Part 41 (1/2)
Here is an invaluable insight into the underlying standpoint of some of these anti-political ”syndicalists,” to use a term that has come to us from France. Nothing could possibly be more alien to the whole spirit of revolutionary Socialism than these conclusions. The very reason for the existence of Socialism is that Socialists believe that the unions cannot control the labor market in present society. The Socialists' chief hope, moreover, is that economic evolution will make possible and almost inevitable the transformation of a capitalist into a Socialist society; it is then to their interest not to r.e.t.a.r.d the development of industry by the restriction of output, but to advance it. Indeed, Mr. d.u.c.h.ez's philosophy is not that of Socialist labor unionism, but of anarchist labor unionism, and there have been strong tendencies in many countries, not only in France and Italy, but also in the United States, especially among the more conservative unions, to be guided by such a policy. It is the essence of Mr. Gompers's program, as I have shown, to claim that ”a partial expropriation of capital” is taking place through the unions, and that by this means, _without any government action_, and _without any revolutionary general strike_ the workers will gradually ”get all they produce.” According to the Socialist view, such a gradual expropriation can only _begin_ after a _political and economic_ revolution, or when, on its near approach, capitalists prefer to make vital concessions rather than to engage in such a conflict.
The leading Socialist monthly in America, the _International Socialist Review_, which has indorsed the new unionism, has even found it necessary recently to remind its readers that the Socialist Party does after all play a certain role and a more or less important one, in the revolutionary movement. ”Representative revolutionary unionists, like Lagardelle of France and Tom Mann of Australia,” said the _Review_, ”point out the immense value of a political party _as an auxiliary_ to the unions. A revolutionary union without the backing of a revolutionary party will be tied up by injunctions. Its officers will be kidnapped.
Its members, if they defy the courts, will be corralled in bull pens or mowed down by Gatling guns.
”A revolutionary party, on the other hand, if it pins its hopes mainly to the pa.s.sing of laws, tends always to degenerate into a reform party.
Its 'leaders' become hungry for office and eager for votes, even if the votes must be secured by concessions to the middle cla.s.s. In the pursuit of such votes it wastes its propaganda on immediate demands.”
The _Review_ adds, however, that a non-political menace of revolution does ten times as much for reforms as any political activity; which can only mean that in its estimation revolutionary strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, etc., are of ten times higher present value than the ballot.
Mr. Tom Mann seems also to subordinate political to labor union action: ”Experience in all countries shows most conclusively that industrial organization, intelligently conducted, is of much more moment than political action, for, entirely irrespective as to which school of politicians is in power, capable and courageous industrial activity forces from the politicians proportionate concessions.... Indeed, it is obvious that a growing proportion of the intelligent pioneers of economic changes are expressing more and more dissatisfaction with Parliament and all its works, and look forward to the time when Parliaments, as we know them, will be superseded by the people managing their own affairs by means of the Initiative and the Referendum.”[260]
The last sentence shows that Mr. Mann had somewhat modified his aversion to politics, for the Initiative and Referendum is a political and not an economic device. His objection to politics in the form of parliamentarism (that is, trusting everything to elected persons, or _representatives_) as distinguished from direct democracy, would probably meet the views of the majority of Socialists everywhere (except in Great Britain).
A later declaration of Mr. Mann after his return from Australia to England shows that he now occupies the same ground as Debs and Haywood in America--favoring a revolutionary party as well as revolutionary unions:--
”The present-day degradation of so large a percentage of the workers is directly due to their economic enslavement; and it is economic freedom that is demanded.
”Now Parliamentary action is at all times useful, in proportion as it makes for economic emanc.i.p.ation of the workers. But Socialists and Labour men in Parliament can only do effective work there in proportion to the intelligence and economic organization of the rank and file....
”Certainly nothing very striking in the way of constructive work could reasonably be expected from the minorities of the Socialists and Labour men hitherto elected. But the most moderate and fair-minded are compelled to declare that, not in one country but in all, a proportion of those comrades who, prior to being returned, were unquestionably revolutionary, are no longer so after a few years in Parliament. They are revolutionary neither in their att.i.tude towards existing society nor in respect of present-day inst.i.tutions. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that many seem to have const.i.tuted themselves apologists for existing society, showing a degree of studied respect for bourgeois conditions, and a toleration of bourgeois methods, that destroys the probability of their doing any real work of a revolutionary character.
”I shall not here attempt to juggle with the quibble of 'Revolution or Evolution,'--or to meet the contention of some of those under consideration that it is not Revolution that is wanted. 'You cannot change the world and yet not change the world.' _Revolution is the means of, not the alternative to, Evolution._ I simply state that a working-cla.s.s movement that is not revolutionary in character, is not of the slightest use to the working cla.s.s.”[261]
If Mr. Mann later resigned from the British Social Democratic Party, this was in part due to the special conditions in Great Britain, as he said at the time, and partly to his Australian experience of the demoralizing effects of office seeking on the Labour Party there. Mann stands with Herve in the French Party and Debs and Haywood in the American. The reasons given for his withdrawal from the British Party embody the universal complaint of revolutionary unionists against what is everywhere a strong tendency of Socialist parties to become demoralized like other political organizations. Mr. Mann, in his letter of resignation, said:--
”After the most careful reflection I am driven to the belief that the real reason why the trade unionist movement of this country is in such a deplorable state of inefficiency is to be found in the fict.i.tious importance which the workers have been encouraged to attach to parliamentary action.
”I find nearly all the serious-minded young men in the Labour and Socialist movement have their minds centered upon obtaining some position in public life, such as local, munic.i.p.al, or county councilors.h.i.+p, or filling some governmental office, or aspiring to become a member of Parliament.
”I am driven to the belief that this is entirely wrong, and that economic liberty will never be realized by such means. So I declare in favor of Direct Industrial Organization, not as _a_ means but as _the_ means whereby the workers can ultimately overthrow the capitalist system and become the actual controllers of their own industrial and social destiny.”
There is little disagreement among Socialists that ”Direct Industrial Organization” is likely to prove the most important means by which ”the workers can ultimately overthrow the capitalist system.” This, the ”industrial unionism” of Debs and Haywood and Mann, is to be sharply distinguished from French ”syndicalism” which undermines all Socialist political action and all revolutionary economic action as well, by teaching that even to-day by direct industrial organization--without a political program or political support, and without a revolution--”a partial expropriation of capital is taking place.”
The advocates of revolutionary labor unionism in America for the most part are not allowing the new idea to draw away their energies from the Socialist Party; it merely serves to emphasize their hostility to the present unaggressive policy of the Executive American Federation of Labor and some of the unions that compose it.
Mr. Haywood (another of Mr. Roosevelt's ”undesirable citizens”) urges the working cla.s.s to ”become so organized on the economic field that they can take and hold the industries in which they are employed.” This view might seem to obviate the need of a political party, but Mr.
Haywood does not regard it in that light. He says:--
”There is justification for political action, and that is, to control the forces of the capitalists that they use against us; to be in a position to control the power of government so as to make the work of the army ineffective.... That is the reason that you want the power of government. That is the reason that you should fully understand the power of the ballot.
”Now, there isn't any one, Socialist, S.L.P., Industrial Worker, or any other working man or woman, no matter what society you belong to, but what believes in the ballot. There are those--and I am one of them--who refuse to have the ballot interpreted for them. I know or think I know the power of it, and I know that the industrial organization, as I have stated in the beginning, is its broadest interpretation. I know, too, that when the workers are brought together in a great organization they are not going to cease to vote. That is when the workers will _begin_ to vote, to vote for directors to operate the industries in which they are all employed.”
In the recent pamphlet, ”Industrial Socialism,” Mr. Haywood and Mr.
Frank Bonn develop the new unionism at greater length. Their conclusions as to politics are directed, not against the Socialist Party, but against its non-revolutionary elements:--
”The Socialist Party stands not merely for the POLITICAL supremacy of labor. It stands for the INDUSTRIAL supremacy of labor. Its purpose is not to secure old age pensions and free meals for school children. Its mission is to help overthrow capitalism and establish Socialism.