Socialism and Trade Unionism/Socialism and Trade Unionism

Although we Socialists are often charged with being bitterly hostile and utterly opposed to the trade union movement and seeking every opportunity to attack and deride it, it is only fair to state our position upon this very important question openly and above board, in order that the many erroneous and quite often ridiculous, not to say amusing, indictments that are laid at our door by our friends of the trade unions who have as yet not seen the new "Light" may be shattered. and that the mists that now surround the cause of Socialism in its relation to trade unionism may be swept away and banished forever.

It is quite true that there are many Socialists who agree with the policy. methods and tactics of a certain New York editor, who at one time was a power in the Socialist Labor party, but now happily shorn of that power to do further mischief, but their power and influence is rapidly decreasing and so is his pet Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, at no time a very strong organization. He is no longer ​to be considered a dangerous factor in the Socialist movement either in building up or tearing down the structure of trade unionism, new or old. Let us give praise.

The Socialist movement in this country or at least as much of it as is represented by the Social Democratic party, has placed itself fairly and squarely in sympathy with the trade union movement as we find it to-day, not so much for the purpose of controlling perhaps, but more in the capacity of guide and advance guard to the great army of men and women who are enrolled within the ranks of organized labor, thus blazing the pathway that leads to that haven of rest and true freedom—the Co-operative Commonwealth of the future.

That is our mission, and in that mission we will be successful. .The question of the attitude Socialists should take toward trade unionism is very often forced upon our attention and becomes more and more important as the Socialist movement spreads and widens and grows among the workers.

Although it is not quite so easy as one would suppose to answer the question readily as it might first appear to be, for it is by no means free of difficulties and quagmires, yet we are convinced that our position regarding trade unions should be one of sympathy and brotherly assistance and helpfulness. It is true that there is no necessary affinity between Socialism and trade unionism beyond the fact that ​both agree to the principle of association for mutual benefit and that both are phases of the ever increasing class struggle arising from class distinctions. Aside from that, they are on different planes. While they are not necessarily identical, neither can they be said to be antagonistic. In fact, many trade unionists, nay, perhaps the bulk of them, are opposed to Socialism, although convinced that it is an unreasoning dislike; yet trade unionism is not opposed to Socialism, and intelligent Socialists do not and cannot oppose trade unionism, howmuch we may be compelled to fight individual trade unionists. This is the policy adopted by all the Socialist parties of the world and we see no good reason why we should in the future alter that policy. We have singly and unitedly helped in organizing unions, we have struck and fought and starved with them, we have sided with them in every fight that they have been engaged in, and we have to the best of our ability aided them both by financial assistance and counsel. They have been and still are fighting the battle of the workers, often against tremendous odds, very often blindly, hopelessly and ignorantly, but still fighting, and while we have many times cursed their stupidity and folly and their leaders still more, yet we could not but render them all the help in our power.

It is a source of constant surprise to Social​ists of other countries who are not familiar with the conditions that obtain in this country that there should be any difference, not to say antagonism, between militant Socialists and trade unionists. To them, at least those of continental Europe, the two movements are, if not identical, considered practically one, and in their view Socialism is not a separate movement, but simply the organized expression of the advanced thought of the whole working class movement along lines that trade unionism cannot very well follow.

But the circumstances in this and other countries outside of English-speaking ones are very different, although this difference is too frequently lost sight of, hence confusion. In other countries, with the exceptions quoted, the Socialist movement. preceded the trade union movement, precisely as the educational and class conscious one preceded the economic development of capital. Generally speaking, in those nations the fight for universal suffrage preceded the trade union movement and consequently when trade unionism did obtain a foothold the movement naturally was guided and controlled by the men who had wrested from the grasp of the governing class the full or partial right of enfranchisement for the masses, a privilege which gave to the privileged classes the almost sole control of the political power of the state. There were, to be ​sure, combinations and organizations of laborers that existed long before modern trade unionism was born, but they partook more of the old guild system and were therefore limited in numbers and of but very little influence with the mass of the exploited. In this country the reverse conditions obtained, for here the workman did possess the privilege of the suffrage long before trade unionism was transplanted across the water. In England the organization of labor along economic lines preceded the extension of the suffrage, a privilege hitherto controlled by and kept in the hands of the "better" classes. Consequently just as in this country, the most fully developed, economically, in the world, the general education and class conscious feelings of the workers are the most backward. It is quite true, however, as I have just stated, that while we in America had the gift of suffrage conferred upon us by right of birth or adoption, the pioneers of trade unionism in this, our land, who were nearly all, if not all, natives of Great Britain, in planting the movement here, builded upon purely economic lines and completely ignored the political side of militant trade unionism and the enormous power for good that was and is contained in a vote. Nor could they be blamed, seeing that in Great Britain the ballot was almost exclusively in the hands of the aristocratic and middle classes, who used it to keep the ​masses in ignorance and subjection, and because victories had been won apparently upon pure and simple lines they naturally thought that they could do the same here, and therefore the cry was raised, no politics in the unions—although that did not mean by any means that politicians were to be excluded.

Thus the American workmen in foolishly refusing to use that magnificent weapon of offense and defense, along class lines, placed themselves practically in the same position that the working class of England were in.

We may therefore treat it as a movement that preceded the enfranchisement of the masses.

The result is that in continental Europe the Socialist movement has created and nursed a Trade Union movement that has breathed into and given it life.

Here, on the contrary, where pure and simple Trade Unionism is stronger than elsewhere, and I make this statement upon the authority of no less a person than Mr, Thomas F. Tracy, late fraternal delegate from the A. F. of L. to the recent Trade Union Congress of England, held in the summer of 1899, the Socialist movement is regarded by trade unionists, generally speaking, with a degree of hostility that borders almost on the verge of insanity, considering it as a rival that threatens to usurp it in the mind and hearts of the working class. In other ​countries Socialism is powerful and practically controls the entire working class movement. Capitalists tremble before it and government bows frequently to its demands. European Socialists sometimes blame us for not exerting the same influence upon the working class as they do.

The mistake they make, and many believers in Socialism in this country fall into the same grave error, is in assuming that there is a working class movement outside the Socialist movement. There is nothing of the kind, and it would be extremely difficult to convince us to the contrary. There is a fairly strong, well organized, perhaps wealthy and well equipped Trade Unionism movement. The vast majority of our trade unions are not, generally speaking, active, earnest, militant, fighting, class-conscious organizations for the overthrow of private capitalism and the destruction of class distinctions, but quiet, respectable, law-abiding, sick and death benefit societies. In the average trade union the insurance and fraternal society feature cuts more of a figure than the raising of wages and the shortening of hours and is considered to be of more importance. The political weight and influence of the trade union is absolutely nil, as many of our unions will discover before they are through with Mr. Hart, mayor of Boston. Recently a committee consisting of members of the C. L. U. and B. T. ​C., acting in conjunction with other committees, called upon the mayor to lay certain real or alleged grievances committed by certain public officials against organized labor before him for redress, coupled with other eminently fair requests. The committee was courteously received. They stated their complaints, along with their requests and awaited the reply with bated breath, and they got it thusly: "Gentlemen, I do not propose to be dictated to, and I will run the city and its departments without your kind assistance and advice. Good day, gentlemen," quoth his honor, as with a genial smile he wafted them out into the cold, cold air. It is true that we have an annual convention of the A. F. of L:, and at this convention cart-loads of resolutions are debated and adopted, which have no meaning unless they are to be followed by political action; it is true, also, that the convention has a legislative committee whose duty is to draw up bills to be presented to Congress and to get members of congress to support and vote for the passage of these bills. It is equally true, however, that the great body of the Unionists never read, and when they do, they scarcely ever express an opinion favorable or unfavorable upon these resolutions. They are seldom if ever discussed in their unions, and In most trade unions any discussion of a political character is prohibited. Trade Unionists are divided into Repub​licans, Democrats, a few Socialists and indifferentists, the latter being probably in the majority. Thus any legislative measure is not regarded from our trade unions from a class point of view, but from that of the political party to which each trade unionist individual inclines.

As working men they are trade unionists, but in politics, as in religion, they are individualists. Being such, any discussion of a political or religious subject would mean discord and disunity and both subjects are as a rule rigidly prohibited. Indeed, political feeling runs so high in some parts of the country, not a thousand miles from Boston, too, that actually Democratic and Republican clubs composed of the same trade craft exist side by side and pour forth oceans of Billingsgate at each other. Not only that, but we have seen prominent officials of trades unions standing upon different platforms denouncing each other with the utmost venom and abuse. And so it goes year after year without any signs of ceasing.

Thus it will be seen that in American trade unionism there is no genuine working class movement with a definite aim with which Socialists are in accord, but a heterogeneous mass with diverse views and objects, the only ones they hold in common being insurance against death and sickness, and a limited trade protection. This idea of trade protection, while en​tertaining a certain amount of antagonism to the capitalist class and thus claiming a certain sympathy from Socialists, is not of such a marked character that it by any means endangers the supremacy of that class, in fact the solidity of the working class is placed in grave danger by the tactics of trade union leaders who follow middle class, nay, medieval, ideas in fighting the class who hold them in economic subjection. In a nutshell, our trade unions partake more of the nature of insurance companies than trade organizations.

It is these conditions then that we are confronted with, and when brought to the attention of European Socialists it is almost impossible to convince them of the real truth. Is it any wonder then that they incline toward pessimism when speaking or writing of the Socialist movement in America? When Socialist trade unionist candidates are nominated the nominees of the party are either ridiculed almost to death or jeered and sneered at by members of their own unions, thus making it very difficult to obtain men who are willing to stand up and be counted. In my own case I once ran upon the Socialist ticket, and wherever and whenever I came in contact with any other members of my union in the shop or elsewhere, I was the constant source of the keenest amusement and ridicule and nothing was too cowardly or too low for them to taunt me with.

​Well known as I was in the trade union movement here in Boston, it was almost impossible for me to obtain more than two or three dozen signatures to my nomination papers and I was forced to go among people who were not trade unionists to obtain the necessary amount, and then those that favored me with their names, did it not because they believed in Socialism or even trade unionism, but because they were too polite to refuse. Not so the trade unionist. If there are two trade unionists running for the same office, a political office I mean, a Socialist running upon a clear cut platform of principles and pledged to vote for trade union principles, and a non-Socialist running upon a platform pledged in the interest of the ruling class, or running as a mere jelly-fish politician, the latter is always sure to be chosen, except perhaps in rare cases, as in Haverhill or Brockton, and even in those instances they chose capitalist boards of aldermen and councilors to keep the elected Socialists in check. We are such a practical people you know, and there is nothing we like so much as a moderate man—one who can blow hot and cold in the same breath. And not only do such men find most favor with their own class, but they find very little opposition from the other side. They are such real nice, sensible, practical men; men who work and legislate in the interest of the whole people, and therefore patriotic men, such ​sort of trade unionists should be encouraged to the exclusion of the more radical type who are always questioning the sacred rights of property. No ranting visionaries these, but perfectly safe and tame creatures who threaten no vested interests and, haying no opinions of their own, re-echo in their own way and language the views of their leaders or the political chief of the party they are attached to and fancy, or desire others to fancy, they are original. This is the type of labor representatives which is fashionable in the state legislature and in the various representative bodies of the municipal governments. Much better for trades unionism that we had or have none at all.

Flunkeys and belly crawlers they ape the airs of their masters, while they cajole and misrepresent the class in whose name they claim to speak. Yet the latter approves, for it is their votes which elect these charlatans and crooks. Certainly there can be no country in the world where there is so much humbug, hypocrisy and knavery as here; where the alleged representatives of labor are the mere decoy-ducks of the capitalist parties, and the very class who are betrayed by these gentry loudly shout their approval of the whole miserable farce. It would be a farce if it were not a tragedy. It would be impossible anywhere in continental Europe to match the Haverhill and Brockton experiences. In both cities the Socialist candidates ​for the mayoralty, standing upon a clear-cut Socialist class conscious platform, battled against the combined old line political parties and the combined capitalist wealth of the two cities, and won out after the fiercest political battle ever fought in the old commonwealth; and yet both of these Socialist candidates were trade unionists, and while it is true that they received the hearty support of the members of organized labor of their own municipalities, I have yet to learn that any trade union outside of their respective cities contributed one cent to aid them in their fight against the capitalist forces arrayed against them, or even tendered them assistance or encouragement in any way that would tend to show that they were interested in the struggle. Truly it was a lamentable sight in the annals of the labor movement to see the great A. F. of L. in convention at the very time that the class conscious laborers in Haverhill and Brockton were holding aloft the banner of Socialism refuse by their silence to send even one line of sympathy or encouragement to their brothers who were not only fighting the battle of the "Brotherhood of Man" and "the Solidarity of All Mankind," but of trade unionism itself. There is perhaps one hopeful sign of the times in all this, and that is that no kept labor leader had the courage to hie himself to either of the cities in question and speak in opposition to Chase or Coulter.

​These, then, are some of the difficulties and obstacles that Socialists find in the way of union and friendly feeling toward the pure and simple trade unionism. The almost entire absence of any real working class movement in the ranks of trade unionism, and fostering of shams whenever and wherever trade unionism manifests any movement. There are other difficulties with which it is not necessary to deal in this paper. But recognizing all these we are still forced to the conclusion that the Socialist must stand by the side of the trade unionist.

In any movement or organization that is not essentially hostile to Socialism we can do much for the cause if we work persistently for the cause and not for our own welfare. In all sorts of organizations and groups a Socialist can do good work if he will. How much more, then, in a trade union, based as it is on the very class hatred which is the very life blood of the Socialist movement, for after all personality counts for something and the Socialist should aim at personal popularity among his fellows not for the gratification of his vanity, but for the glory of the cause. Many Socialists have endeared themselves to their fellow workmen and fellow unionists for the work they have done and the service that they have rendered for trade unionism. Such men are all the more valuable to our movement from the representative character they have thus acquired. The ​trade unions offer a splendid opportunity for propaganda, a propaganda which can better be carried on by example than precept, not that the Socialist can always live Socialism, but he can show that the Socialist can be every bit as good—as a unionist, a good fellow, a citizen and neighbor and a man—as any of his fellows. If there is not a good field of action in trade unionism, what is there outside? There is no doubt that the unions are only a minority of the working class, but I candidly believe that they are the best and most progressive.

What is there outside that we can hope for, unless we leaven the trade union mass with the seed of Socialism? Nothing. Trade unionism may be so far behind as to make us despair sometimes, but it does represent all that is best in the working class. With all its drawbacks, then we may say of trade unionism, as it is today, as we may say of democracy; it may be and is difficult to work with, but it is almost impossible to do anything without it. In conclusion, let me, if there is one within the sound of my voice who is not convinced of the absolute truth and beauty of Socialism, one who yet imagines that trade unionism, of itself and by itself, can solve the social problem, let him hearken unto us. The methods and procedure of trades unionism are old fashioned and will be impotent in the gigantic conflict between the forces of reactionism and the forces of progress ​that must be fought to a finish ere the first quarter of the new century passes away. No force can hope to cope with entrenched capitalism and destroy it root and branch, except the mighty force of Socialism organized along class lines, having for its aim the glorious commonwealth of the future.

Already the capitalist system is sinking into its self-made grave. Already the new is springing up in our midst on a firmer foundation than the past has rested on; and only in this new society—this Socialist Commonwealth—will the grand idea of peace and harmony and fraternity be realized on earth. It is Socialism that is breaking down the barriers that divide the nations of the world, destroying alike the classes and castes that have hitherto existed among men. It is in the name of Socialism that the self-conscious workers of every land are stretching forth hands to one another and joining them in a firm grip, of fraternity and solidarity. To all, Socialism has to offer a nobler life than the present. To the warring nations of the world it offers—peace on earth, good will toward men; the time when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn the art of war. To all it offers a joyful life and a joy to those that mourn. Let us then, in the name of the solidarity of labor, the world over, unite with the organized craft to which we belong or should belong, propa​gate the class conscious spirit among our fellows, urging them with all the power we possess to turn their minds and hearts toward the rising tide of Social Democracy and its glorious standard bearers, Debs and Harriman, holding aloft the flag of the new, yet, old cause, pushing it onward and upward until the last vestige of capitalism disappears forever from the earth. Onward, brothers, to the conquest of the, glorious future.Daniel Lynch.