in conservatism. They declared that the reactionary craft leaders were so firmly intrenched that it would be utterly impossible to dislodge them if that were tried. But the I. W. W., despite the great start that it got, has likewise proved incapable of replacing the old craft union movement with a new organization. Today is has far fewer members than when it was formed 18 years ago. Many other dual unions, most of them operating in single industries, have had the same fate. With but a couple of notable exceptions, they have never succeeded in getting a real grip in the industries.
The reason for this is the the dual union method is wrong. In the fight of the progressive elements against the reactionaries in the unions splits and secession movements are sometimes inevitable. The thing that is wrong is to advocate them as a settled policy, instead of doing all possible to avoid them. Splits are injurious because they set worker against worker and bring confusion and weakness into the movement. In this country they have resulted in pulling the great number of militants out of the mass unions and leaving these organizations in the unrestricted possession of the reactionaries. This is why our movement is so far behind in development.
Abandoning Past Mistakes
The method proposed by the Trade Union Educational League, an educational body composed of militant workers inside of the trade and industrial unions, is the exact opposite of the dual union program. Instead of pulling the active workers out of the mass organizations, be these A. F. of L. or independent, its plan is to keep the militants in these unions where, by organization and activity, they can put new life and vim into them. This is in harmony with the best policies of revolutionaries as practised all over the world.
The League maintains that it is not necessary to go off and start a new union just because one gets a new idea or has a tough struggle with the reactionaries. Experience proves that it is far easier to remodel the existing old organizations. It repudiates the spurious science which alleges that labor unions are not subject to the influence of a changed environment; that they are crystallized institutions incapable of modification. This charge, baseless and unscientific, was made originally under mistaken apprehension. That the unions have not kept pace in development with the capitalist institutions is largely the fault of the very rebels who condemn them. These militants deserted the old unions and left them to their fate in the hands of the
