From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:49:34 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00688; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:30 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02178 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:48:59 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172248.PAA02178@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: changing consciousness/new organizations (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5053      
Status: OR

Dean Steede writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Sat Jun 11 17:54:53 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 07:48:01 -0400
Message-Id: <199406101148.HAA27532@great-miami.iac.net>
X-Sender: sdlotu@mail.iac.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
From: sdlotu@iac.net (Dean Steede)
Subject: Re: changing consciousness/new organizations
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1076

>Dean S. can reasonably say to me, "Okay, if you think trying to get people
>to join the IWW won't work to develop a revolutionary labor movement, what
>is your alternative?"
>
>As far as organizational ideas are concerned -- that is, what we suggest
>to working people about how they can organize themselves -- I believe it is
>better to make specific suggestions about how it is possible for workers
>to organize a movement under their own control, and illustrating principles of
>organization, leaving them to decide issues of organizational affiliation,
>since the reasonable thing to do, in that case, depends on circumstances.

How does local autonomy as suggested above differ in any way from the local
autonomy REQUIRED in the I.W.W. constitution?  I wouldn't be a Wob, nor
would it be the I.W.W. anymore, if what Tom suggests above wasn't
absolutely central to the conception of the I.W.W.  I'm confused by the
notion that this is an alternative to the I.W.W. program.  It is instead an
excellent description of it.

>
>As only one example, I think we can address the issue of the dictatorial
>power of "international" unions, embodied in their power to impose
>trusteeships on local unions. There have been numerous struggles in the past
>decade where national unions have imposed trusteeships in order to clamp down
>on militancy at the local level, and impose a deal to avoid risking the
>institutional survival of the union itself (they key interest of the
>top union officers).

While this certainly describes the AFL-CIO and related organizations, it
hasn't a glimmer of resemblance to I.W.W. methods or policies.  Again,
there seems to be some confusion about what the I.W.W. is and what Tom
believes it to be.  Perhaps his juxtaposing these two preceding paragraphs
was accidental.

>>From their own experience in such a situation, the Hormel strikers developed
>a program for a different type of national union. Since the strike was
>defeated, the North American Meat Packers Union (NAMPU) was stillborn.
>Nonetheless, this is a good example of how workers learn from experience.
>The basic organizational idea they advocated there was that of the
>autonomy of the plant-level organization, a horizontal federation at
>the national level without the power to impose trusteeships. The
>"one-plant, one-union" concept of early industrial unionism was revived.
>This is not an issue that has been forgotten. I know that a number of
>local union activists in the Bay Area have been trying to develop a
>movement around this issue of fighting trustee dictatorships.
>Tom Wetzel

Ahhh.  An example to warm the heart of every Wob.  When we read the
excellent book from South End Press, "Hard Pressed in the Heartland", by
Peter Rachleff (sp.?), what do we discover?  That the organizational system
that preceded P-9's affiliation with the AFL was a union called the IUAW.
This was the model that the P-9 folks went back to in trying to revive
class unity and provide examples for direct action that would lift them out
of their lethargy and despair at the collusion between their International
and Hormel.

The IUAW was founded by one of the most active and spirited Wobs of the
early days, who never gave up on the ideals and tactics he learned while a
member.  He believed, and the P-9 community relearned, that the methods and
attitude of the I.W.W. was still pertinent to their needs and desires, even
if it had another set of initials attached.  The NAMPU was a worthy attempt
to revive the fundamental precepts of the I.W.W. in local form.  This group
would have been welcome as Wobs.

I suggest that this historical desciption of union activism is proof that
what the I.W.W. stood for 70 years ago, and stands for today, continues to
inspire, motivate and empower workers.  I would also include the successful
Yale strike of 1984-85 and the recently successful stewardess' strike
against American Airlines as further proof of the continuing effectiveness
of I.W.W. tactics.

Frankly, I don't care if these workers know squat about Joe Hill or Big
Bill Haywood.  What is important is that they know what these men and women
stood for, what they did, and that today's worker can do just as much or
more with the same tools and attitudes.

Put any initials on it you want, but the same story is still true:

Education.  Organization.  Emancipation.

See you in the streets...

Dean Steede      |  Internet:  sdlotu@iac.net
Cincinnati,  OH  |  IWW Delegate, IN-KY-OH Area
Lay the Boss off.  It makes more sense.





From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:49:48 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00693; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:47 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02184 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:18 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172249.PAA02184@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: tactics vs. organizational program (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 6848      
Status: OR

Tom Wetzel writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Mon Jun 13 14:32:57 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 11:35:37 +0800
From: tlw@blackberry.Eng.Sun.COM (Tom Wetzel)
Message-Id: <9406131835.AA01146@casbah.Eng.Sun.COM>
To: 1-union@lever.com
Subject: Re: tactics vs. organizational program
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6399
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1086

Dean S. reponds to my last post re: IWW:

>I would also include the successful
>Yale strike of 1984-85 and the recently successful stewardess' strike
>against American Airlines as further proof of the continuing effectiveness
>of I.W.W. tactics.

Yes, because the Yale strike was outward-looking, addressed to
the community of all workers, and was based on solidarity between
different crafts, it was, in that sense, in the spirit of the IWW
emphasis on class-wide solidarity. 

Insofar as Dean S. thinks he is "responding" to me, tho, I'd point
out that I never criticized IWW "tactics", which I basically
agree with. My criticism was solely directed at the IWW's
organizational program, it's conception of its own organizational role in
revolution, as the only possible vehicle for the encompassing unity of the
class as it advances towards revolution.

Dean is also correct that the IUAW's organizational ideas and tactics were
directly inspired by the IWW, and a number of IWW members (especially
Frank Ellis) played a very important role in the founding of the IUAW and
the tactics employed at Hormel in 1933. Tho he's right that this success
vindicates IWW *tactics*, I would point out that the example of the IUAW
is far from vindicating the IWW's organizational program -- just the
opposite. Why, for example, did Ellis and the two other wobs at Hormel
not try to organize the plant into the IWW? When asked this question, Ellis
replied (in an oral history inteview years later): "The IWW was always
getting busted up." In other words, the IWW was by itself too isolated
to protect itself, it was necessary to build a broader movement, involving
people with other viewpoints, to have sufficient solidarity to protect against
possible state repression. That was the lesson that Ellis had learned during
the repressive period of the '20s. The IUAW was broad organization, its
activist core was itself an alliance of IWWs, left Socialists, Trots, etc.
That's precisely why the IUAW was more successful than the IWW by itself
was in that period.

Another example of IWW members pursuing a similar course of action is that
of the Pacific Coast shipping industry. By the early '30s the Sailors Union
of the Pacific had become an empty shell, but the IWW Maritime Transport
Workers Union entered it en masse during that period, and went on to play
a very influential role, during the 1934 west coast maritime strike and the
ensuing "job action" campaign on the ships, largely a result of IWW influence.
The obvious IWW influence led the AFL to expell the SUP.
In short, the IWW entered and largely dominated the SUP, but with the 
support, again, of an amalgam of other radical viewpoints, similar to IUAW
(left Socialists, Trots, etc.). 

There were also many other instances of mass worker movements involving
cooperation of leftists of various viewpoints, in a number of strikes
during that period. This was precisely what motivated John L. Lewis & Co.
to make their move towards forming the CIO. They knew that American industrial
workers were angry and becoming increasingly intent on organizing themselves.
If the revolutionary elements could get themselves together on a national
scale, Lewis knew, they could forge a credible alternative to the AFL, infused
with anti-capitalist politics -- something wholly anathema to Lewis.

What limited the ability of the radical labor left to forge such an alliance
at that time was that the movements that emerged in the early '30s were still
local in character, and different leftist viewpoints were predominant in
different unions and locales (e.g. the Trots were dominant in the Minneapolis
Teamsters, the CP in the SF longshore industry, the IWW in the IUAW and west
coast shipping, etc.). 

What was absolutely essential at that time was for there to be an initiative
to forge a natnional alliance, under radical impetus, to bring together these
emerging movements into a broad radical labor movement. Without the national
scope, they couldn't pose an alternative to the AFL. What actually happened,
as we know, is that Lewis made that move first, he formed a structure for
the movement before the radical left did, and he was ultimately able to
stay in control through the period of heightened militancy -- sitdown strikes,
wildcat strike waves, etc. -- from the mid '30s thru the postwar strike wave.

The question that comes to mind, then, is: Why didn't the IWW immediately
draw the right conclusion from the success of the IUAW? In other words, this
success suggested that what was needed was to get different tendencies in
the radical labor wing together, just as was done in the formation of the
IWW in 1905, to be able to have enough national scope and "critical mass" to
pose a realistic alternative to the AFL. The IWW never took the initiative
in this direction -- largely, I think, because the main body of hard-core
IWW loyalists tended to see the IWW as the only possible vehicle of class
unity -- the "One Big Union" program blinded them to the opportunities and
needs of the hour. 

The result was the destruction of the IWW as a mass movement. In the early
'30s the IWW still had over 30,000 members -- it was still had a mass
base (contrary to the Stalinist historians who put the IWW's demise at the
hour of birth of the CP). But by 1939 the IWW membership had dwindled to
less than 3,000. In other words, 90% of the IWW members voted with their feet.
What they voted for was the CIO. They did so because they didn't want to
be isolated, they correctly saw that only a mass class-wide unity could
give the class power to change things. 

The CIO, of course, proved to be the American labor equivalent of the CP's
"popular front" strategy of an alliance with the "progressive bourgeoisie".
The upshot was that the success of the CIO, and failure of a revolutionary
alternative to it to emerge, tended to bolster the image of the CP in
the eyes of leftists in the US at that time. The CP grew to dominate the
left by the '40s. The upshot was that the American left was in a vulnerable
position in the late '40s, having mostly placed its bets on the CP. The
obvious deficiencies of the Stalinist model gave the powers-that-be plenty
of ammunition to help destroy the American left in the postwar period. The
absence of a visible non-Stalinist radical alternative helped make this
possible.
Tom Wetzel (thomas.wetzel@eng.sun.com)



From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:50:07 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00698; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:06 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02191 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:37 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172249.PAA02191@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: tactics vs. organizational program (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 8835      
Status: OR

Michael Ballard writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Mon Jun 13 17:52:22 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <199406132257.PAA28406@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: tactics vs. organizational program
To: 1-union@lever.com
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 15:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9406131835.AA01146@casbah.Eng.Sun.COM> from "Tom Wetzel" at Jun 13, 94 11:35:37 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 8157      
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1091

Tom Wetzel writes:

>Insofar as Dean S. thinks he is "responding" to me, tho, I'd point
>out that I never criticized IWW "tactics", which I basically
>agree with. My criticism was solely directed at the IWW's
>organizational program, it's conception of its own organizational role in
>revolution, as the only possible vehicle for the encompassing unity of the
>class as it advances towards revolution.

As far as I know, IWW members don't think that we have the only vehicle
for encompasing the unity of our class.  We do think that class wide
unity is necessary to get anywhere.  Unity for what though?  
We want unity to win in our day to day battles with the employers; but
we also want classconscious unity in our strategic goal of abolishing
wage-labour and capitalism.

>Dean is also correct that the IUAW's organizational ideas and tactics were
>directly inspired by the IWW, and a number of IWW members (especially
>Frank Ellis) played a very important role in the founding of the IUAW and
>the tactics employed at Hormel in 1933. Tho he's right that this success
>vindicates IWW *tactics*, I would point out that the example of the IUAW
>is far from vindicating the IWW's organizational program -- just the
>opposite. Why, for example, did Ellis and the two other wobs at Hormel
>not try to organize the plant into the IWW? When asked this question, Ellis
>replied (in an oral history inteview years later): "The IWW was always
>getting busted up." In other words, the IWW was by itself too isolated
>to protect itself, it was necessary to build a broader movement, involving
>people with other viewpoints, to have sufficient solidarity to protect against
>possible state repression. That was the lesson that Ellis had learned during
>the repressive period of the '20s. The IUAW was broad organization, its
>activist core was itself an alliance of IWWs, left Socialists, Trots, etc.
>That's precisely why the IUAW was more successful than the IWW by itself
>was in that period.

Was the IUAW committed to the abolition of the wage system?
I honestly don't know.  

>Another example of IWW members pursuing a similar course of action is that
>of the Pacific Coast shipping industry. By the early '30s the Sailors Union
>of the Pacific had become an empty shell, but the IWW Maritime Transport
>Workers Union entered it en masse during that period, and went on to play
>a very influential role, during the 1934 west coast maritime strike and the
>ensuing "job action" campaign on the ships, largely a result of IWW influence.
>The obvious IWW influence led the AFL to expell the SUP.
>In short, the IWW entered and largely dominated the SUP, but with the 
>support, again, of an amalgam of other radical viewpoints, similar to IUAW
>(left Socialists, Trots, etc.). 

All committed to the abolition of wage slavery?
Just asking.

>There were also many other instances of mass worker movements involving
>cooperation of leftists of various viewpoints, in a number of strikes
>during that period. This was precisely what motivated John L. Lewis & Co.
>to make their move towards forming the CIO. They knew that American industrial
>workers were angry and becoming increasingly intent on organizing themselves.
>If the revolutionary elements could get themselves together on a national
>scale, Lewis knew, they could forge a credible alternative to the AFL, infused
>with anti-capitalist politics -- something wholly anathema to Lewis.
>
>What limited the ability of the radical labor left to forge such an alliance
>at that time was that the movements that emerged in the early '30s were still
>local in character, and different leftist viewpoints were predominant in
>different unions and locales (e.g. the Trots were dominant in the Minneapolis
>Teamsters, the CP in the SF longshore industry, the IWW in the IUAW and west
>coast shipping, etc.). 

The problem with all these comparisons, from my point of view, is that
the level of classconsciousness among CP'ers, Trots etc. is just not 
acceptable.  Call me sectarian; but if a worker isn't committed to abolition
of wage labor, s/he isn't revolutionary.  I've met a lot of Leninists and
Social Democrats in my day; but never one who had a clue about the 
abolition of wage labor.  Most of the CP'ers I ever encountered weren't
communists at all; they were just pro-Soviet Liberals, the flipside of 
their anti-Communist Liberal/Conservative enemies.


>What was absolutely essential at that time was for there to be an initiative
>to forge a natnional alliance, under radical impetus, to bring together these
>emerging movements into a broad radical labor movement. Without the national
>scope, they couldn't pose an alternative to the AFL. What actually happened,
>as we know, is that Lewis made that move first, he formed a structure for
>the movement before the radical left did, and he was ultimately able to
>stay in control through the period of heightened militancy -- sitdown strikes,
>wildcat strike waves, etc. -- from the mid '30s thru the postwar strike wave.
>
>The question that comes to mind, then, is: Why didn't the IWW immediately
>draw the right conclusion from the success of the IUAW? In other words, this
>success suggested that what was needed was to get different tendencies in
>the radical labor wing together, just as was done in the formation of the
>IWW in 1905, to be able to have enough national scope and "critical mass" to
>pose a realistic alternative to the AFL.

I don't have a problem with this notion of getting the "radical labor
wing" together.  The people who created the IWW did that.  They created
a revolutionary union committed to the abolition of wage labor.  Is 
that what the IUAW was commmitted to?

 The IWW never took the initiative
>in this direction -- largely, I think, because the main body of hard-core
>IWW loyalists tended to see the IWW as the only possible vehicle of class
>unity -- the "One Big Union" program blinded them to the opportunities and
>needs of the hour. 
>
>The result was the destruction of the IWW as a mass movement. In the early
>'30s the IWW still had over 30,000 members -- it was still had a mass
>base (contrary to the Stalinist historians who put the IWW's demise at the
>hour of birth of the CP). But by 1939 the IWW membership had dwindled to
>less than 3,000. In other words, 90% of the IWW members voted with their feet.
>What they voted for was the CIO. They did so because they didn't want to
>be isolated, they correctly saw that only a mass class-wide unity could
>give the class power to change things. 

I guess they were wrong though to assume that a class-wide unity which
was not built on a class conscious committment to abolish wage-labor,
would give them the power to do more than provide cannons and cannon
fodder for WWII and then face the post war purges of leftists, CP'ers,
Trots and fellow travelers which exploded in the late 40's and early
50's.  No wonder that the AFL and CIO merged in '55 to form a unified
working class movement committed to the preservation of bourgeois freedom,
bourgeois democracy, a capitalist world safe from the Stalinist threat.
Sorry, I just get irritated when I think of all workers who have been 
suckered into the various class rule ideologies of the past--Liberalism,
Stalinism, Trotskyism, Social Democracy.

Mike Ballard
miballar@leland.stanford.edu


>The CIO, of course, proved to be the American labor equivalent of the CP's
>"popular front" strategy of an alliance with the "progressive bourgeoisie".
>The upshot was that the success of the CIO, and failure of a revolutionary
>alternative to it to emerge, tended to bolster the image of the CP in
>the eyes of leftists in the US at that time. The CP grew to dominate the
>left by the '40s. The upshot was that the American left was in a vulnerable
>position in the late '40s, having mostly placed its bets on the CP. The
>obvious deficiencies of the Stalinist model gave the powers-that-be plenty
>of ammunition to help destroy the American left in the postwar period. The
>absence of a visible non-Stalinist radical alternative helped make this
>possible.
>Tom Wetzel (thomas.wetzel@eng.sun.com)





From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:50:36 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00703; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:36 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02197 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:07 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172250.PAA02197@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: IWW/IUAW etc. (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4604      
Status: OR

Michael Ballard writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Tue Jun 14 12:13:38 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <199406141712.KAA12595@elaine44.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: IWW/IUAW etc.
To: 1-union@lever.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <940614125926_72607.2404_DHW62-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Steve Szalai" at Jun 14, 94 08:59:26 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3936      
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1101

Steve Szalai writes:

>The problem that the World Socialist Movement has always had 
>with organization a la IWW is that it tends to exclude the non
>socialist from the union. The union then becomes much less
>effective in its task of fighting WITHIN the capitalist system
>for the meagre benefits that are possible by trade union action.

Just a point of information here, in case it is not understood.
The IWW does not exclude non socialists from the union.  We welcome
all workers.  They do have to become organized under our current 
Constitution; but all workers who organize must face similar 
circumstances when they become part of class collaborationist
unions.  The IWW does exclude employers and the Preamble to its
Constitution states that the working class and the employing class
have nothing in common.

>I don't have any problem with big unions, the bigger the better,
>if they serve their members better. A bigger union SHOULD be
>more effective at that. Union effectiveness is limited by the need 
>for a broad based membership (to make it big --- today) so it can 
>win some of the day to day struggles within capitalism.

>I'd love it if my trade union had anything like an understanding
>of the class system. But it doesn't. What it does have is 30,000
>members in this province of about 2M people. And in the short
>run that is better for me than a class-conscious union of 10 or 20.

Many members of the IWW are dual carders; they are also members of 
class collaborationist unions.  But they are always pushing 
class conscious unionism.  The idea that one cannot organize a class
conscious union because most workers are not class conscious is tantamount
to saying that one cannot organize a genuine socialist party because most
workers will not vote for it.

>Let's let unions do what they can within capitalism. And maybe
>they'll even raise a few people's consciousness (I have little
>hope). But within our non-socialist unions we can still be
>talking to other members, suggesting what the real solution
>is. Showing that it is capitalism itself, not our particular 
>employer that is the problem.

I have no problem with this notion.  If fact, that is what is 
already being done by IWW members.  There is a sort of Leninist
like despair spilling out here--the workers themselves can only
reach a trade-union consciousness.  I'm sure the Steve really
does not mean it in a way that could lead in the direction of 
a WSM burden.  We all agree on this list that the social
revolution must be the act of the classconscious workers themselves.
What we disagree on is how we can help that process along, right?

>It is the very understanding and class consciousness that
>Mike talks about that makes it difficult for organizations
>like the IWW to get the large numbers required to fight
>the battle with the employers. Let's let the bourgeois-
>supporting unions fight the employers as well as they can. 
>And  let the rest of us fight for socialism. As the socialist
>movement grows, so will the success of the bourgeois-
>supporting unions, so those benefits won't be any 
>slower coming.
>
>As a socialist, my battle is with the capitalist system.
>I am a trade unionist to fight my employer.

But of course, your employer is the main beneficiary of the capitalist
system.  Your employer is your antagonist is the class struggle.

>The advantage of a group outside the workplace, like
>the Socialist Party of Canada, is that it can group like
>minded individuals, no matter where they are employed,
>or whether they are employed. It can have a single
>purpose - the establishment of socialism. It can
>avoid getting bogged down in the day to day
>trade union activities. It can fight for socialism
>and nothing else.

Just another point of information.  IWW members meet both inside and outside
the workplace.

For the abolition of the wages system of slavery,
Mike Ballard
miballar@leland.stanford.edu.us




From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:50:52 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00708; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:49 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02205 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:20 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172250.PAA02205@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: IWW/IUAW etc. (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2715      
Status: OR

Steve Szalai writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Tue Jun 14 08:13:41 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
Date: 14 Jun 94 08:59:26 EDT
From: Steve Szalai <72607.2404@CompuServe.COM>
To: 1-Union <1-union@lever.com>
Subject: IWW/IUAW etc.
Message-ID: <940614125926_72607.2404_DHW62-1@CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1096

Just a quick response to Tom W. and Mike B.

I think that I am, at least partially, in agreement with Tom.

The problem that the World Socialist Movement has always had 
with organization a la IWW is that it tends to exclude the non
socialist from the union. The union then becomes much less
effective in its task of fighting WITHIN the capitalist system
for the meagre benefits that are possible by trade union action.

I don't have any problem with big unions, the bigger the better,
if they serve their members better. A bigger union SHOULD be
more effective at that. Union effectiveness is limited by the need 
for a broad based membership (to make it big --- today) so it can 
win some of the day to day struggles within capitalism.

I'd love it if my trade union had anything like an understanding
of the class system. But it doesn't. What it does have is 30,000
members in this province of about 2M people. And in the short
run that is better for me than a class-conscious union of 10 or 20.

Let's let unions do what they can within capitalism. And maybe
they'll even raise a few people's consciousness (I have little
hope). But within our non-socialist unions we can still be
talking to other members, suggesting what the real solution
is. Showing that it is capitalism itself, not our particular 
employer that is the problem.

It is the very understanding and class consciousness that
Mike talks about that makes it difficult for organizations
like the IWW to get the large numbers required to fight
the battle with the employers. Let's let the bourgeois-
supporting unions fight the employers as well as they can. 
And  let the rest of us fight for socialism. As the socialist
movement grows, so will the success of the bourgeois-
supporting unions, so those benefits won't be any 
slower coming.

As a socialist, my battle is with the capitalist system.
I am a trade unionist to fight my employer.

The advantage of a group outside the workplace, like
the Socialist Party of Canada, is that it can group like
minded individuals, no matter where they are employed,
or whether they are employed. It can have a single
purpose - the establishment of socialism. It can
avoid getting bogged down in the day to day
trade union activities. It can fight for socialism
and nothing else.

- For Socialism
- Steve Szalai




From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:51:08 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00717; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:51:07 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02218 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:39 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172250.PAA02218@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: IWW is revolutionary? (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4270      
Status: OR

Steve Szalai writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Thu Jun 16 08:16:46 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
Date: 16 Jun 94 09:01:01 EDT
From: Steve Szalai <72607.2404@CompuServe.COM>
To: 1-Union <1-union@lever.com>
Subject: IWW is revolutionary?
Message-ID: <940616130101_72607.2404_DHW21-2@CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1114

I've never claimed to be an expert on the IWW,
so I'm probably a bit out of place on this list,
but I do try ...

Mike Ballard (and him quoting Steve Szalai):

> Just a point of information here, in case it is not understood.
> The IWW does not exclude non socialists from the union.  We welcome
> all workers. 

I don't happen to have an IWW constitution, so I don't know
exactly what IWW membership means. Maybe someone
could post the IWW constitution? If all workers are welcome,
then how does the IWW maintain a "socialist" outlook?
What stops NAZIs from joining?

> Many members of the IWW are dual carders;

Suggests that the IWW is not a real union, but a 
political "party" or other political organization.
Suggests that people join the IWW to further their
longer term political aims, but join unions to deal with
their immediate struggles with their employers.

Note that I recognize this as a bit of a generalization.
It is my understanding that the IWW does
have some actual bargaining units where
it deals with the immediate employee-employer
relationship.

> The idea that one cannot organize a class
> conscious union because most workers are not class conscious is tantamount
> to saying that one cannot organize a genuine socialist party because most
> workers will not vote for it.

That is not what I suggested. Just that such a "union" cannot
now, act like as a union should. It cannot, today, get sufficient 
membership to represent that membership against an
employer.


> >Let's let unions do what they can within capitalism. And maybe
> >they'll even raise a few people's consciousness (I have little
> >hope). But within our non-socialist unions we can still be
> >talking to other members, suggesting what the real solution
> >is. Showing that it is capitalism itself, not our particular 
> >employer that is the problem.
> 
> I have no problem with this notion.  If fact, that is what is 
> already being done by IWW members.  There is a sort of Leninist
> like despair spilling out here--the workers themselves can only
> reach a trade-union consciousness.

Workers can reach any consciousness they choose.
Unions, on the other hand ...
I hope that workers will leave the unions in the dust
(intellectually)
as they come to socialist consciousness. I don't think
that the unions can move fast enough to keep up with
the working class, once it starts to realize what the
real enemy is.

Again, I'm back to asking what can unions do,
from a revolutionary perspective, if they
have to represent a large, politically disparate,
group of workers?

> What we disagree on is how we can help that process along, right?

Yeah. Maybe we should all become Leninists so that we'll
have a leader to tell us what to think. Then our leader could
give us the correct, single, unified approach. <grin>

> >As a socialist, my battle is with the capitalist system.
> >I am a trade unionist to fight my employer.
> 
> But of course, your employer is the main beneficiary of the capitalist
> system.  Your employer is your antagonist is the class struggle.

My particular employer happens to be the capitalist class
of this province (I work for the government). Nonetheless,
it is the employers as a CLASS, not the individual employers
which "is the main beneficiary of the capitalist system."

One's direct employer is only the immediate antagonist.
The real problem is the system itself, which causes,
and then pits, employees against employers.

I hope this doesn't sound too abstract. The point
is that if the immediate employer is the enemy,
then the working class has just a bunch of enemies
to fight, rather than that bunch AS A BUNCH.

The working class has to make that abstraction,
I think, before it can actually do anything to get
rid of capitalism. Without that, the working class
only has trade-union consciousness.

- For Socialism
- Steve Szalai




From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:52:51 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00741; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:52:50 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02237 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:52:17 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172252.PAA02237@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: IWW is revolutionary? (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 7169      
Status: OR

Michael Ballard writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Thu Jun 16 15:17:54 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <199406162017.NAA01671@elaine53.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: IWW is revolutionary?
To: 1-union@lever.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <940616130101_72607.2404_DHW21-2@CompuServe.COM> from "Steve Szalai" at Jun 16, 94 09:01:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 6493      
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1120

Steve Szalai writes:
>
>I've never claimed to be an expert on the IWW,
>so I'm probably a bit out of place on this list,
>but I do try ...

You're not out of place.  We all need each other's views.

>Mike Ballard (and him quoting Steve Szalai):
>
>> Just a point of information here, in case it is not understood.
>> The IWW does not exclude non socialists from the union.  We welcome
>> all workers. 
>
>I don't happen to have an IWW constitution, so I don't know
>exactly what IWW membership means. Maybe someone
>could post the IWW constitution? If all workers are welcome,
>then how does the IWW maintain a "socialist" outlook?
>What stops NAZIs from joining?

I could post the Preamble to the Constitution; but I don't have the 
Constitution online.
What stops NAZIs from joining is their own sense of political correctness.
I mean what self-respecting NAZI would agree that the working class and 
the employing class have nothing in common?  That's in the Preamble.
How about the clause about abolishing the wage system in the Preamble?
And what NAZI would be able to join an organization which has this in
in its Preamble:  "It is the historic mission of the working class to do 
away with capitalsim."
Well, you get the picture.


>> Many members of the IWW are dual carders;
>
>Suggests that the IWW is not a real union, but a 
>political "party" or other political organization.
>Suggests that people join the IWW to further their
>longer term political aims, but join unions to deal with
>their immediate struggles with their employers.

The class struggle is political and our aim is to abolish classes and 
capitalism, with its wages system of slavery.  I would suggest that this
should be the aim of all unions.  But then, actually existing trade-unionism
has as its political goal, the conservation of capitalism and a fair day's
wage for a fair day's work.  The illusion here is that the trade-unions are
neutral and the revolutionary unions are politcal.

>Note that I recognize this as a bit of a generalization.
>It is my understanding that the IWW does
>have some actual bargaining units where
>it deals with the immediate employee-employer
>relationship.

Correct.  We have a very few.  We would like to have more.

>> The idea that one cannot organize a class
>> conscious union because most workers are not class conscious is tantamount
>> to saying that one cannot organize a genuine socialist party because most
>> workers will not vote for it.
>
>That is not what I suggested. Just that such a "union" cannot
>now, act like as a union should. It cannot, today, get sufficient 
>membership to represent that membership against an
>employer.
>

Again.  Neither can the WSM act like a party should etc.  No, the question
is, how should a party or a union act. 

>> >Let's let unions do what they can within capitalism. And maybe
>> >they'll even raise a few people's consciousness (I have little
>> >hope). But within our non-socialist unions we can still be
>> >talking to other members, suggesting what the real solution
>> >is. Showing that it is capitalism itself, not our particular 
>> >employer that is the problem.
>> 
>> I have no problem with this notion.  If fact, that is what is 
>> already being done by IWW members.  There is a sort of Leninist
>> like despair spilling out here--the workers themselves can only
>> reach a trade-union consciousness.
>
>Workers can reach any consciousness they choose.
>Unions, on the other hand ...

Unions are composed of workers.  Unions are not the bureaucracies.  The
bureaucrats control a largely passive memberships who they don't like to
stir up or have stirred up.  

>I hope that workers will leave the unions in the dust
>(intellectually)
>as they come to socialist consciousness. I don't think
>that the unions can move fast enough to keep up with
>the working class, once it starts to realize what the
>real enemy is.

And I hope that as the workers become class conscious they will join
with us in the IWW or other revolutionary syndicalist unions and 
work together to abolish the wage system.  If they happen to 
vote for the WSM or some other group endorsing the creation of 
a classless Stateless society, I'm not going to bitch and moan about it.

>Again, I'm back to asking what can unions do,
>from a revolutionary perspective, if they
>have to represent a large, politically disparate,
>group of workers?

If these politcally disparate workers are committed to the abolition of
wage labor, commodity production, and the State, then the union that they
are in will be a revolutionary organization.

>> What we disagree on is how we can help that process along, right?
>
>Yeah. Maybe we should all become Leninists so that we'll
>have a leader to tell us what to think. Then our leader could
>give us the correct, single, unified approach. <grin>

But then, we wouldn't be politically disparate openly, would we? ;)

>> >As a socialist, my battle is with the capitalist system.
>> >I am a trade unionist to fight my employer.
>> 
>> But of course, your employer is the main beneficiary of the capitalist
>> system.  Your employer is your antagonist is the class struggle.
>
>My particular employer happens to be the capitalist class
>of this province (I work for the government). Nonetheless,
>it is the employers as a CLASS, not the individual employers
>which "is the main beneficiary of the capitalist system."

But of course, individuals make up a class.

>One's direct employer is only the immediate antagonist.
>The real problem is the system itself, which causes,
>and then pits, employees against employers.

True; but lest we forget, the system is a set of social relations
which happen in our everyday lives.

>I hope this doesn't sound too abstract. The point
>is that if the immediate employer is the enemy,
>then the working class has just a bunch of enemies
>to fight, rather than that bunch AS A BUNCH.

>The working class has to make that abstraction,
>I think, before it can actually do anything to get
>rid of capitalism. Without that, the working class
>only has trade-union consciousness.
>
And that is why the Preamble to the Constitution of the IWW states:

"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of
the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of 
production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth."

(Probably another sentiment which would be hard for a NAZI to swallow.)

Mike B)
miballar@leland.stanford.edu.us



From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 17 22:53:30 1994
Received: from elaine34.Stanford.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id PAA00749; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:53:29 -0700
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine34.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id PAA02254 for deke@fido.wps.com; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:52:57 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199406172252.PAA02254@elaine34.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Revolutionary Unionism (fwd)
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 14088     
Status: OR

BEKKENJ@snycorva.cortland.edu writes:
From listserv@lever.lever.com Fri Jun 17 11:35:16 1994
Sender: listserv@lever.com (mailing list owner)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 12:22:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: BEKKENJ@snycorva.cortland.edu
Subject: Revolutionary Unionism
To: 1-union@lever.com
Message-id: <01HDN9W9YE428WXLVU@snycorva.cortland.edu>
X-VMS-To: 1-UNION
X-VMS-Cc: BEKKENJ
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Reply-To: 1-UNION Distribution List <1-union@lever.com>
X-Sequence: 1129

Fellow Workers,

The discussion of the IWW/IUAW is essentially a discussion about revolutionary
unionism. Anarcho-syndicalists maintain that unions have two inter-related
functions: to fight for better conditions here and now, and to fight to take
over the means of production and operate them in our own interests (that is in
the interests of nearly the entire population).  While FW Lepore and some of
the other DeLeonists disagree with us on questions of political action and,
perhaps, the proper relationship between political organizations and
revolutionary unions (and some DeLeonists believe that the revolution will be
fought on the political rather than the industrial battlefield), they largely
agree with us on the proper role of unions.  The Industrial Workers of the
World, too, shares this committment to revolutionary unionism, though it is not
an anarcho-syndicalist organization.  Several Marxists (a category in which I
include Tom Wetzel--his repudiation of revolutionary unionism, his embrace of
Labor Partyism, etc. alll demonstrate that he cannot be considered an
anarcho-syndicalist despite his pretensions to the contrary) evidently disagree
with us.

First off, some of the IWW's defenders have not been as clear as they might
have been--perhaps because the technology we are using encourages immediate
replies which are composed, at best, a screen at a time with little opportunity
for reflection, consulting each others arguments, etc.  It is both true and not
true that the non-socialists are permitted to join the IWW.  The IWW
constitution requires that all new members affirm their support of the IWW
Preamble and IWW principles--which asserts that the working class and the 
employing class have nothing in common, and that between these classes a 
struggle must go on until the working class seizes the means of production and 
abolishes the wage system.  (While I believe the Constitution exists on disk, 
it is a rather dry document devoted to the structure and rules of the 
organization--you really don't want us to post it.)  Neither the IWW Preamble 
nor the Constitution nor any other IWW policies prohibit or require IWW members
from affiliating themselves to political parties as long as they do not do it
in the name of the organization.  (There are restrictions against IWW members
holding office in political parties, and in "unions" which do not call for the
abolition of the wage system, in order to limit possible conflicts of
interest.)  A great many people have joined the IWW over the years who do not
consider themselves socialist, but felt they could go along with the Preamble.
Many of these joined in the context of job branches where the IWW represented a
substantial part of the work force, but others joined as individuals
recognizing that the IWW's approach represents the most practical approach to
realizing a better society.

We do not interrogate prospective members on their political views, we accept
their declaration that they support the Preamble at their word.  If their
actions later demonstrate that they do not in fact share the organization's
principles--for example, they cross a picketline or join the KKK--this can be
dealt with by bringing charges against them (which are heard by the branch
where the alleged infraction occurred, and are appeallable up to and including
a referendum of the entire membership).  As FW Ballard notes, under ordinary
conditions people who disagree with our positions do not join and so such
problems do not occur.  From time to time we get an infusion of people who join
without supporting IWW principles--whether through confusion or as part of an
infiltration or because the rest of their workplace joined.  In such instances
we rely upon the union's publications, the organizational culture, discussions
with fellow workers, etc. to impart a clearer understanding of what the
organization stands for.  Those who do not share our principles are always
welcome to withdraw from membership, and many do.

At this point I should reiterate that revolutionary unionism is relevant not
merely to the long-term process of building a decent society, but also to our
immediate, ongoing struggle for better conditions here and now. FW Szalai is 
not correct in asserting that the business unions are more effective in this
struggle. (He suggests that more people will join these because they do not
take an adverserial approach to capitalism--"I don't have any problems with big
uniong... A bigger union should be more effective...")  This is by no means
clear.  For example, I belong both to the IWW (which is a union) and to the
American Federation of Teachers (which is a political action committee, as best
I can tell).  I belong to (and hold low-level office in--as an elected delegate
to local meetings, ordinary members do not have voting rights at these) the
AFT because I have no choice; I am required to pay dues as a condition of 
employment.  The AFT local to which I belong proclaims loudly that it is the
largest higher-education local in the U.S.  That means, by FW Szalai's
argument, that it should be pretty powerful.  But this is far from the case. 
The union contract provides for starting pay for full-time faculty with Ph.D.
of just $22,400 (I don't believe anyone actually works for that--we all 
negotiate better individual deals for ourselves when we come in); it allows the
University to slash benefits anytime they become more expensive (and to slash
pension benefits at will); it allows the University to "retrench" individual
faculty units (that is, lay us off) at will, with one year's notice; and (as I
recently learned when the administration overturned departmental and faculty
committee recommendations to keep me on) it gives the University the right to
fire us (until we get tenure) without cause, and without right of appeal.  But
the contract does have very strong language protecting the "union"s' right to
collect dues from anyone and prohibiting the University from meeting with any
other workers' representatives in our behalf.  When I was fired at another
school where we didn't have a union contract I was able to--with the support of
a handful of fellow workers--raise significant resistance.  We didn't
ultimately win, but the Administration took very substantial political costs
and I received a modest cash settlement.  Here, where I am "represented" by a
business union I am barred from any effective resistance while the "union"
tells me it sympathizes but that its hands are tied by the contract.  Thus, I
would be better off in a revolutionary union of 5 or 10 members than in a
business union with some 200 members at my campus and thousands in the
state-wide SUNY system.

This is by no means unique to this particular local.  The fact of the matter,
as the IWW Preamble and One Big Union pamphlet note, is that business unions
are ideologically and structurally incapable of effectively resisting the
capitalists--they are a fifth column in the workers' movement.  The notion that
unions must represent all--or even most--workers on a particular job in order
to do anything is a peculiarly North American idea. In most of the world (and
until a few decades ago here) unions are voluntary organizations which
represent those workers who choose to belong to them. Clearly, all other things
being equal the union will be stronger if it has more support both within the
workplace and among fellow workers outside it.  But the key factor is the
willingness of workers to act in their own class interests.  Even a minority
union can organize direct action campaigns around grievances and compel the
employing class to negotiate them, if its members are class conscious and are
willing to reach out to their fellow workers and build support for such
actions. The business unions, however, preach the harmony of labor and capital,
encourage workers to rely on union leaders rather than upon their own power,
divide workers by craft, by jurisdiction, by affiliation.  They have
substantial memberships because of a system of labor law drafted with the needs
of the employing class in mind.  But they are incapable of effectively
defending our interests, as their sorry record demonstrates.

It is not simply a question of tactics, as Tom Wetzel suggests. The Independent
Union of All Workers had some short-lived successes because it adapted IWW
tactics, but it was ultimately defeated because it ignored the IWW's
organizational program--the need to build revolutionary industrial unions which
are controlled by and accountable to their members.

Instead they allowed themselves to be succerred into the AFL and CIO with the
promise of short-term gains (which never materialized, of course.  I cannot
speak to why Ellis and the two other Wobs did not organize an IWW local--quite
likely Wetzel is correct in asserting that they believed it could not attract
sufficient support.  But this is to confuse smoke and mirrors with long-term
organization.  It is relatively easy to build "broad-based" "organizations"
that stand for nothing and everything at the same time, but because these lack
a common understanding of the problems they face and a strategy for addressing
them they must necessarily fall apart when confronted with a crisis.  It would
no doubt have taken longer to build an IWW local at Hormel and at the other
workplaces that affiliated with the IUAW, and quite likely these IWW locals
would not have reached the membership that went to the IUAW in its brief
existence.  But even small IWW locals could have sparked direct action
campaigns around the widely shared grievances that the IUAW organized around,
and could have demonstrated the correctness of their ideas through struggle. 
If business unions moved in, the IWW locals could have remained as
alternatives on the shop floor (assuming they were not yet strong enough to
block the business unions altogether), whereas the IUAW locals were quickly
absorbed into their respective business unions.

Wetzel's MTW example demonstrates not the weakness of the IWW's approach, but
rather the sectarianism of so much of the left, which refuses to join
revolutionary unions on an equal footing as members of the rank and file. The
IWW is open to Trots, Marxists, DeLeonists, anarchists and others (indeed
Wetzel's group has denounced us, in other contexts, for this) as long as they
allow the union to maintain its independence from any particular political
party or creed.  This independence is absolutely essential if we are to build
effective unions, capable of uniting all workers on the basis of fighting for
our common interests in industry.  What limited the leftist-led labor movements
of the 1930s was not, as Wetzel asserts, that different leftists dominated in
different parts of the country but rather that they insisted on their own
leadership.  Thus, CP labor leaders were committed to remaining in charge of
"their" members, and ditto for each of the myriad Marxist sects.  Since each
sect had their own strongholds, they took these where they could get the best
deal (and ultimately were either absorbed into the bureaucracy or purged).  Had
these partyites not been so committed to maintaining their own ascendancy over
working-class organizations, and instead shared the IWW's vision of worker-run
unions independent of political parties, things might have turned out very
differently.

The IWW did recognize this difficulty, contrary to Wetzel, which is why we did
not follow his program of entering the business unions and trying to establish
ourselves as their leaders but instead held to the IWW's correct position of
building genuine, clas-based, worker-run revolutionary industrial unions.  The
IWW was engaged throughout the period in discussions with local unions that
were dissatisfied with business unionism, however.  FW Thompson told me that
several locals had decided to break away from their business unions and join
the IWW, but that this was prevented by the passage first of the Wagner Act and
later of Taft-Hartley.

The IWW today, like all revolutionary working-class organizations, is weak. 
But if we followed FW Wetzel's advise we would have never organized in the
first place, or having organized--like his guru, Wm. Z Foster--would have
proceeded to burrow with the American Separation of Labor or, later, the CIO. 
That his position has nothing whatever in common with anarcho-syndicalism is
no doubt irrelevant.  More important is what it means for our class today--if
we were to follow his advice we would not build independent revolutionary labor
organizations.  What we would do instead is unclear, since he surely does not
advise that we join the dying AFL-CIO as a means of building class-wide unity. 
Perhaps, like the councilists, we should lie supine at the bosses feet until
our condition is so dire that we must either rise in desparate rebellion or die
of starvation?

Me, I prefer building an organization committed to ending this rotten
capitalist system by uniting as many of our fellow workers as are willing to be
united on the basis of fighting our class enemies for more of the good things
of life today, and for the whole damn pie shop tomorrow.  If this makes me a
"moralist" "blinded to the opportunities and needs of the hour," so be it. 
Wetzel's "needs of the hour," after all, led tens of thousands of once-militant
workers into the clutches of the John L. Lewises and Sidney Hillmans of this
world.

Yours for revolutionary unionism
and a world without bosses,

Jon Bekken 



