Зображення сторінки

the Detroit wing adopted the present W. I. I. U. name and


Daniel De Leon was the first to work out a philo

sophy of industrial unionism.

The W. I. 1. U. is the ortho

dox embodiment of his principles, the I. W. W. merely a


The two differ in their conception of the

political state


therefore in tactics - and in the

allocation of power within the industrial organization,

Instead of looking upon the political State as

the organized might of capitalism, the collective ex

pression of the tremendous power of the capitalists for

the coercion of the working class, the I. W. W. regard

the State as merely a tool of capitalism, an incidental

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

the State is a power worthy of a foeman's steel; they in

variably speak of it with due respect.

But I. W. W.'s

scorn it as the paid servant of capitalism.

There is no

I. W. W. "So poor to do it reverence."

Haywood voiced his opinion in these words:

"Morgan and his associates on Wall Street use the govern

ment at Washington as a tool to serve their ends.


rightly despise the President, the members of the Supreme

Court and Congress, for these politicians are far beneath

them in power and importance.

What laws Wall Street wants

1. One Big Union Monthly, August, 1919, p. 25.

are passed.

In case of a strike, the governor of a state is

used to control the militia and crush the strike.

The feder

al and state judges issue injunctions, that is, they make

such new laws as the trusts want...... All the Democratic and

Republican officials, from dog-catcher to President, are but

1 the hired agents of the empire of industry." In the same way, the trusts control the schools, the press, the church,

2 and even theaters.

Why, then, should they honor the flag?

"As workers,"

they say, "we have no country.

The flags and symbols that

once meant great things to us have been seized by our em


Today they mean naught to us but oppression and


Political government is to them only the flimsy mask

of capitalism, an illusion over which it is futile to waste

[blocks in formation]

to accuse them of not fulfilling their part of the contract

which calls for the protection of the citizens and bringing

to justice of the criminals.

"Our fight is with the secret and invisible govern

ment which is to us neither secret nor invisible.

We know

where that government is located, and we know of what per

sons it is composed.

Its capitol is in Wall Street, and

its officials are the defenders of the private ownership

of the means of production throughout the country.

1. Wm. D. Haywood and Frank Bohn, "Industrial Socialism," 38-9. 2. Ibid. 3. Grover H. Perry, "The Revolutionary I.W.W.,"

" 7.

That government, we frankly confess, we intend to overthrow.


Their position is tersely stated by another writer as follows: "The I. W. W. recognizes but one enemy - capitalist ownership of industry. It has but one goal - workers'

workers' posses

sion of industry.

It takes but one road to reach that goal

unionism on the basis of industry.

We are on the solid ground

of Marxian science when we totally reject any other program of


We see in political government, as in every other so

cial institution, nothing but the reflex of the dominant

ECONOMIC forces.

A reflex is a shadow, and the I. W. W. has

no time to fight shadows.

It would not lift a finger to upset

reform or participate in any political government.

We organ

ize in industry; we fight in industry, to achieve a revolution

in industry.na

Toward the existing State they maintain an attitude

of strict neutrality.

"We have no set political program,"

they explain, "but leave the individual to choose his own

course politically.

However, let it be clearly understood

that we are neither anti-political nor pro-political.


are a labor union and in a sphere of activity that is extra (outside)-political.,3

To carry on propoganda either for or against political action would, they think, be equally useless. Individual members of the I. W. W. may engage in po

litical action if they wish.

In fact, Haywood himself was

1. The One Big Union Monthly, August, 1919, p. 7.
2. Editorial in The New Solidarity, January 24, 1920.
3. George Hardy, "An Address to American Workers," 4.
4. Vincent St. John, "The I.W.W. and Political Parties."

« НазадПродовжити »