You ought to be out raising hell. This is the fighting age. Put on your fighting clothes.
-Mother Jones
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Saturday April 1, 1905
From the International Socialist Review: Bohn and Simons Debate the Manifesto
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
At the January Conference of Industrial Unionists, in order that the cause of Industrial Unionism should be advanced, a truce was called between the Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Party of America. Both organizations played their part in Conference, and relations between representatives of the two socialist parties were civil. However, in this month's issue of the International Socialist Review, we now find a debate on the meaning of the Manifesto between Frank Bohn, organizer for the S. L. P.'s Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance, and A. M. Simons who is the editor of the Review, as well as a member of the S. P. of A. It remains to be seen whether or not the once bitter rivals will be able to co-exist within the same organization.
From the International Socialist Review of April 1905:
Concerning the Chicago Manifesto.
[by Frank Bohn]
Frank Bohn
``````````
THE Manifesto, beside being a call for a Convention, is a general statement of workingclass conditions, of the principles which should underlie industrial organization, and of the ideal by which such an organization should be animated. That men who have been accustomed to viewing the American Labor Movement from different points should place different interpretations upon the text of the Document, is but natural. Organized Labor is undoubtedly in a critical state of evolution. Various elements, hitherto kept apart by fundamental tactical differences, are now given opportunity to work, if possible, in unison.
Perfect accord may be unattainable. But the Manifesto does state certain facts. These facts leave to the June Convention not a formulation of principles, but a definite working out of a plan of organization based upon the principles set forth in the Manifesto. If harmony is to characterize the deliberations of the Convention, the nature of these fundamentals should be settled at once by mutual discussion on the part of those favorably disposed to the new movement. In the following remarks I am forced to take a position quite at variance with that outlined in the leading editorial of the February number of this Review. But I believe that I am expressing the opinion of quite a majority of those present at the Chicago Conference.
First, as to the "Timeliness" of the proposed movement. Regarding this feature the editorial in question contains the following statement:
The one question then is, is the present the proper time for such a change to come? If it is not, then this organization will be a thing born out of due time, a cause of disorder, confusion and injury.
This question of "Timeliness" requires a double answer:
(1) The members of the Chicago Conference quite unanimously held that a Socialist political movement, unsupported by an industrial, classconscious union, is doomed to a hopeless chasing of rainbows. Hence, whenever and wherever the time is ripe for a Socialist movement, it cannot be unripe for industrial unionism.
(2) On the economic field, apart from the Socialist political movement, all that the Editor can mean by putting the question of "Timeliness," is whether economic conditions are ripe for a bona fide Working Class organization instead of a bogus, craft-divided, Capitalist-owned machine. Certain features of the European Working Class movement may suggest an answer to this phase of the question.
The Socialists of Germany, over thirty years ago, "smashed" the "pure and simple" organization promoted by Schulze-Delitsch, because those organizations were founded upon crookedness and ignorance. Was not this classic bit of "Union-wrecking" timely? But the industry of Germany a generation ago was conducted almost solely by petty capitalist concerns; and the German Working Class had at that time no experience in organization.
Russia is still in an extremely backward industrial condition. Yet when her officials came to the United States with the purpose of studying the perfect methods here developed by the "Labor Leaders" for keeping the workers in subjection and ignorance; and when those officials returned to Russia and proceeded to make use of the newly-learned methods in preference to those developed by their own Autocracy, shall we question the "Timeliness" of our Russian comrades' opposition to "pure and simpledom?"
George Estes, Secretary
Conference of Industrial Unionists
``````````
In connection with these observations, those interested should not fail to read George Estes' article in the February number of The Voice of Labor entitled, "The Wolf Has Shown His Teeth." In it the writer shows to what brutal, horrible lengths the A. F. of L. bosses and grafters are going in their frenzied efforts to destroy the A. L. U. (and, we might add, all industrial unions). No wonder the article contains the most drastic indictment of the A. F. of L. ever penned. "Of course," says Estes, "such utterly disreputable methods as these are so degraded in character that a Zulu, an inhabitant of the Fiji Islands or even a cannibal of the South Sea, would scorn to employ them. The wolf has shown his teeth." [Surely there are enough American Capitalist Cannibals feasting on the life blood of little children, that we need not make any comparisons to peoples of other continents!]
If in Estes' mind there is any doubt as to whether this is the proper occasion to attack the A. F. of L., it does not appear at first reading of this article.
A generation after the publication of the Communist Manifesto the A. F. of L. was launched by fakirs and ignoramuses and dedicated to the proposition that slavery should endure forever. When, in the early 90's, a class-conscious Socialist movement had developed it found itself face to face with its most deadly enemy, the Capitalist A. F. of L. To carry the warfare into the camp of this sneaking opponent, and at the same time to train the workers for self-government under Socialism, the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was organized in 1895.
The teeth of the wolf were then sharper than those which are now sinking into the flesh of the A. L. U. in the West. But no one who then under stood the movement questioned the "Timeliness" of attacking the beast with every weapon in the armory of the class-conscious forces. The so-called "Good-Times" of 1897-1902, made the struggle intensely bitter. By juggling figures the A. F. of L. attempted to prove that it was "raising the wages of the working- class." All but the staunchest opponents chose the "easier road to Socialism." Or, to use Hagerty's newly-coined expression, the "pure and simple political Socialist" movement was launched. And so matters hung for some time. But now the stench of rotting "pure and simpledom" is driving its cleaner adherents to Socialism and industrial unionism.
For a Socialist to attack the leaders of the A. F. of L. and then partially excuse the system of which they are the natural fruitage, is exactly as reasonable as for him to attack the leaders of the Republican and Democratic Parties and then hastily make amends to the organizations themselves. Are Gompers and Mitchell "worse" than the Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, one of the "constituent organizations" which was organized by the great capitalists for the purpose of beating down at once the small capitalists and the workers? It really does seem peculiar to so often hear it scientifically explained that Dick Croker and J. Edward O'Sullivan Addicks are but the natural product of capitalist politics, and then listen to the same person say, probably in all sincerity, that if the "clique" which rules the A. F. of L., were only dynamited, all would be lovely in the labor unions.
The A. F. of L, considered from the point of view of the workers' interests, is a patchwork of hypocrisy and lies. Such it always has been. And such it will be until destroyed, root and branch, by an outraged rank and file. That the workers put no faith in the fallacy that a few "leaders" are responsible is shown by the desertion of hundreds of thousands who refuse longer to have anything to do with the old thing. (See Manifesto, from Alpha to Omega).
Nor is the transformation from such a negation of all rectitude as is the A. F. of L., to the principles of organization laid down by the Manifesto so easy as at first blush it may appear. As to "boring from within," the editorial in question declares not only that this method should be pursued, but also that "the place for a man is within the union of his craft." How different from this has been the position of those who, all along, have favored industrial unionism.
If "the place for a man is within the union of his craft," we wonder what would happen to the United Brotherhood of Railway Employes, the United Brotherhood of Builders, or any others who wish, through working class organizations, to save themselves from the tar-barrel of craftism. The Manifesto expressly provides that workers who may rebel against the "unions of their craft" may be seated in the June Convention as individuals. For, undoubtedly, many who cannot be represented by delegates, will prefer fighting the wolf from the outside to being swallowed up with the questionable purpose of directing the brute's movements from the in side.
Furthermore, we are told that "the trade union that connects itself with the new organization need not in any way alter internal organization and management." The editorial had previously pointed out that the A. F. of L. "official clique," through "highly paid organizers," made it a business "to organize trade-unionists into rings and factions for the purpose of maintaining the rule of the leaders." Now the Manifesto declares that, in the new organization, "All power should rest in the collective membership." Does this not suggest some little alteration as to "internal management?"
Then as to reorganization—the change from craftism to the class-conscious industrial principle so boldly proclaimed by the Manifesto—does this not mean a right-about-face as to the whole nature and purpose of organization? We think it does. The class-conscious spirit is not had for the asking. Its possession on the part of the workers of this country within the next ten years means that all the means of education we can bring to bear must be added to the primal force of present economic conditions.
Finally, no false impression should be created by that sentence of the Manifesto, which, perhaps more than any other, was deemed essential to the success of the new movement:
It should be established as the economic organization of the Working Class, without affiliation with any political party.
As regards this crucial matter, the Conference provided against possible misinterpretation of the sentence quoted, in other and equally significant articles:
(1) Craft divisions foster political ignorance among the workers, thus dividing their class at the ballot-box, as well as in the shop, mine and factory.
(2) It (the present economic organization) is blind to the possibility of establishing an industrial democracy, wherein there shall be no wage-slavery, but where the workers shall own the tools which they operate and the products of which they alone enjoy.
Every industrial unionist 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 (labor-trusts), to prevent the decrease of wages. Its mighty mission results from the fact that it prepares the way to the Socialist Republic, the final goal of any honest Working Class movement. And this way cannot be traveled without the possession of political power.
Many industrial unionists may oppose Socialism through mere ignorance. But most political "Socialists" who fight industrial unionism are about as deeply imbued with Socialism as was Judas Iscariot with Christianity. Socialist to the core must the new economic organization be, or the storm of the class-struggle will beat up another wreck on the rocks of "time-serving diplomacy." And when the June Convention has painted the skull and crossbones 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 [it will be] raised by the revolutionary spirit high above "mere vote-getting subterfuge."
Frank Bohn,
Organizer Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance.
[Paragraph breaks and photographs added.]
A. M. Simons Responds to Bohn:
A Reply.
THERE are some things in the preceding article by Comrade Bohn which require immediate notice. Others will be covered in a later article which I have in preparation for the press on the general subject of industrial unionism, and still others are covered by the editorial in this number. In the first place it should be thoroughly understood that neither Comrade Bohn nor myself speak for anybody but ourselves, at least so far as the industrial union conference or the Socialist Party is concerned. I do not know to how great a degree he directly represents De Leon and the S. L. P. and S. T. and L. A. As is pointed out editorially the statement that "the Socialists of Germany over thirty years ago smashed the pure and simple organization promoted by Schulze-Delitzsch" is absolutely untrue.
These unions were never smashed but are still going on and growing in strength, although very much slower than the Socialist unions. He makes a sweeping statement concerning the A. F. of L.: "A generation after the publication of the Communist Manifesto the A. F. of L. was launched by fakirs and ignoramuses and dedicated to the proposition that slavery should endure forever. When, in the early 90's a class-conscious Socialist movement had developed it found itself face to face with its most deadly enemy, the Capitalist A. F. of L." Such talk as this is pure bosh and utterly unworthy of a man who has shown himself capable of the scholarly work that Comrade Bohn has done in some of his writings.
The fact of the thing is that nowhere is Socialism growing faster than within the unions connected with the A. F. of L. If this were not true then the industrial union would have stood little chance of success. To compare the leaders of the A. F. of L. to the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties is also mere vituperative gymnastics. A man who goes into a pure and simple union goes in because economic conditions have forced him to do so. He goes in because he thinks he is fighting his boss and in a great majority of cases he is doing so, the existence of labor fakirs notwithstanding. The capitalist political party organization is formed to carry out certain purposes of the capitalist class in a wholly different field.
Some misunderstanding was possible with regard to my statement that there need be little change in the internal management of unions affiliated with the new organization. Yet even here there is no such transformation as Comrade Bohn talks about. Very many of the pure and simple unions provide for the initiative referendum and certainly are more nearly controlled by their membership than the S. T. and L. A. Again, if it is true that the new union is to be less powerful on the economic field than the pure and simple unions but is simply to constitute a new Socialist political party jabbering a lot of jargon about general strikes and installing its officers as rulers of the cooperative commonwealth, then it is doomed to a short and sickening life.
A. M. Simons.
[Paragraph breaks and photograph added.]
---------------
SOURCE
The International Socialist Review, Volume 5
-Algie Martin Simons, Charles H. Kerr
Charles H. Kerr & Company, July 1904 - June 1905
https://books.google.com/...
ISR of April 1905
http://books.google.com/...
Concerning the Chicago Manifesto." by Frank Bohn
http://books.google.com/...
"A Reply" from A. M. Simons
http://books.google.com/...
See also:
Debate between Daniel DeLeon and Job Harriman
on "pure and simple" trade unionism.
pdf!http://debs.indstate.edu/...
IMAGES
SLP Button
https://www.marxists.org/...
SPA Button
http://www.marxists.org/...
Frank Bohn
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
George Estes
http://cdnc.ucr.edu/...
AM Simons
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Sliver Threads Among the Gold
The Old Toiler's Message
"Darling I am growing old,''
So the toiler told his wife.
"Father Time the days have tolled
Of my usefulness in life.
Just tonight my master told me
He can't use me any more.
Oh, my darling, do not scold me,
When the wolf comes to our door.''
CHORUS:
To the scrap heap we are going
When we're overworked and old
When our weary heads are showing
Silver threads among the gold.
"Darling, I am growing old,''
He once more his wife did tell
"All my labor pow'r I've sold
I have nothing more to sell.
Though I'm dying from starvation
I shall shout with all my might
To the coming generation,
I shall shout with all my might."
-Joe Hill
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````