Amalgamation/Chapter 2
CHAPTER II.
The Incapacity of Craft Unionism
UNIONS of workingmen have existed from the earliest times. Solomon's temple was a union job. Imperial Rome went down before the sword of the "barbarians" after its corrupt and greedy plutocracy, composing only 2% of the population, had gobbled up all wealth of the vast empire and reduced its workers to chattel slavery, a climax towards which our own empire builders are heading with hastening steps. During the middle ages the union workers lived and worked in their own homes, each craft occupying a separate section of the walled cities. The unions were known as guilds and included employers and workers. In those days employers were themselves workers and never employed more than a few men and apprentices.
The modern craft union, composed of workers only, is a product of capitalism. As the employers became rich and the number of their employers became large the clash of economic interests were intensified. Then the workers began to see that their interests were not identical with the interests of the employers. So they withdrew from the guilds and formed their own organizations, In our times ignorant and designing men in the labor movement have preached the false doctrine of the identity of interest between Labor and Capital. But the increase of wealth and power at the command of Capital and its ruthless grinding down of Labor has made it perfectly plain to the vast majority of workers that the assertion is a vicious lie designed to mislead the toilers and keep them in perpetual bondage to the employing class.
The craft union was the natural starting point for the organization of Labor. When unionism was young there were no industries as we have them today and the industrial trust wasn't even a dream. Shops were small and far between, and each shop employed one kind of tradesmen only. Men who worked at the same trade, having interests in common, were bound sooner or later to combine the conservation of those interests in a union. The craft union grew out of the need of the tradesmen to protect their economic interests against the aggressions of the employers.
The workers learned from observation that when a part of the crew quit, the boss was greatly hampered in the operation of the shop while seeking other help. From this they deduced that if the entire crew quit the boss would be up against it for a time at least, and that if the men hung around the shop and used their persuasive powers upon the men who came to take their places, he might have considerable difficulty in getting started, and in the meantime he would lose trade and probably his entire business. Thus was evolved an economic weapon of the highest importance, perhaps the greatest proletarian discovery of all ages—the strike. The strike is the principal weapon of consequence that the workers have at their command in the every-day struggle with which to resist the attacks of the employers and improve their working conditions. That they have not taken full advantage of this very effective weapon we shall see during the course of this discussion.
Craft Unions Fall Behind
So long as industry remained in its primitive state the craft union was able to cope with the employers who were weak and without organization. Gradually, however, they accumulated more and more wealth, combined their capital and their factories into larger industrial units, thus laying the foundation for the great trusts that now dominate industry. They followed this up by the formation of employers' associations in the different industries, which were really industrial unions of capitalists for the purpose of controlling output and prices, and for fighting the unions. It was then we first heard of the "open shop" and the campaign for the "freedom" of Labor.
Within a short time the whole face of industry was changed. The primitive shop had been absorbed into the industrial factory, eliminating the individual owners. Gigantic industrial corporations with billions of dollars at their command became the masters of industry, dictating the price of commodities, the wages of Labor and the policy of our State and National Governments. While the captains of industry were creating these great industrial combinations what were the leaders of Labor doing? Not a thing except to draw down their fat salaries, and they never failed in that.
The startling revolutionary change in the organization of industry made it absolutely essential that a similar change be made in the structure of our labor unions. Movement is life. The person or the institution that does not move dies. The American labor movement has not changed to keep pace with industrial evolution and therefore is doomed unless it awakens from its torpor very soon. It was formed to fight primitive craft capitalism. It now faces. modern giant industrial capitalism, before which its antiquated tactics are as a straw in the wind.
The way to fight machine guns is with machine guns or better. Only an idiot would go up against a machine gun with a bow and arrow. Yet our Labor Generals have been leading their bow-and-arrow craft-union batallions against the industrial machine guns of capitalism with disastrous results—defeat after defeat, strike after strike lost, wages slashed right and left, and the unions in retreat before the onslaughts of capital. Such downright incompetency, such dastardly betrayal of the workers has no parallel in history. If our labor leaders had a twentieth of the brains, daring, and enterprise of the leaders of capital we would have a union movement that could at least put up a defensive fight. No suggestion of improvement in our trade union tactics, no hint even that there is anything wrong in our system of organization, has issued from the lips of our inane leaders. They are utterly helpless in the face of the enemy.
In other capitalistic countries the union movement is in the process of readjusting itself to meet the changed industrial development. The European labor movement is far more progressive than ours and its leadership has life and energy and initiative. It is not afraid of change. It knows that its only hope lies in new tactics. It is fully aware that craft unionism is out of date and must be replaced by a more powerful form of organization that will function industrially. It has learned from its defeats. In every way the European labor movement, despite its faults, is far in advance of ours. It is more progressive; it has a much larger membership; it has vastly more shop control; and it recognizes the basic economic fact that it represents, not a section of society seeking to improve conditions by petty reforms, but a sharply defined economic stave class fighting for its life and liberty against a powerful master class determined to suppress with the iron heel every aspiration of the workers.
Why Are Our Unions Weak?
When we come to seek the cause why the American labor movement is so reactionary Gt will be well for us to first learn what is the main element that makes a union movement progressive. Who is it that is forever preaching progress and kicking over the old outworn institutions? Why, the rebel, of course! He is the busybody that is perpetually hammering at us to "can" our 19th-century ideas and attach ourselves to those that are new and up to date; he it is who shocks and shames us into abandoning grand-fathery ideas that are a hindrance to our progress, but that we cherish because we were brought up with them. Nowhere is the revolutionist a greater menace to old-fogy ideas and practices than in the union. The union is his stronghold because there he is up against practical problems that call for solution by the most advanced methods. Now, when the radical deserts the union and goes Off by himself we can readily imagine what happens. Lacking the stimuli to progress, it reverts back to old ideas and stagnates in them. That is what has happened to the American labor movement, and this is how it came about:
About thirty years ago the revolutionaries got the idea that they could make greater progress by withdrawing from the old unions and starting unions with radical programs. Headed by Daniel De Leon, who wasn't a worker but a college professor, the revolutionaries went off by themselves and started the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance, a supposedly correct union believed to answer all the requirements of the social revolution. Its theory was a success except in the getting of members. When the rebels quit them, all progress stopped in the unions. In thirty years we have hardly advanced an inch. In other countries the workers have kept abreast of the times. They have the revolutionist amongst them, they have been there all the time. Only here have they deserted the unions and left them to their fate in the hands of reactionary leaders.
De Leon and his followers deduced a theory from somewhere that the unions were not susceptible to the ordinary laws of evolution. They avowed the unions could no more change their policies and constitutions than the leopard could change his spots. Acting upon this theory, they whooped it up for the new union, but nobody joined it except themselves. All their good radical energy was wasted on that child of the professor's brain, energy that could have been used to such good effect in building up and revolutionizing the old unions.
Utopian Dual Unionism
Many similar utopian experiments have been made to cast aside the whole labor movement and to start entirely with a new organization. These have had a very serious effect upon the organization of Labor as a whole, an effect approaching disaster. They have drawn away the revolutionists and progressives from the old trade unions where they. were most sorely needed to offset the capitalistic teachings of the reactionary leadership and to give impetus to the awakening radical sentiment among the rank and file. It was like taking the ignition system out of a motor car, to withdraw these militants from the unions. The unions became dead to every urge of progress, and where they did not retrogress, they stood still: The conservative leaders rejoiced at the radical exodus. They were happy to be rid of those who watched them and questioned their policies; they would now have things their own way. And with what result we see today, a labor movement utterly demoralized and incapable of taking even a defensive stand against the attacks of industrial capitalism.
Our present labor leadership is hide-bound and capitalistic. Naturally it cannot go very far in fighting capitalism. It will not take a determined stand against capitalism, for that would be socialistic. It will dicker with capitalism where capitalism is willing to dicker with it. When capitalism gets big and strong it turns the labor leaders away. Turned down by the big capitalists they go back to Washington and dicker with the capitalist Congress. They won't tolerate a labor party, as that would be anti-capitalist. They won't favor a change in the form of the unions to meet the demands of industry, for that would be radicalism. They lean back in their swivel chairs and reflect: "The big fellows have turned us down but there are still a number of small concerns willing to dicker with us. While those remain the unions will be safe for our salaries. We stand pat."
The Failure of Craft Unionism
Now let us see if this is not literally true. Apart from the railroads there is not a large corporation in the country that has a union agreement, and not so many of the small ones for that matter. All the big corporations have turned the unions down cold, and the unions have never been able to work enough men in under cover to make even a dent in the operation of the plants by a walkout. It has been impossible to get unity of action among all the different unions that cover a big plant, either to colonize it or to make a drive for membership in the open amongst the employees. There are too many unions and not enough unionism.
Here is a case in point to prove my assertion: The General Electric was a union plant. The molders had a grievance and walked out. The company sent their patterns. to a scab foundry. Scab castings came in. Union machinists finished them up. Union metal polishers, union electricians and all the other different unions worked on them and not a thing happened. Some of the men didn't even know that the molders were out. That happened two years ago. The strike was lost. It was lost at its inception. How could it be won under the circumstances? That is the sort of unionism we have in America and the reactionary leadership is opposed to a change.
Strikes are being. lost every day for want of allied union support. Single unions strike. The other unions stay on the job and the end is disaster for the strike. Indeed, so few are the strikes that are won nowadays that one is inclined to think that if the general run of unionists knew the figures they would decide to stay on the job and lose rather than suffer the loss of a strike and bear the humiliation of being licked. But they should know the weakness of their craft unions, that they may be stirred to take measures looking to their improvement. The leaders don't suffer by lost strikes. Their pay goes on just the same, win or lose. They take no chances.
The winning of individual strikes is a thing of the past. Even where a number of unions band together and strike they fail unless the entire corporation is closed up. The recent railroad shopmen's strike has proven this. Seven crafts were involved in this strike including the entire mechanical departments of the roads. The mechanical department of every railroad in the country was tied up tight. The walkout was complete. But the trains kept on running as usual until the equipment began to break down from lack of repair. The train crews and trackmen, clerks, telegraphers, etc., stayed at work. The companies built bunk houses and gathered scabs. Some companies made settlements with the strikers but in no case did the men get the wages they struck Co maintain. The other companies refused to deal with the strikers at all. The strike has been a sad failure, and that failure is not due to the lack of solidarity on the part of the men involved. They stood loyally together, and shoulder to shoulder they faced the gaint railroad corporations and the U. S. Government that attempted to break the strike by its drastic injunction.
The shopmen's strike failed for want of union support. The nine unions that stood by the companies killed it. Had these unions possessed the real; the true spirit of unionism—one for all and all for one—they would have walked out with their brothers and the greatest strike in history would have. been won, hands down, in twenty-four hours. Be it said for the men, however, that the sentiment was strong for a walkout. They were in full sympathy with their brothers on strike. They knew that the shopmen were fighting the fight of all railroad men, that the loss of the strike meant defeat for the men who stayed at work as well as those who struck, that if the companies can lick the shopmen today, tomorrow they will tackle the trainmen. But the men could not get action. They belonged to nine different unions with nine sets of reactionary, capitalistic leaders who don't believe in sympathetic strikes. The sympathetic strike sentiment was stifled and the men were forced to stay on their jobs and knowingly helped to defeat their fellow unionists by cooperating with scabs, virtually becoming scabs themselves. Another case of too many unions and not enough unionism, augmented, by too many leaders and no leadership.
This history of the shopmen's strike tells the whole story of our antiquated craft union movement and illustrates in the clearest possible way its inherent weakness. The railroad workers are organized in every department from the section men to the engineers and office men; thus there was no obstacle to a general walkout in support of the shopmen that could not have been easily overcome had there not been so many unions, each master of its specific job and owing allegiance to no other. Sixteen different kinds of jobs and 16 separate unions to take care of them. Why 16? A railroad. is not organized that way. A railroad has one organization, with one center, one head, and all departments are mere extentions, arms reaching out from that center and always responsive to its commands. That is real organization and by having it a railroad can function properly and concentrate its force at any one point at will. Now suppose a railroad had an organization on every division, each independent of all the others. It doesn't take much thought to see how soon the system would be balled up. Yet that would be only a fraction of the number of organizations the workers have on every railroad. The logic of the situation is clear—fewer and stronger unions are the prime necessity of the hour.
Our unions have practically the same form and use about the same tactics that they started out with at the dawn of industry. It has never occurred to the leaders of Labor that when the foundry, machine and blacksmith shops were combined under one management that these mechanics should also be united in one union. The concentration of the shops made for economy in production and efficiency in management. It reduced competition amongst the bosses; it increased their control over the market; it magnified their power over the workers many fold. All of which does not seem to have had the least effect upon the leaders of Labor who have kept on fiddling upon their one-string unions, blind as bats in daytime to the tremendous changes going on all around them. The criminal inefficiency of the leadership is costing the workers millions of dollars and millions of hours of labor yearly; not to speak of the loss of highly important educational opportunities that every progressive labor movement provides for its membership. The incapacity of craft unionism has been proven a thousand times over in recent years.