PART I
BEGINNINGS

CHAPTER I
Forerunners of the I. W. W.

The revolutionary doctrines of the I. W. W. are spoken of today as constituting the "new unionism" or the "new socialism". It cannot be too strongly emphasized, however, that neither I. W. W.-ism nor the closely related but materially different French syndicalism are brand-new codes which the irreconcilables, here and in France, have invented out of hand within the last quarter of a century. Industrial unionism, as a structural type simply, and even revolutionary industrial unionism—wherein the industrial organization is animated and guided by the revolutionary (socialist or anarchist) spirit—hark back in their essential principles to the dramatic revolutionary period in English unionism of the second quarter of the nineteenth century. In America the labor history of the seventies, and especially the eighties, teems with evidences of the industrial form and the radical temper in labor organizations. The elements of I. W. W.-ism were there; but they were not often co-existent in the same organization. Contemporary writers have not failed to call attention to the striking similarity between the doctrines of the English Chartists and those of our modern I. W. W. The bitter attacks of the Industrial Workers upon politics and politicians and their appeal to all kinds and conditions of labor were also fundamental articles in the creed of the Chartists—who stressed the economic factor almost as forcibly as do the I. W. W.'s today.[3]

In both America and England, especially during the periods referred to, there was abundant evidence of those tactics which we characterize today as syndicalistic. I. W. W. strikes were not invented in 1905. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, the Knights of Labor, the International Working People's Association, the "New Unionists" in the days of Robert Owen—all these and many another group have sought to push their cause by methods now once again made notorious by the French syndicalists and the American Wobblies. The general strike—mass action—the sympathetic strike—the solidarity of all labor—these concepts seem to have their prototypes and very possibly were put into action in still more ancient periods. Osborne Ward reports some revolutionary labor activities in years preceding the Christian era. He describes a strike of the silver miners in Greece—at Laurium, some thirty miles south of Athens. "The inference is unequivocal," says Ward, "that in 413 B. C. twenty thousand miners, mechanics, teamsters, and laborers suddenly struck work; and at a moment of Athens' greatest peril, fought themselves loose from their masters and their chains." He concludes that the strike "must have been well concerted, violent and swift," and "must have been plotted by the men themselves."[4] This strike, apparently, was widely heralded, but seems to have brought no more permanent results than has the average I. W. W. strike of today. The evidence for this very ancient prototype of syndicalism is not entirely conclusive. It was dug out of the old red sandstone—and there are missing links! It will be safer not to try to trace the lineage of syndicalist organizations—much less syndicalist activities and ideas—back more than one century.

There is no doubt that the idea of economic emancipation through economic as opposed to political channels, and to be achieved by all classes of workers as workers, i. e., as human cogs in the industrial, rather than the political, state had been very definitely formulated before the end of the last century.[5] Indeed, the conception runs back well toward the beginning of the nineteenth century. The "one big union" of which we now hear so much was surely in existence in England in the early thirties. Robert Owen at that time outlined his great plan for a "General Union of the Productive Classes." Sidney and Beatrice Webb report the establishment, in 1834, of a "Grand National Consolidated Trades Union":

The leaders of the New Unionists "aimed not at superseding existing social structures but at capturing them in the interests of the wage earners."[7]

American prototypes of I. W. W.-ism appear much later than in England. As early as 1834, however, workingmen in the United States were discussing the attitude of the union toward politics. There was some discussion at that time by members of the National Trades Union of a proposal to have resolutions drawn up to express the views of the convention on the social, civil, and political condition of the laboring classes, and after considerable argument the word "political" was omitted.[8]

In 1864 an unsuccessful attempt was made to organize in this country a national federation of trade unions. Two years later, in Baltimore, a National Labor Congress launched a conservative political organization, called the National Labor Union—a short-lived predecessor of the Knights of Labor. Ely says that it lived only about three years and died of the "disease known as politics."[9] It is probable that a general apathy and financial weakness were contributing causes.

The most important of these forerunners of the "Wobblies" was the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor which was organized in 1869 and for the following decades carried on a remarkably successful propaganda. It had a membership of more than a million in the late eighties.[10] Soon after that the Knights suffered a decline that was even more rapid than their meteoric expansion in the early eighties and ultimately broke down and degenerated into the shadow of an organization that it has been for more than twenty years past. Carroll D. Wright thought that the Knights of Labor reached its highest membership point in 1887 when it had probably about a million enrolled. In 1898 there were about 100,000 in the organization. Colonel Wright believed that this great falling-off in membership was due to the socialistic tendencies of the organization, especially to the attempt to place all wage workers on the same level.[11]

The characteristic motto of the Knights of Labor was: "An injury to one is the concern of all"—the same slogan which is today prominent among the watchwords of the I. W. W. The Knights proposed, first to bring within the folds of organization every department of productive industry, making knowledge a standpoint for action and "industrial, moral worth, not wealth, the true standard of individual and national greatness"; second, "to secure to the toilers a proper share of the wealth that they create ..."; third, the substitution of arbitration for strikes; and, fourth, the reduction of hours of labor to eight per day.[12] The Knights advocated government ownership of telephones, telegraphs, and railroads; emphasized the principle of coöperation; admitted women and negroes, and believed in having working-class politics in the union and the union in working-class politics. "The fundamental principle on which the organization was based was coöperation," said Grand Master Workman Powderly, "... the barriers of trade were to be cast aside; the man who toiled, no matter at what, was to receive and enjoy the just fruits of his labor...."[13]

It was originally a secret organization, but that feature was later abandoned. The following restriction on membership appears in the constitution of the Local Assemblies: "... no lawyer, banker, professional gambler, or stock broker can be admitted." Prior to 1881 physicians were also excluded. It is composed of Local Assemblies (local unions) controlled by District Assemblies, a General Assembly and a Grand Master Workman. These parts were closely related to each other in a centralized system. Centralization of administrative authority was considered highly important—indeed, it was thought indispensable in order successfully to unite every branch of skilled and unskilled labor—a task the Knights considered of prime importance. They differed, however, from our more radical I. W. W.'s of today in placing no little confidence in political methods, maintaining as they did for many years a legislative lobbying committee at Washington. In addition they believed, with the I. W. W., in the sympathetic strike, the boycott—and the necessity of solidarity among all the ranks of labor. The following excerpt from the Final Report of the United States Industrial Commission (1900) explains the administrative policy of the organization:

The emphasis placed by the Knights upon the union of skilled and unskilled is significant in relation to the later efforts of the I. W. W. to effect such a union. "I saw," said Grand Master Workman Terence V. Powderly, "that labor-saving machinery was bringing the machinist down to the level of a day laborer, and soon they would be on a level. My aim was to dignify the laborer."[15] Mr. Powderly is reported in the same interview as saying that his greatest difficulty in getting machinists and blacksmiths to join the Knights of Labor lay in the contempt with which they looked upon other workers.

There was a much closer connection in the Knights of Labor between the central organization and the local bodies than is today the case with the American Federation of Labor, which, as its name implies, is a comparatively loose federation of autonomous "international unions." This high degree of centralization of power in the hands of the General Assembly and the national officers was a factor in the disintegration of the order. More important still was the fact of internal dissension, especially the bitter animosity arising out of the Knights' participation in politics. "... There came the question whether the organization should go into politics as a body or not. That question was probably discussed in every Local Assembly in America ... [and] those political questions coming up drove men out of the organization...."[16]

The Knights were a curious mixture of conservative and radical elements. The organization was socialistic, but rather state socialistic than anything else. Despite their arbitration clause they did not believe in the identity of interest of employer and employee. As trade unionists they were innovators and steered far from the narrow trade type of union imported from England. They said—in words—that they wanted to destroy the wage system. "To point out a way to utterly destroy this system would be a pleasure to me," said Grand Master Workman Powderly.[17] As to the Knights of Labor policy in regard to violence, Perlman says that "... although the leaders of the Knights preached against violence and what we now call sabotage both were nevertheless extensively practiced, as, for instance, in the Southwest Railway strike of 1886." He goes on to draw a parallel between the Knights and the "Wobblies," declaring that the latter preach violence without practicing it, while the Knights practiced it without preaching. He adds that the Knights of Labor adopted coöperation as their official philosophy and the I. W. W. adopted syndicalism and declares that neither practiced their doctrines very much.[18] The disrupted condition of the Knights of Labor in 1902, three years before the organization of the I. W. W., may be understood from the following press dispatch:

Simultaneously with the rise of the Knights of Labor in America came the International Workingmen's Association, the famous "International" which, springing up in Europe in the late sixties, soon spread to both sides of the Atlantic. It was first established in the United States in 1871. This first American section of the International made a slogan of the declaration that the emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves.[20] The organization appears to have been short-lived; for ten years later, in 1881, another body calling itself the International Workingmen's Association was organized at Pittsburgh. This organization, says Tridon, was "made up mostly of laborers and farmers who rejected all parliamentary action and advocated education and propaganda as the best means to bring about a social revolution."[21] In 1887, when they had about 6,000 members, they attempted to amalgamate with the Socialist Labor party, but the negotiations failed and they disbanded.[22]

Meantime the anarchists had been busy in this country. In 1881, the year which marks the birth of the American Federation of Labor (then called the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada), the difference between them and those who advocated political action finally assumed definite form in the organization by the anarchist advocates of physical force of the Revolutionary Socialist party. In 1883 there was held a joint convention of the "revolutionary socialists" and the anarchists which resulted in the birth of the International Working People's Association.[23] At this convention were gathered representatives of anarchist and revolutionary socialist groups from twenty-six cities. These delegates drafted the famous Pittsburgh proclamation which demanded "the destruction of the existing government by all means, i. e., by energetic, implacable, revolutionary and international action" and the establishment of an industrial system based upon "the free exchange of equivalent products between the producing organizations themselves and without the intervention of middlemen and profit-making."[24] In the course of two years the membership of the International grew to about 7,000. Then in 1888 came the Haymarket tragedy and the International soon passed out of existence. The anarchists were in control of this organization and great stress was laid upon revolutionary tactics and direct action, with a corresponding depreciation of political action. John Most, the anarchist, had come to this country in 1882 and the organization of the International Working People's Association was largely due to his agitation here.

There is no doubt that all the main ideas of modern revolutionary unionism as exhibited by the I. W. W. may be found in the old International Workingmen's Association.[25] The I. W. W. organ, The Industrial Worker, asserts that "we must trace the origin of the ideas of modern, revolutionary unionism to the International."[26] Comparing the French cousin of our modern I. W. W. with the older Association, James Guillaume asks, "et qu'est-ce que la confédération générale du Travail si non la continuation de l'internationale?"[27] Many items in the program originally drafted by the famous anarchist, Michael Bakunin, for the International in 1868 are very similar to the twentieth century slogans of the I. W. W.

It began by declaring itself atheist, "L'alliance se déclare athée," and went on to assert that its chief work was to be the abolition of religion and the substitution of science for faith. It advocated the political, social and economic equality of the classes, to achieve which end all governments were to be abolished. It opposed not only all centralized organization, but also all forms of political action, and believed that groups of producers, instead of the community, should have control of the processes of industry.[28]

"Ennemie de tout despotisme, ne reconnaisant d'autre forme politique que la forme républicaine, et rejetant absolument toute alliance réactionnaire, elle repousse aussi toute action politique qui n'aurait pas pour but immédiat et direct le triomphe de la cause des travailleurs contre le capital."[29]

A secret organization, known as the Sovereigns of Industry, was launched at Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1874. It admitted both men and women. Its Preamble stated that it was "an association of the industrial working classes without regard to race, color, nationality or occupation; not founded for the purpose of waging any war of aggression upon any other class or fostering any antagonism of labor against capital ... but for mutual assistance in self-improvement and self-protection."[30] Its ultimate purpose, however, appeared to be the elimination of the wage system.

In the same year was formed a socialist organization called "The Association of United Workers of America."[31] This body, together with several other organizations of socialists, merged to form the Workingman's Party in 1876. The following year the name was changed to the Socialist Labor Party. The year 1874 also marks the birth of the Industrial Brotherhood, an organization somewhat similar to the Knights of Labor but which did not survive the seventies.[32]

A decade later (1884) the National Union of the United Brewery Workmen of the United States[33] was organized. Next to the United Mine Workers this is today the strongest industrially organized union in America. This union has almost from the beginning admitted to its membership not only brewers but also drivers (of brewery wagons), maltsters, engineers and firemen employed in breweries, etc.—all workmen, in fact, who are employed in and around the breweries. Until 1896 the Brewers were a part of the Knights of Labor. Since then they have been almost continuously affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. They have, however, always insisted upon industrial unionism so far as structure is concerned and have more than once been at loggerheads with the Federation on this score. The Brewery Workmen's Union, although conservative in every other way, is cited by I. W. W.'s, no less than the Mine Workers, as a model of the correct thing in labor-union structure. In 1890 the United Mine Workers' Union of America was formed. The organization is today the largest union in this country, if not in the world. It is unquestionably the strongest industrial union in the world. Since 1905 the revolutionary industrial I. W. W.'s have looked with admiration upon the structural form of the Mine Workers' Union—and with impatient scorn upon their conservative tactics.

In England also there came at this time a high tide of sentiment for the "new unionism."

What is even more significant in view of the present day I. W. W. demand for industrial control is the fact that there was constantly cropping up in the eighties the Owenite demand that the workers must be allowed to "own their own factories and decide by vote who their managers and foremen shall be."[35]

In 1888 came the famous Haymarket riots in Chicago. The effect of this tragedy was unquestionably to give the labor and socialist movements a serious setback.

The labor movement [says Robert Hunter] lay stunned after its brief flirtation with anarchy. The union men drew away from the anarchist agitators, and, taking their information from the capitalist press only, concluded that socialism and anarchism were the same thing, and would, if tolerated, lead the movement to ruin and disaster. Without a doubt, the bomb in Chicago put back the labor movement for years. It ... did more to induce the rank and file of trade unionists to reject all association with revolutionary ideas than perhaps all other things put together.[36]

Justus Ebert, who is now a member of the I. W. W., declares that the Haymarket affair "involved the new Socialist Labor party in a fierce discussion of the right course to pursue in the emancipation of labor."[37] Robert Hunter thinks that these riots really gave the French unionists the idea of the General Strike and thus helped to give form, first, to modern French syndicalism, and second, both by relay back to this side of the Atlantic and directly by its influence in this country, to American syndicalism in the form of the Industrial Workers of the World.[38]

Five years after Haymarket—in June, 1893—an industrial union of railway employees was organized in Chicago by Eugene V. Debs. A year later, at the time of the Pullman strike, it had a membership of 150,000. The failure of that strike, which by the way was an early example of I. W. W. tactics, broke down the union, and it passed out of existence in 1897.

The year 1893 also marks the beginning of the Western Federation of Miners,[39] which may well be ranked as the chief predecessor of the I. W. W. The coal miners had formed their national organization three years earlier. Both the coal and metalliferous miners' unions were built from the start upon the industrial type, that is, including in their membership in both cases "all persons employed in and around the mines." The Western Federation of Miners was organized in Butte, Montana, in 1893, and almost immediately affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It separated from the Federation, however, in 1897 and, after a period of independent existence broken by alliances with the Western Labor Union in 1898 and with the I. W. W. in 1905, rejoined the A. F. of L. in 1911.

During the twelve years of the Western Federation's existence before the birth of the I. W. W., it figured in the most strenuous and dramatic series of strike disturbances in the history of the American labor movement. Swift on each others' heels came the terrors of Coeur d'Alene in 1893, Cripple Creek in 1894, Leadville in 1896-7, Salt Lake and the Coeur d'Alene again in 1899, Telluride in 1901, Idaho Springs in 1903, and Cripple Creek again in 1903-4. The Federation was—in its first decade particularly—as militantly radical as the coal miners' union was conservative. The strikes in which it has engaged have been usually marked by much disorder and violence.[40] During the Idaho Springs strike in 1903 an indignation meeting of the citizens was called for July 29th by the Citizens' Protective League—an association of mine owners and business men. At this meeting one of the local merchants said: "Moyer and Haywood are the arch anarchists of this country, along with Herr Most. I see that Moyer is coming to Idaho Springs tomorrow. I want to say that if the people allow him to land his feet in Clear Creek County they are dirty arrant cowards." Very shortly the meeting passed a resolution to deport the strikers, adjourned to the jail, demanded the prisoners, ordered out 14 of the 23 there incarcerated and deported them.[41]

There is no doubt that the terrible strike troubles during the nineties and the early years of this century had their effect in working union men up to the radically pioneering pitch. These struggles were surely the birth signs of the coming militant industrialism of the Industrial Workers of the World. Wm. D. Haywood, now General Secretary-Treasurer of the I. W. W., and Vincent St. John, for several years in the same position, were both active and leading members of the W. F. M. during its earlier years. The Federation was less scornful of politics than the I. W. W. The Western Miners were forced by the obvious connivance between the state and city governments and the mine operators, by the use of the militia for the suppression of strikes and by the abuse of the injunction, to consider the possibilities of political action along socialistic lines. At their convention in 1902 they resolved "to adopt the principle of socialism without equivocation."[42] This resolution was reaffirmed in 1903 and 1904. "We recommend the Socialist party," reads their statement in 1904, "to the toiling masses of humanity as the only source through which they can secure ... complete emancipation from the present system of wage slavery...."[43] "Let all strike industrially here and now, if necessary," runs another resolution (signed, by the way, by William D. Haywood), "and then strike in unity at the ballot-box for the true solution of the labor problem by putting men of our class into public office...."[44]

The Federation was not actually content, however, with political activity. It has been made quite evident that the economic weapon of the strike was not neglected. In addition to this the fundamental and at that time rarely discussed problem of employees' control in industry was seriously discussed. At the tenth convention, Wm. D. Haywood proposed that the Federation invest some of its money in mines, to be operated by its members for the benefit of the unions.[45] At the following meeting President Moyer proposed that the Federation secure control of and operate mines and levy assessments for the purpose.[46] The plan had to be given up at that time because the Federation just then faced unusual difficulties because of the strike confronting it. Nevertheless, this idea of industrial workers' control had its effect in impressing the miners with the notion that in their union "they had an agency that could carry on and control production for their own benefit."

Some conception of the unusually radical temper of the Western Federation may be had from the Preamble to its constitution. It declares that

For these reasons, the Preamble concludes, "the wage slaves employed in and around the mines, mills and smelters have associated in the Western Federation of Miners."[47]

The Western Federation of Miners was the effective agency in the formation at Salt Lake City in 1898 of the Western Labor Union. It was in this same year that the Social Democratic party (which became the Socialist party three years later) was organized in Chicago. The Western Labor Union in 1902 moved its headquarters from Butte, Montana, to Chicago, and changed its name to the American Labor Union, which in turn, and inclusive of the W. F. M., merged in 1905 with certain other radical unions to form the Industrial Workers of the World. The American Labor Union was in 1905 apparently on the verge of disruption—practically dead.[48] The Federation of Miners was always the Western (or American) Labor Union's largest and strongest component. It repudiated the American Federation of Labor. The bulk of its membership was unskilled labor and it soon had enrolled, in addition to the mine laborers, large numbers of the cooks, waiters, teamsters, and lumbermen of the western states. It was apparently the first labor organization seriously to attempt the organization of the lumber workers.[49] The Western Labor Union proposed to bring into an industrial organization western wage-workers of all crafts and no crafts; it aimed to include all kinds and degrees of labor, but until 1901 its activities were mostly confined to the mining camps of the West.[50] Indeed, Katz says that "the American Labor Union was practically only another name for the Western Federation of Miners: [being] called into existence to give the miners' union a national character."[51]

The American Labor Union was very decidedly an industrial union—more, however, by anticipation than realization.

It resembled our modern I. W. W. in some important particulars. "It believes," says one of the members, "that all employees working for one company, engaged in any one industry, should be managed through ... one authoritative head; that all men employed by one employer, in any one industry [should] be answerable to the employer through one and the same organization...."[52] The approval of its general Executive Board is required before any member local can call a strike.[53] An interchangeable or universal transfer system is provided, as it was later by the I. W. W.[54] The American Labor Union was an industrial organization of more decided political character and sympathies than is the I. W. W. It was, however, decidedly socialistic in its ultimate aim. It seemed to mark the climax of development of industrial unionism of that (political-socialist) type. It will be evident in the following pages that in 1905 began a sharp swing under the I. W. W. banner from socialist industrial unionism to anarcho-syndicalist industrial unionism.

A good many of the leaders of the American Labor Union were members of the Socialist party. "Believing that the time has come," runs the A. L. U. Preamble, "for undivided, independent, working-class political action, we hereby declare in favor of international Socialism and adopt the platform of the Socialist Party of America as the political platform and program of the American Labor Union."[55] Although it endorsed socialism, the A. L. U., unlike the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, admitted workingmen of any political views whatsoever, but resembled the latter organization in its opposition to the American Federation of Labor and its desire to build up a revolutionary labor movement.

The roots of I. W. W.-ism reached out most vigorously and numerously in the western part of the United States, and the greater part of its strength today is derived from its western membership. The way was prepared for it most largely by western organizations—the Western Federation of Miners being the forerunner par excellence of modern I. W. W.-ism. Two organizations in the East, that is, having their chief strength in the East, played a highly important rôle during the decade preceding the launching of the I. W. W. These organizations were the Socialist Labor party and its trade-union "brain child," the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. Adequately to fill in this sketch of origins, it is necessary to refer briefly to these two organizations, especially to the S. T. & L. A., the Socialist Labor party's bright ideal of all that a labor union ought to be.

The Socialist Labor party was organized in 1877. It was a merger of the National Labor Union, the North American Federation of the International Workingmen's Association and the Social Democratic Workmen's Party. It was first known as the Workmen's Party of the United States. The German socialist trade-union element predominated in it.[57] The Socialist Labor party has always been emphatically Marxian and its leaders have been so decidedly doctrinaire in their interpretation of Marxian socialism and in their application of it to the practical work of socialist campaigning and propaganda that they have been not unjustly called impossibilists. Since the organization of the Socialist party in 1901 these two political parties of the socialist faith have been in open and bitter opposition to each other. The Socialist party adopted an opportunist policy, endorsed and often leagued itself with the conservative trade unions, refrained from any attempt to form or coöperate in the formation of socialist unions, and contented itself with the endeavor to make the existing unions socialistic by converting their individual members to socialism—a policy which came to be known as "boring from within." The Socialist Labor party, on the other hand, embraced a doctrinaire "impossibilist" policy, violently attacked the trade unions, made its slogan "no compromise and no political trading," and insisted that new unions, industrial in structure and socialist in purpose and principle should be created in opposition to the craft unions, whose structure and spirit it despaired of changing by "boring from within." The Socialist party has waxed strong and powerful. Its rival has languished and is today too small a group to be called a party.

The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was organized in 1895, the same year which witnessed the birth of the organized syndicalist movement in France in the form of the Confédération Générale du Travail. On December 6th of that year a delegation from District Assembly 49 of the Knights of Labor met in conjunction with the Central Labor Federation of New York City and launched the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance. The idea of this organization seems to have originated with Daniel DeLeon, whom his enemies called "the Pope of the S. L. P." and who was undoubtedly the leading student of Marxian socialism in this country. He was convinced that, as one of his followers expressed it, "without the organization of the workers into a class-conscious revolutionary body on the industrial field, socialism would remain but an aspiration."[58] "The S. T. & L. A." declares N. I. Stone, "was the most unique example of a socialist trade-union, anti-pure-and-simple organization in the annals of labor history...." "It came down upon us," he said, "full fledged from top to bottom as the masterpiece of our 'Master Workman' [DeLeon] and took us by surprise; but take it did...."[59]

In 1896 at the first convention of the Socialist Labor party after the organization of the S. T. & L. A. the party formally endorsed the latter organization. Mr. Hugo Vogt addressed the convention in behalf of the S. T. & L. A. "The whole of this labor movement," he said, "must become saturated with socialism, must be placed under socialist control, if we mean to bring together the whole working class into that army of emancipation which we need to accomplish our purpose."[60] He went on to explain that "in order to make it impossible for any masked swindlers to obtain influence in the Alliance, and to swing it back to the conservative side, we have provided that every officer ... shall take a pledge that he will not be affiliated with any capitalist party and will not support any political action except that of the Socialist Labor party."[61]

The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance was patterned very closely after the Knights of Labor. Wm. E. Trautmann called it "a duodecimo edition of the K. of L."[62] "It had the same district alliances with the same intellectuals as leaders: the same local craft organizations and the same mixed locals [as well as] the same centralized autocracy at headquarters...." He concludes that "the most fatal weakness of all was the political union of the S. T. & L. A. with the S. L. P."[63] The Alliance was, after all, a revolutionary socialist trade union rather than an industrial union. It differed from the American Labor Union and other forerunners mentioned above in this lack of industrial structure as well as in the emphasis it laid on the need of rallying to the support of the Socialist Labor party, with which organization it stood in the most intimate relations and to which most of its members belonged. It was actually sceptical about the efficacy of purely economic action. In common with I. W. W. later on, and in spite of the fact that its own locals were virtually trade or craft locals, it nourished an almost bitter hatred of the craft unions. "We simply have to go at them," said one of its members, "and smash them from top to bottom...."[64] Its animus was directed, however, at their conservatism and not so much at their craft structure.

In its "Declaration of Principles" the Alliance asserted that