine of the militant minority--found themselves decidedly in the minority, and so far unsuccessful. "Fully a hundred of the resolutions," says one prominent anarchist who attended the convention, "were progressive, favored decentralization, and were fathered, mothered, and nursed by half a dozen militants. But every radical resolution," he thought, "was either lost, laid on the table, or amended so that it was useless. The motion for decentralization was lost by three to one, as was the motion to do away with the G. E. B."[621] Another opponent of centralized authority explained how "for two long and tedious weeks they [the decentralizers] presented their ideas ... and the centralists slaughtered them by the _brute force of voting power_...." "The decentralizers held," lie said, "that a revolutionary movement does not depend [so much] upon votes as it does upon the recognition ... of the fact that all minorities are to have an equal voice ... with the majorities ... [because] the minority is always more militant than the majority."[622] In the same issue which carried this statement, the _Voice of the People_ said editorially:

[The decentralization struggle in the I. W. W. is] a war
between the advocates of "I am going to save myself" and those
of "let me save you."... Centralization in labor unions is
nothing less than government by representation, or political
action. The advocates of centralization in the I. W. W. are
socialists, in fact, if not in profession.... Only when they
repudiate labor-union governmentalism will they become real
direct-actionists.[623]

The "decentralist agitation" first assumed definite form at a conference of the Pacific Coast locals of the I. W. W. held at Portland, Oregon, in February, 1911. At this conference the eight-hours movement, plans for the establishment of agitation circuits for organizers, and--this most of all--the evils of centralized authority were discussed.[624] At this conference was established the Pacific Coast District Organization, known among the I. W. W.s as the "P. C. D. O." This organization was an interesting compromise between the idea of absolutely self-governing locals on the one side and servile locals completely controlled by a bureaucratic national machine on the other. It undertook to exercise some of the sovereign functions of "Headquarters." According to a member of the General Executive Board,

this P. C. D. O. was to have its own due stamp books,
headquarters, General Secretary, General Executive Board, and
paper--this paper was the [_Industrial_] _Worker_. But the P.
C. D. O. made no success ... because of not having a strong
enough ground to build upon in order to interest the western
membership.[625]

It was believed in some quarters--especially at "Headquarters"--that the real purpose of the Western Slope constituency which organized the P. C. D. O. was to disrupt the I. W. W., or to effect a secession from the national body. Some months after the Conference above referred to an editorial appeared in _Solidarity_--the administration, organ. It declared that their purpose

was to disrupt the I. W. W. and form an independent
organization in the West. The Conference itself proposed
that the G. E. B. reduce the _per capita_ [tax] to the P. C.
D. O. to five cents and allow the locals in that district
organization to buy their stamps directly from the district
headquarters.... The final conclusion of the sixth convention
was that such an organization as the P. C. D. O., for purposes
of closer unity, localized activity and propaganda, was fully
justified and should be supported, but efforts to divide or
disrupt the organization as a whole would be fought to the
bitter end.[626]

The administration saw in the P. C. D. O. a very subversive _imperium in imperio_, and when the eighth convention met, the G. E. B. issued the following statement concerning the western promoters of the P. C. D. O. idea:

Decentralization is what they want. To gain this point of
control in the movement, they begin with the officials by
saying they have too much power, and to break up the machine
we must divide up in various parts, do away with the General
Executive Board and the General Office. The first move ... was
... when the scheme of a Pacific Coast District Organization
was launched under the mask of perfecting more organization
[_sic_] in the I. W. W. At the [P. C. D. O.] convention held in
Portland, Ore., they were to establish a western headquarters,
... get control of the western organ, _The Industrial Worker_,
elect their own General Executive Board, and get out their own
due-books and stamps, _etc._ This idea ... is now prevailing in
various sections throughout the organization. The P. C. D. O.
scheme ... failed because of [lack of] support [and] died with
its first convention because of the fact that it smacked of
disruption and decentralization....[627]

In the I. W. W., as in all voluntary organizations covering areas of continental magnitude, doctrines are allocated territorially. There are many points of contrast between the eastern and the western constituencies of the Industrial Workers of the World. At present we are only concerned with the eastern and western attitudes toward the idea of decentralization. The western environment drives the _petit bourgeoisie_ to demand _political_ home rule or local autonomy in legislative government. The result is the recent remarkable spread of the initiative, referendum and recall in the three Pacific Coast states. In these same three states we find the chief strongholds of _industrial_ autonomy. The life of the western proletarian imbues him with the more individualistic kind of rebellion which expresses itself in the more or less coherent demand for an industrial state made up of self-governing local groups of workers. The results have been the partially successful drive from the West for the referendum idea in union government, the chronic decentralist mutterings which have constantly emanated from the West, the open but unsuccessful decentralist attack at the eighth convention and--the P. C. D. O. In the long run the decentralist pressure has had its effect and the organization, as already intimated, is now less centralized than it was a decade ago. The writer realizes that the analogy between western political pioneering and labor-union or industrialist pioneering in that section must not be pushed too far. For example, the ultimate result of I. W. W. decentralization is anarchist communism, which is quite different from the kind of political society resulting from the home-rule and referendum statutes enacted by a middle-class electorate.

The I. W. W. leaders were not unaware of the effect of the geographical environment. B. H. Williams, the editor of _Solidarity_ puts it in this way:

We see in the West, individualism in practice, combined with
a theory of collective action that scoffs at individual or
group initiative by general officers and executive boards and
conceives the possibility of "direct action" in all things
through the "rank and file." Hence the proposal ... for
minimizing the power of the general administration.

He explains that the eastern delegates come from a different environment. Industry in the East is highly developed and centralized. They don't think of Pennsylvania in a geographical sense.

Without the individualistic spirit himself, the eastern worker
nevertheless recognizes the value of individual initiative in
promoting mass action and in executing the mandates ... of the
organization. The problem before the sixth convention was to
preserve the balance between these two sets of ideas. In that
the convention succeeded admirably.[628]

Another industrialist thinks that "the western part of the country, being very little developed industrially, has a tendency to develop individualism in the minds of the workers.... On the other hand, the workers in the large industrial centers develop a strong collectivism which expresses itself in mass action," and which requires a "close[ly] centralized organization."[629]

The western local union is usually a "mixed" union, and it is therefore not directly connected with any "shop" or industry. It is more nearly a propaganda club. It usually has a hall of some kind for meetings, and in many cases this hall is open all the time. Sometimes there is a "jungle kitchen" attached and meals can be served to itinerant Fellow Workers who are passing through. This means that there is naturally more hall-room conversation and less solid "shop talk" in the western local than there is in the strictly industrial shop organization of the East. Many members felt that too much time was wasted in talking politics and religion. At the eighth convention there was some criticism of the loquaciousness of the western "wobbly" and of his personal appearance as well.

To-day you have got to have a man go up and address the public
that looks like a human being [said Delegate Olson]. [See what]
you have got in the western country by their ragged agitators;
you have got nothing but disappointment, and then you holler at
the General Secretary.... If the rank and file were educated
well enough to make use of the organization instead of arousing
animosity they would do away with this spittoon philosophy.[630]

Frank Bohn, in describing the methods by which this group of so-called "spittoon philosophers" in the mixed locals is said to have attempted to disrupt the I. W. W., asks, "Is this chair-warming sect now the leading element in the I. W. W.? Is it in a majority? If it is, the I. W. W. is not dying. It is dead."[631]

Whatever may be the merits or demerits of philosophic anarchism, it is unquestionable that the anarchist--the _naïve_ anarchist, at any rate--is an unmitigated nuisance. Perhaps the General Executive Board had something of this sort in mind when they said that "word pictures of the ideal will not serve to satisfy the cry for bread for any great length of time regardless of how beautifully they may be portrayed ...," and reminded the delegates that "responsibilities, financial, moral and physical, must be met and not shirked."[632] The Board was more specific farther on in its report:

There is an element in the I. W. W. [it declares] whose sole
purpose seems to be to disrupt the organization. We refer to
the syndicalists or decentralizers, as they are all the same,
in their attempt to disrupt the I. W. W.... While we do not
believe in a highly centralized organization, neither is the I.
W. W. such. In fact, it is the most decentralized movement in
the world today. It does not interfere with the action of the
locals as long as they abide by the fundamental principles of
the organization.... We find a situation in the West that if
carried on means a complete disruption of the only industrial
organization in the world. In time of strike they sit around
the hall talking of what ought to be done or devising ways
and means to do away with General Headquarters.... They will
talk of sabotage and direct action but leave it to the boss to
use it on the few who take up the fight. If these conditions
continue, the I. W. W. will die of dry rot.[633]

Delegate Foss, in a despondent moment, remarked that there was "a general tendency to prevent organization of any kind in this [I. W. W.] movement."[634] At another time he remarked: "The western portion of this organization does not need any decentralization. Decentralization has got hold of it now and that is the very reason why this organization has no job control in the West...."[635]

In 1912 the G. E. B. had assured the membership that they were "not unmindful of the danger that will ever live in centralized power," but they asserted that "it does not follow that to centralize the administrative machinery of your organization necessarily means a centralized power," and that "the only means by which centralization of power can be avoided is by correct education and a thoroughly intelligent membership...."[636]

A writer who favored the decentralists says that their defeat was due very largely to their "crudity and inexperience." "Possessed of a red-hot issue, they failed," he said, "to make good with it" partly "because of their unfamiliarity with the principles of decentralization."[637] Alexander Berkman, one of the most prominent anarchists in the United States, regretted the victory of what he might have called the "entrenched oligarchy" at Chicago.

The question of local autonomy [he says], in itself such an
axiomatic necessity of a truly revolutionary movement, has been
so obscured in the debates of the convention that apparently
sight was lost of the fact that no organization of independent
and self-reliant workers is thinkable without complete local
autonomy. It does not speak well either for the intelligence
or spirit of the convention delegates that the efforts of the
decentralists were defeated. The convention has given a very
serious blow to the ... spirit of the social revolution by
[passing] the resolution that the publications of the I. W.
W. should come under the supervision of the General Executive
Board. That is centralization with a vengeance.... We consider
the convention ... a sad failure [and] ... we sincerely hope
that the real militants and revolutionists of the I. W. W. will
take the lesson to heart and exert all their energies to stem
the tide of conservatism and faint-heartedness in the I. W. W.
organization.[638]

In a very interesting article Ben Reitman, another anarchist, has set down his more personal impressions of this eighth I. W. W. convention. After assuring us that 98 per cent of the "extremely interesting crowd" of delegates had in all probability been in prison, but that none of them were criminals, he continues:

As I sat in the hot, stuffy, smoky room of the convention
hall day after day and heard the discussions, and saw how
little regard the delegates had for grammar and the truth, and
realized that most of the delegates knew as much about the
real labor movement as they did about psychology, and that
they cared little about the broad principles of freedom, ...
I marvelled at the big things the I. W. W. have done during
their short career; ... and I said to myself,--"God! Is it
possible that this bunch of pork-chop philosophers, agitators
who have no real, great organizing ability or creative brain
power, are able to frighten the capitalistic class more than
any other labor movement organized in America? Is it true that
this body of politicians were able to send 5,000 men to jail in
the various free-speech fights?... Are these the men who put
a song in the mouth and a sense of solidarity in the heart of
the hobo? Are the activities of these men forcing the A. F. of
L. and the sociologists to recognize the power and necessity
of Industrial Unionism?" And as I looked at the delegates and
recounted their various activities, I felt that each one could
say, "Yes, I'm the guy." And then I wondered how they did
it.[639]

The I. W. W. was by this time developing some slight capacity for introspection. A few of the leaders at any rate clearly understood some of the weaknesses of the organization. The editor of the official organ makes the frank admission that "at present we are to the labor movement what the high diver is to the circus--a sensation marvelous and nerve-thrilling. We attract the crowds ... [but] as far as making industrial unionism fit the every-day life of the worker, we have failed miserably."[640]

FOOTNOTES:

[596] E. Pouget, _La confédération générale du travail_ (2nd ed.), p. 47.

[597] "As to my candidacy," _Industrial Worker_ (II), Nov. 2, 1911.

[598] _The Syndicalist_ (London), March, 1913.

[599] Vol. xiv, p. 394 (Jan., 1914).

[600] "An appeal for industrial solidarity." _International Socialist Review_, March, 1914, vol. xiv, p. 546.

[601] _Ibid._

[602] "I. W. W. _versus_ A. F. of L." _The New Review_, May, 1914. p. 283.

[603] "Impressions d'Amérique," _La Vie Ouvrière_ (Paris), vol. v, pp. 722-723. "Je dis que c'est grand dommage et que cela peut préparer un désastre, que l'admirable ardeur combattive des _industrialists_ actuellement groupés dans le I. W. W. ne s'exerce pas à l'intérieur de la Fédération Américaine du Travail." _Ibid._, p. 723. _Cf._ his pamphlet, _Prepare for Action_, p. 14. For an excellent discussion of dual unionism, see William English Walling, _Labor Union Socialism and Socialist Labor Unionism_ (Chicago, C. H. Kerr Co., 1912), chap. xviii, "The Question of the Moment--Dual Organization" (pp. 90-96).

[604] October 4, 1913. Editorial.

[605] _Proceedings of the Eighth Convention of the I. W. W._, September, 1913, p. 2. The distribution of voting power among the delegates depends, as explained in chapter ii, upon the membership of the locals represented. _Cf._ article iv, section 7, of the I. W. W. Constitution (1914 ed., pp. 14-16).

[606] _Supra_, p. 297.

[607] Covington Hall in _The Voice of the People_, Oct. 9, 1913, p. 2, col. 3.

[608] _Proceedings_, p. 43. All of these resolutions were proposed by a delegate from Phoenix, Arizona. In connection with the resolutions it was "moved and seconded that a committee on style be called for, whose duties shall be to strike from the constitution all references to the powers of the General Executive Board, General Organizer, and General Secretary." _Ibid._

[609] Caroline Nelson, "Economic socialism or State capitalist socialism, Which?" _The Voice of the People_, July 30, 1914, p. 4, col. 3.

[610] _Proceedings_, 8th I. W. W. convention, p. 81.

[611] Delegate Schrager, _ibid._, p. 71, col. 1.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 84, col. 1.

[613] Delegate Van Fleet, _op. cit._, p. 69.

[614] _Ibid._, p. 69 (Fellow-worker McEvoy).

[615] _Ibid._, p. 71.

[616] _Ibid._, p. 112.

[617] _Ibid._, p. 33. An unsuccessful effort had been made at the third convention in 1907 to abolish the initiation fee.

[618] Preamble and Constitution (1914), article vii.

[619] _Proceedings_, p. 117, col. 1.

[620] _Ibid._, p. 118, col. 1.

[621] Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention." _Mother Earth_, October, 1913, vol. viii, p. 240.

[622] G. G. Soltes, "Convention Notes," _Voice of the People_, Oct. 23, 1913, p. 2, col. 3. The italics are not in the original.

[623] "The question of decentralization," p. 2.

[624] Report of Committee. _Solidarity_, Feb. 18, 1911, p. 2, col. 4.

[625] J. M. Foss in his report to the eighth convention, _Proceedings_, p. 37.

[626] _Solidarity_, Oct. 21, 1911, p. 2, col. 3.

[627] Report to the eighth convention, _Proceedings_, p. 36. Some of the delegates at this convention appeared to think that the P. C. D. O. "scheme" was instigated indirectly by the capitalists. Delegate Foss said: "... it is much cheaper for the masters to work within our organization rather than to fight us openly." _Ibid._, p. 38, col. 1.

[628] "The sixth I. W. W. convention," _International Socialist Review_, vol. xii, pp. 301-2, Nov., 1911.

[629] Ewald Koeltgen, "I. W. W. Convention" (8th, 1913), _International Socialist Review_, vol. xiv, p. 275, Nov., 1913. Professor Hoxie took the same general view that decentralization was the slogan of the western membership. "The Truth about the I. W. W.," _Journal of Political Economy_, Nov., 1913. vol. xxi, p. 788.

[630] _Proceedings, Eighth Convention_, p. 52.

[631] _International Socialist Review_, vol. xii, p. 44, July, 1911.

[632] Report of the Eighth Convention, _Proceedings_, p. 37, col. 1, 2.

[633] Report of the Eighth Convention, _Proceedings_, pp. 103-4.

[634] _Ibid._, p. 70.

[635] _Ibid._, p. 56, col. 2.

[636] Report to the Seventh Convention, _Industrial Worker_, Oct. 24, 1912, p. 6, col. 1.

[637] Onlooker, "The Question of Decentralization," _Voice of the People_, Oct. 9, 1913, p. 4, col. 2.

[638] Alexander Berkman, "The I. W. W. Convention," _Mother Earth_, Oct., 1913, vol. viii, pp. 233, 234.

[639] Ben Reitman, "Impressions of the Chicago Convention," _Mother Earth_, October, 1913, vol. viii, pp. 241-242.

[640] Editorial, "Sensationalism _vs._ Organizing Ability," _Solidarity_, Aug. 23, 1913.