Industrial unionism is a product of America, and from America it has to some extent spread to Great Britain.It is the natural form of fighting organization when the union is regarded as the means of carrying on the class war with a view, not to obtaining this or that minor amelioration, but to a radical revolution in the economic system.This is the point of view adopted by the ``Industrial Workers of the World,'' commonly known as the I.W.W.This organization more or less corresponds in America to what the C.G.T.was in France before the war.The differences between the two are those due to the different economic circumstances of the two countries, but their spirit is closely analogous.The I.W.W.is not united as to the ultimate form which it wishes society to take.There are Socialists, Anarchists and Syndicalists among its members.But it is clear on the immediate practical issue, that the class war is the fundamental reality in the present relations of labor and capital, and that it is by industrial action, especially by the strike, that emancipation must be sought.The I.W.W., like the C.G.T., is not nearly so strong numerically as it is supposed to be by those who fear it.Its influence is based, not upon its numbers, but upon its power of enlisting the sympathies of the workers in moments of crisis.
The labor movement in America has been characterized on both sides by very great violence.Indeed, the Secretary of the C.G.T., Monsieur Jouhaux, recognizes that the C.G.T.is mild in comparison with the I.W.
W.``The I.W.W.,'' he says, ``preach a policy of militant action, very necessary in parts of America, which would not do in France.''[29] A very interesting account of it, from the point of view of an author who is neitherwholly on the side of labor nor wholly on the side of the capitalist, but disinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the social question short of violence and revolution, is the work of Mr.John Graham Brooks, called``American Syndicalism: the I.W.W.'' (Macmillan, 1913).American labor conditions are very different from those of Europe.In the first place, the power of the trusts is enormous; the concentration of capital has in this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian lines in America than anywhere else.In the second place, the great influx of foreign labor makes the whole problem quite different from any that arises in Europe.The older skilled workers, largely American born, have long been organized in the American Federation of Labor under Mr.Gompers.These represent an aristocracy of labor.They tend to work with the employers against the great mass of unskilled immigrants, and they cannot be regarded as forming part of anything that could be truly called a labor movement.
``There are,'' says Mr.Cole, ``now in America two working classes, with different standards of life, and both are at present almost impotent in the face of the employers.Nor is it possible for these two classes to unite or to put forward any demands....The American Federation of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World represent two different principles of combination; but they also represent two different classes of labor.''[30] The I.W.W.stands for industrial unionism, whereas the American Federation of Labor stands for craft unionism.The I.W.W.were formed in 1905 by a union of organizations, chief among which was the Western Federation of Miners, which dated from 1892.They suffered a split by the loss of the followers of Deleon, who was the leader of the ``Socialist Labor Party'' and advocated a ``Don't vote'' policy, while reprobating violent methods.The headquarters of the party which he formed are at Detroit, and those of the main body are at Chicago.The I.W.W., though it has a less definite philosophy than French Syndicalism, is quite equally determined to destroy the capitalist system.As its secretary has said:
``There is but one bargain the I.W.W.will make with the employing class-- complete surrender of all control of industry to the organized workers.''[31] Mr.Haywood, of the Western Federation of Miners, is an out-and-out follower of Marx so far as concerns the class war and thedoctrine of surplus value.But, like all who are in this movement, he attaches more importance to industrial as against political action than do the European followers of Marx.This is no doubt partly explicable by the special circumstances of America, where the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless.The fourth convention of the I.W.W.revised a preamble giving the general principles underlying its action.``The working class and the employing class,'' they say, ``have nothing in common.There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.Between these two classes, a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system....Instead of the conservative motto, `A fair day's wages for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword,`Abolition of the wage system.' ''[32] [29] Quoted in Cole, ib.p.128.[30] Ib., p.135.
[31] Brooks, op.cit., p.79.
[32] Brooks, op.cit., pp.86-87.
