Source: The Worker (New York), May 5th, 1906, Vol. 16, No. 5.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, April, 2023.
Note: This article was typed out by sight rather than the typical method of OCR software. Words that I had to guess that were partially or completely illegible have been identified with [editor's brackets] in this transcription.
This article was written for a symposium on “the relation of the Socialist Party to the Trade Unions” hosted in the pages of The Worker over the course of 1906. Ernest Untermann’s article was published as the first contribution to the debate. The editor of The Worker introduced him as “a strong advocate of the I. W. W. and one of its founders”, which is ironic considering Untermann’s later position of vehement opposition to the IWW and publications sympathetic to it.
This article was also the catalyst for a letters-page polemic between Louis B. Boudin and Untermann. Later contributions to the symposium include an article by Eugene V. Debs and a concluding article by Untermann summarizing the whole symposium, which has not yet been transcribed, but is available as a microfilm scan in the October 6th, 1906 issue of The Worker.
The difference between modern industrial unionism and other forms of unionism is that between science and utopia. Modern industrial unionism, as advocated by the Industrial Workers of the World, is the application of Marxian principles to the economic organization of the working class. The same principles which distinguish the modern Socialist parties from the various pre-Marxian forms of Socialism distinguish modern industrial unionism from its predecessors.
The cardinal principles of scientific Socialism are the class struggle and the materialist conception of history. The I. W. W. stands on these principles.
Craft organization is utopian in aims and organization. It had its historical justification, just as utopian Socialism had. But it must give way to its scientific successor on the economic field just as utopian Socialism had to give way to its scientific successor on the political field.
Scientific Socialism went thru various stages of trial and perfection, before it reached its present form. So did industrial unionism have its advancing stages of development, after the first idea of it had been conceived.
Industrial unionism aims to create an environment in which the various local organizations shall co-operate democratically under a central office in the same natural way in which the employees of a great industrial corporation now co-operate under the aristocratic control of their central office. The I. W. W. is one single union, with so many locals, and stands unitedly arrayed against the exploiting classes. The A. F. of L., on the other hand, is a federation of crafts and has never moved as one body against the capitalist class.
With class-struggle tactics and a unified organization, industrial unionism becomes a true class-formation of the workers, which is the natural reflex of the actual structure of modern industry.
This form of organization tends to do away with the causes of economic differences among the local, or individual, organization. The craft organization of the A. F. of L., on the other hand, breeds economic differences and prevents unified action on the economic field.
There are many other essential differences between industrial unionism and craft unionism, but these are the most fundamental ones. Any one desiring more information on this point may study the Chicago manifesto of the industrial conference and compare the constitution and by-laws of the I. W. W. with those of the A. F. of L.
Of course, political differences still exist among the members of the I. W. W., the same as they do among those of the A. F. of L., and naturally so, since recruits must be gathered among people of many minds and affiliations. But the application of Marxian principles on the economic field gradually compels an ever increasing recognition of these principles in politics, especially since their frank discussion and propagation is a part of the organization’s policy.
That this education requires time, is well known. Have we not even in the Socialist Party still all shades of opinion on political tactics, from an advocacy of open primaries without a test of membership to a repudiation of a state and municipal program? No consistent Socialist can find fault with the I. W. W. because this young organization is showing some symptoms which are still very palpable in the much older Socialist Party.
It is admitted by every clear and fair thinker among our Socialist opponents that the industrial form of organization is vastly superior to craft organization, so far as economic effectiveness is concerned. But it is claimed by some of these thinkers that the industrial form of organization has no influence in converting the masses to Socialism.
If it were merely a question of deciding the absolute superiority of any form of organization over another, regardless of time and place, then this admission of the superiority of industrial unionism in the economic class struggle would seem to be an all-sufficient argument in favor of the adopted of this form of organization by all labor unions. But we, as Marxian Socialists, are not looking for absolute principles. We know that principles have certain historical causes, and that each historical period has its own dominating principle. We also know that men do not adopt any dominating principle at the advice of dogmatists, but because conditions compel them to adopt it if they wish to survive.
This is the scientific way of looking at this question. To couple this admission with the denial that such an organization is an effective instrument of political propaganda is a confusion of issues. From the point of view of the labor unionist who has to decide for or against industrial unionism, the sole question at issue is whether it is a mere effective economic organization at a definite stage of historical development. He does not concern himself with the political aspect of the question, so far as he is a labor unionist.
For the Socialist, on the other hand, not only the political superiority of either form of organization, but also their historical timeliness, are very essential questions. But if it could be proved that industrial unionism has no influence in converting a man to Socialism, it would still remain to be proved that craft unionism is superior to industrial unionism in this respect. However, the admission of the economic superiority of industrial unionism implies the admission of its political superiority. If this is denied, I challenge the dissenting side to explain how a labor union which is economically inferior to industrial unionism can be superior to it along lines of political propaganda. If this could be so, then historical materialism, one of the cardinal principles of Socialism, would be a failure as a method of historical research, or, if historical materialism itself could explain this contradiction, we should be face to face with the most stupendous exception to its claims ever witnessed.
According to historical materialism, the economic environment molds political thought. If industrial unionism is economically superior to craft unionism, and even our opponents admit it to be so, then it follows that it must also suggest political thoughts superior to those of craft unionism. If not, why not?
Of course, you cannot use the materialist conception of history like a stencil which you may slap indiscriminately over any special case of any historical stage without further ceremony. That craft divisions are wiped out by capitalist development, has already been said in the Communist Manifesto. But they are not wiped out in all countries at the same time and in the same way. The attempt to adopt the industrial form of organization at periods when craft organization was still the best adapted form has led to more than one failure. And so has the attempt to keep alive corpses beyond their times of usefulness. But what does that prove against industrial unionism at a stage when IT is becoming the best adapted form? We have seen in the Socialist movement the same attempts to force progress by decreeing principles from above, or to arrest historical development by resolutions, instead of simply interpreting facts of capitalist and proletarian evolution scientifically and applying them in the same way. The failures of the so-called industrial unionism of the past prove no more against modern industrial unionism than the so-called failures of Socialism prove against scientific Socialism. Does any one blame the Socialist philosophy for the mistakes of those who did not know what to do with it? Same here.
The question: Industrial unionism or craft unionism? involves a principle of economic organization. The question of the way in which this principle is to be applied, whether by boring from within or organization from without, is a problem of tactics. Both principle and tactics must be settled by the labor unions, not by the Socialist Party. Whether I, as a unionist, champion one or the other of these economic principles, has nothing to do with my membership in the Socialist Party, and cannot be made a test of loyalty to Socialist principles. At most it may be said to be a test in the correct application of the Socialist philosophy to a definite problem of historical evolution. But this test cannot be decided at present by any Marxian judges. History itself will decide whether we or our opponents applied Marxian science correctly.
While this controversy has its practical source, not in the Socialist Party, but in the economic organizations of the working class, and must be settled by them, yet the Socialist Party is the theoretical adviser of its members and owes a definite declaration on this question to those of its members who are directly interested in it as labor unionists. But so far the party has not pronounced itself on this issue. It has indeed a trade union resolution. But this resolution deals only with a question of tactics, not with that of the economic principle. This question of principle must be settled before we can intelligently agree on the question of tactics.
At the national convention of the Socialist party, in 1904, the industrial unionists of the West tried to bring this issue before the delegates and get a scientific statement regarding it from the party. But not being very skilled parliamentarians, and guilelessly trusting to the intelligence and comradeship of their co-workers, they anticipated no difficulty in this matter, and took no precautions to insure a clear statement of their issue. They hoped to be able to present their case in debate when the trade union resolution would come up for discussion.
However, the issue never came before the convention. The trade union committee consisted almost entirely of A. F. of L. men, who were apparently ignorant of the fundamental cause which lay at the bottom of the Western labor movement. And instead of giving us a scientific resolution, and discussing the issue fairly and squarely, the majority of the convention never learned what the Western comrades really wanted. Thru a complication of various circumstances, those who could have told them what was the trouble, and who could have cleared up the whole confusion by a few words, never succeeded in getting the floor. So the whole debate raged for hours over the minor point of tactics, that of boring from within or from without, while the question which should have been settled first, namely, whether the industrial or the craft principle was historically the correct one in modern times from the point of view of the Socialist philosophy, was not discussed at all.
Now, the peculiar thing about that trade union debate was that a convention of the Socialist Party was discussing something which did not belong to its jurisdiction. The debate hinged on the tactical question: Shall we, as unionists, work for industrial unionism within or without the A. F. of L.? But all the tactics which the Socialist Party would have had a right to discuss would have been: Shall we, as Socialists, work for Socialism within or without the A. F. of L.? Not only were these two very distinct questions confused, and brought before the convention in this confused form, but they were also discussed before the real issue had been settled, namely: Shall we, as Socialist members of labor unions, work for or against the adoption of industrial unionism?
The question of this economic principle DID fall within the scope of the Socialist party as the theoretical adviser of the class-conscious proletariat. While the Socialist Party is not called upon to ADOPT this principle, it has nevertheless the duty to PRONOUNCE itself on the question, whether it considers the principles of industrial unionism as in line with the Marxian conception of history at the present stage, or as not in line with it.
If the party answered that industrial unionism was not in line with Marxian thought, then the Socialists in the A. F. of L. retained the same status as before, while that of the Socialists in the Western labor movement was questioned. In that case, some friendly advice could have been tried, or matters left to the decision of history. If, on the other hand, the party answered that industrial unionism was the coming form of organization, then it would have been up to the Socialists in the A. F. of L. to bring the question of industrial unionism to an issue at the conventions of their organizations. If then it was decided to continue the policy of boring from within, then the policy of boring for Socialism within the A. F. of L. was also retained. But if it was decided to leave the A. F. of L. and join the industrial unions, then that settled at the same time the question of boring from the outside for Socialism.
But matters did not go that way. Before the Socialists in the A. F. of L. had settled these difficulties among themselves, they came before the convention of the Socialist Party and proceeded to give advice to those who had already taken a definite stand in the matter. And in giving this advice, they left the main issue entirely out of consideration.
Since this issue was not taken up, and still less answered by the trade union resolution of the Socialist Party, I among others was reluctantly compelled to vote against this resolution. What I wanted was a scientific labor union resolution, not a craft union resolution which pronounced itself on a question of economic tactics and shirked the settlement of the economic principle to which these tactics referred.
Most of the Western men felt as tho the Socialist Party had given them a kick for trying to call attention to a new alignment in economic labor organization. But the party had not realized at all that something important was going on in labor circles. Most of the editors, writers, and speakers of the Socialist Party have not realized it even now. Being left without the advice of the party, those who had to face the new problems had to decide for themselves. The result was the industrial conference in 1905 and the formation of the I. W. W.
The Socialist Party has felt the effect of that mistake at its convention ever since. It has felt it all the more because very few of its publications have ever tried to discuss the question of this economic principle on its merits. Most of them have rather persisted in continuing that confusion of principle and tactics which was so characteristic of the trade union debate in the convention. I have not seen one single scientific argument against the principle of industrial unionism in any of the Socialist papers opposing us, until The Worker recently made a feeble attempt in this direction by its articles on “The Socialist Party and the Trade Unions”. On the contrary, there has been an abundance of slurs, sneers, insinuations of dishonesty, infamy, fakirdom, etc., and even worse things. As the denouncing and maligning were means of arresting a historical development or sound arguments that belonged in the mouths of men who claim to be scientific Socialists!
I do not refer to such papers as “Die Wahrheit” [The Truth] (“Die Luge” [The Lie] would be a better name for it) or the “Social Democratic Herald”, which lowered the discussion to a level which prevented any self-respecting man from honoring them with a reply. But even such decent papers as The Worker have insinuated that the whole I. W. W. was rotten and unfit to live because a few S. L. P. and S. T. & L. A. members had joined us. And yet a recent issue of The Worker shows that the whole strength of the S. L. P. and S. T. & L. A. combined constitutes but one-sixth of the membership of our organization. And, may it please the court, even the S. L. P. and S. T. & L. A. are not wholly composed of scoundrels.
The same issue of The Worker tears its hair over the continued fight of the headquarters of the I. W. W. against the officers of the capmakers, and insinuates that a continuation of this fight at a time when the lives of the Western Federation men are at stake is the height of infamy. This is called trading upon the lives of our comrades, and we are asked how any man who counts himself a Socialist can support such an organization. I should like to hear from our arrested comrades whether they are of the same opinion as the writer of that screed in The Worker. I want to ask the writer of that virtuous outcry whether he feels that he must leave the Socialist Party every time some member commits and outrage, and whether the I. W. W., or for that matter the Socialist Party, are to suspend their entire activity, because a few men happen to commit acts which run counter to the ethical standards of the majority of their members? Or whether the principles of industrial unionism, or of Socialism, are in any way altered by the sins of some industrial unionists or Socialists?
If anything infamous is being done in the I. W. W., kindly leave it to the current members of that organization to take care of the matter. Don’t let some members of the Socialist Party worry about matters that will be settled by the members of the I. W. W. If the writer of that screed with oppose S. L. P. tactics in the Socialist Party as vigorously as I and others are opposing them in the I. W. W., The Worker will save much valuable space for stuff that is really worth printing. Let the writer of that screed remember that charity begins as home, and let him extract the S. L. P. beam out of his own eye before he wails about the S. L. P. mote in ours.
The name of Karl Marx has been thrown up to us, and we have been told that the advice he gave once upon a time to Hamann, concerning the mutual relations of the economic and political organizations of the working class, might very well have been heeded by us. I want to say, in the first place, that this advice comes with bad grace from those who were the first to disregard it. Our most frenzied antagonists are those who insisted on putting into the trade union resolution of the Socialist Party a clause which amounts practically to an endorsement of the A. F. of L. (See Proceedings of the National Convention of the Socialist Party, Chicago, May, 1904.) In the second place, Marx is a poor authority to quote in matters of tactics. I am the last to deny the genius of Marx in discovering the fundamental principle of modern working class evolution and demonstrating them scientifically. But the only valuable suggestion made by Marx in matters of tactics is that they must vary according to time and place. And he violated his own declaration when he recommended a course to the union convention of the Eisenachers and Lassalleans of Germany, in 1875, which was not practicable until 25 years later, and which had to be declined at that time. (See Liebknecht’s “Biographical Memoirs”, pages 43, 73, and 74.[a]) He was also glad to acknowledge his mistake, after the historical development had proved that he had been wrong. “Volkszeitung”, please copy.
In the third place, the comrades in the A. F. of L. are the last who are entitled to complain about “the division of labor on the economic field” as a result of our step. If labor is divided anywhere, it is so in the A. F. of L.
Craft organization, the present prevailing form of organization in the A. F. of L., is one of the most potent means of dividing labor not only on the economic, but also on the political field. And if a few of its organizations have adopted the principle of industrial unionism and are championing it, this is but an added source of division in that organization, for you cannot make industrial unionism effective under the control of craft organizations, any more than you can introduce Socialism piecemeal under capitalism.
And there is precisely the rub. It was pure assumption, in more than one sense, on the part of the comrades who drafted that ingenious trade union resolution of the Socialist Party, to insinuate that political differences of opinion were the cause of the independent organization of the Western labor movement. The fundamental reason for that organization was an economic one. It was the impossibility of harmonizing the Western trend toward industrial organization with the belated craft organization of the A. F. of L. The endorsement of Socialist principles by the American Labor Union did not occur until long AFTER the Western labor movement had developed a pronounced type of industrial organization. This trifling circumstance escaped the astute minds of the drafters of utopian resolutions.
But why didn’t the Western men work for industrial unionism in the A. F. of L. instead of organizing a rival movement? Wait a minute. If the Socialist Party has a right to declare officially that political differences of opinion do not justify the division of labor on the economic field, then some labor organization might truly retort that economic differences of opinion do not justify the division of labor on the political field. There is the boomerang. And it hits hard. Just remember a little of the past history of the Socialist Party in this country, particularly in New York, and you will see, and feel, the point.
But, as a matter of fact, both statements are platonic platitudes. They say neither more nor less than that the working class ought to be economically and politically united. Yes, they ought to be. But such platitudinous declarations will not make them so. The question is: What are the fundamental causes which keep them divided, what are the principles which will unite them, and how do we apply these principles so as to be in line with the historical requirements of the situation? It is not so easy to solve this question as it is to write wise and meaningless resolutions or to call the other fellow names. The solution of this problem is a scientific accomplishment. The writing of that trade union resolution, or that screed in The Worker, was unscientific, utopian.
It is not for the scientific Socialist, and still less for the Socialist Party, merely to ASK why a man should prefer to work for a certain principle outside of a certain organization rather than inside of it, but to EXPLAIN it by means of the materialist conception of history. The reasons which induce one man to cling to a long cherished organization may be quite as imperative and sound as those which compel another to leave that organization. An understanding of historical materialism must force upon us the logical conclusion that the policy of boring from within will find at present a fitting environment just as well as the policy of boring from without. Let those who are firmly attached to the A. F. of L., but who recognize that the struggle for adaptation to the present industrial conditions requires the adoption of industrial unionism, work for this principle within their organization. Let those whose temperament and past experience prompts them to work with the I. W. W. devote themselves to this organization. That is a “division of labor” which is scientific, because it is inevitable and natural. How long it shall last is for historical development to say. One thing is certain: industrial unionism is that form of adaptation by means of which organized labor is best [fitted] to survive at the present historical period. Of two organizations that which is best adapted will surely survive, and the other will [disintegrate]. Or, if they both adopt the same principle, the main cause of friction between them will be removed, and the rank and file will come together spontaneously into one solid industrial organization, regardless of the wishes of a few leaders.
So far as I am concerned, I shall be quite ready to follow the example of Marx and acknowledge that I have made a mistake, as soon as historical development shall have proved it so. Just now the facts seem to point the other way. However, I am open to conviction by scientific argument.
It has never occurred to me, nor will it in the future, to ask the Socialist Party for an endorsement of the I. W. W. Neither have I ever thought of asking the I. W. W. for an endorsement of the S. P., or any other party. I shall oppose any such endorsement. But at the same time I realize that the Socialist Party might adopt a scientific labor union resolution as readily as a utopian one. In fact, I think it is high time that the Socialist Party should vindicate its scientific pretensions by clearly formulating and voicing thoughts which have been agitating the brains of thousands of its members for years. Let the Socialist Party give us a labor union resolution which shall be a scientific interpretation of the present tendencies in the organized labor movement, and which shall be free from utopian admixtures that confuse rather than solve the problem.
This is what I am working for, as a scientific Socialist who is also a labor unionist, and what I must work for, if I wish to be true to Marxian principles.
[a] Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs; search for “It was in 1874”. Ernest Untermann also translated this book into English, which may explain his familiarity with it.
Last updated on 10 April 2023