This Declaration concludes with the following statement of the chief object of the Alliance:

In the body of its constitution the objects of the Alliance are set forth more explicitly. They are declared to be to bring about the adoption of its principles

The Socialist Labor party naturally greeted the Alliance with enthusiasm. After officially endorsing the Alliance, the 1896 convention passed a resolution of welcome.

During this S. T. and L. A. period Daniel DeLeon looked upon revolutionary unionism as being necessarily pro-political rather than pro-industrial and non-political. He then felt that the political movement must dominate the unions as they are in Germany dominated by the Social Democracy. He later became convinced that revolutionary unionism must dominate the political movement, and that the revolutionary union had a decisive mission in the Socialist movement.

The composition and membership of the S. T. and L. A. in July, 1898, were as follows:

The Alliance was scarcely more than a phantom organization on the eve of the launching of the I. W. W. in 1905. The same may be said of all the western unions which in that year merged in the I. W. W., except the Western Federation of Miners. The S. L. P. and the S. T. and L. A. "talk of capturing the convention to be held on June 27 [the 1st I. W. W. convention].... That convention should be not a revival, but the funeral, of the S. T. and L. A."[71] This expressed fairly well the attitude of the Socialist party men. "Born in hatred, suckled in dissension," as one socialist writer sees it, "the sole partisan trade union that ever arose to deny the principles and policies of international socialism came to destruction by its own venom, not however, until it had implanted the poison of its spirit into the Industrial Workers of the World."[72]

The main ideas of I. W. W.-ism—certainly of the I. W. W.-ism of the first few years after 1905—were of American origin, not French, as is commonly supposed. These sentiments were brewing in France, it is true, in the early nineties,[73] but they were brewing also in this country and the American brew was essentially different from the French. It was only after 1908 that the syndicalisme révolutionnaire of France had any direct influence on the revolutionary industrial unionist movement here. Even then it was largely a matter of borrowing such phrases as sabotage, la grève perlée, etc. The tactics back of the words sabotage and "direct action" had been practiced by American working men years before those words ever came into use among our radical unionists. "The Western Labor Union," says Walling, "was applying these principles in the Rocky Mountains, under the leadership of Haywood and others, several years before the French Confederation of Labor was formed...."[74] Some premonition of the power of a labor union including all—or even a large proportion of—the unskilled was given by the Western Federation of Miners, the American Labor Union, the American Railway Union, and other American organizations already referred to.

During the first five years of this century the idea of militant industrial unionism underwent rapid development. Unionists were coming to have a much broader view of the social rôle of the labor union. The actual trend of events opened the way for reorganization on new lines. The organizations which were to make up the I. W. W. were almost without exception in unprosperous straits, some of them being on the verge of disruption. All of them were bitter in their opposition to the American Federation of Labor—with which organization, indeed, few of them were affiliated. The United Metal Workers had been affiliated but withdrew in December, 1904. There was probably little left but a remnant when they joined the I. W. W. the following year. The same is true of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees. Even the American Labor Union—except its "mining division," the W. F. M.—was skirting the edge of dissolution.[75] The Socialist Labor party and its "puny child," the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, were in a bad way. Among the United Mine Workers there was dissension in many localities. There was dissatisfaction with the leaders and especially with the upshot of the strike settlement of 1902. Moreover, the miners as well as the United Brewery Workmen were embittered by constant criticism of their industrial form of organization. The latter were threatened with the prospect of a revocation of their charter by the Federation. There were thus a number of "national" organizations and many locals in other bodies which were anxious to create some central labor organization to strengthen the forces of industrial unionism. The Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, though on the decline, still included a considerable body of workers who were impatient of the conservatism of the A. F. of L. and desired somehow to build up a strong revolutionary (this meaning for them a Marxian socialist) organization. The Western Federation of Miners—stronger than all the others put together—was not excelled by any of them in its revolutionary zeal. It had the power as well as the enthusiasm. Moreover, it represented revolutionary industrial unionism more completely than did the smaller unions in the West and the Alliance in the East. The Alliance, in fact, was a revolutionary union without the industrial character and without much real appreciation of the meaning and importance of the idea of industrial as opposed to craft organization. The miners, however, had a big, powerful union of an emphatically industrial character and their experience had made them very militant.[76]

Much of this hard experience consisted in a gradual process of disillusionment about the virtue and goodness of the state so far as its relations with labor were concerned. The long series of violent and protracted strikes between the Western Federation and the mine operators and the rôle played therein by the state government convinced the miners that they would be more successful in gaining their political ends if they had more economic power to back up their requests. The miners were convinced, therefore, that the imperative need of the hour was for the extension to other industries of their type of industrial organization inspired by socialist aims. This would make solidarity possible, not only between skilled and unskilled in the metalliferous mines but also in all mines, all shops, all industries. They felt that then indeed would an injury to one be the concern of all.[77]

CHAPTER II
The Birth of the Organization[78]
(1905)

The Industrial Workers of the World, now more generally known as the I. W. W.[79] was organized at an "Industrial Union Congress" held in Chicago in June, 1905. This first or constitutional convention had its inception in an informal conference held in that city, in the fall of 1904, by six men of prominence in the socialist and labor movement. These conferees were: William E. Trautmann, editor of the Brauer Zeitung, official organ of the United Brewery Workmen; George Estes, President of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees; W. L. Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees; Isaac Cowen, American representative of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers of Great Britain; Clarence Smith, General Secretary-Treasurer of the American Labor Union; and Thomas J. Hagerty, editor of the Voice of Labor, official organ of the American Labor Union.[80] Several others not present at this conference were at that time actively interested in the matter and coöperated in carrying out these prenatal plans. Two of them, Eugene V. Debs and Charles O. Sherman, General Secretary of United Metal Workers International Union, were destined to play important rôles in the organization.

These men were impelled by a common conviction that the labor unions of America were becoming powerless to achieve real benefits for working men and women. This feeling was confirmed and intensified by many recent events in the trade-union movement. It was not the more conservative, "aristocratic" unions alone which were found wanting. Even those labor organizations of the industrial and radical type, such as the American Labor Union, the Western Federation of Miners, and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, were believed to be, for one reason or another, quite unprepared to negotiate—much less to fight—with the ever more highly integrated organizations of employers. At the constitutional convention in June, 1905, Clarence Smith of the American Labor Union explained the reasons for initiating the movement.

In order to go over the matter and discuss plans more thoroughly, it was decided to arrange for a larger meeting. On November 29 a letter of invitation was sent to about thirty persons then prominent in the radical labor and Socialist movements. This letter contained the following significant paragraph:

It is noteworthy fact that, although the proposition was concurred in and the invitation accepted with enthusiasm by the great majority of those invited, agreement was not unanimous. There were two dissenters—Victor Berger and Max Hayes. It is not recorded that Mr. Berger even sent his "regrets," but Mr. Hayes explained his position at length. In a letter to W. L. Hall, December 30, 1904, he said:

The Western Federation of Miners did not lack enthusiasm for this wider venture in industrial unionism. President Moyer's report to the thirteenth convention, which met just one month before the constitutional convention of June, 1905, contained the following:

At about the same time J. M. O'Neill, the editor of the Miners' Magazine, wrote William D. Haywood, the treasurer of the Federation, that

The secret conference—thereafter to be known as the January Conference—was called to order in the city of Chicago on the second of January by William E. Trautmann. There were twenty-three persons present, representing nine different organizations; that is, of course, exclusive of members of the Socialist and Socialist Labor parties, who were not present formally as such. There were present five officials of the United Brotherhood of Railway Employees and one member of the Brewery Workmen. Among those present were: Charles H. Moyer, President, Western Federation of Miners; W. D. Haywood, Secretary of the Western Federation of Miners; J. M. O'Neill, editor of the Miners' Magazine; A. M. Simons, editor of The International Socialist Review; Frank Bohn, organizer, Socialist Labor party and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance; T. J. Hagerty, editor of The Voice of Labor; C. O. Sherman, of the United Metal Workers; and "Mother" Mary Jones. During a three days' session plans for a proposed new labor organization were seriously discussed and carefully worked out. The report of their committee on methods and procedure was worked up by the members of the conference into a "Manifesto"[86] which contained (1) an indictment of "things as they are" in the trade-union world; (2) leading propositions and tentative plans for a new departure in labor organization; and (3) a call for a convention to organize this new union.

The first part of this document is devoted to a discussion of certain modern tendencies in the labor movement. Trade divisions among laborers and competition among capitalists are both disappearing. The machine process is more and more tending to minimize skill and swell the ranks of the unskilled and unemployed. The incidence of the machine process is fatal to labor groups divided according to the tool used. "These divisions," in the words of the Manifesto, "far from representing differences in skill or interests among the laborers, are imposed by the employers that workers may be pitted against one another and spurred to greater exertion in the shop, and that all resistance to capitalist tyranny may be weakened by artificial distinctions." The employees, however, are united on the industrial plan and reënforce their consequent impregnable position by making use of the military power and their affiliation with the National Civic Federation.

The craft form of organization is severely criticized. It makes solidarity impossible, for it generates a system of organized scabbery, where union men scab on each other. It results in trade monopolies, prohibitive initiation fees and political ignorance. It dwarfs class consciousness and tends to "foster the idea of harmony of interests between employing exploiter and employed slave."

Passing on to the remedy proposed, the Manifesto declares that

The phrase, "craft autonomy," is odd—for industrialists. A. M. Simons gives an explanation. He says that any union entering the I. W. W. "will retain trade autonomy in matters that concern each trade as completely as at the present time, but when it enters the field of other trades, instead of being met by trade competition ... will be met by the coöperation of affiliated unions."[88] This phrase referring to political parties was the germ of the ill-fated "political clause" of the preamble, which formulated in an indefinite way the issue on which three years later the organization split into two factions.[89] Other clauses provide that (1) all power shall rest with the collective membership; (2) all labels, cards, fees, etc., shall be uniform throughout; (3) the general administration shall issue a publication at regular intervals; and (4) that a central defense fund be established and maintained. The document concluded with a call to all workers who agreed with these principles to "meet in convention in Chicago, the 27th day of June, 1905,—for the purpose of forming an economic organization of the working class along the lines marked out in this Manifesto."

The Manifesto was signed by all those present at the January conference and sent broadcast to all unions throughout America and to the industrial unions of Europe. At this January conference there was dominant a very radical idea as to what a labor organization ought to be. The conferees decided that such an organization should not only provide a means of unifying all crafts and industries for the better protection and advancement of the immediate interests of the working class, but that it must also offer, and consciously push on towards, a final solution of the labor problem, a solution very frankly assumed to be a socialistic one.

To say that these conferees were, broadly speaking, socialists and that they outlined a socialistic program of a certain sort does not mean, as the daily press report insinuated, that the Socialist party was in any way represented in the conference or that it was a political movement. Max S. Hayes, anxious to disclaim on behalf of party Socialists any responsibility for the new undertaking, explained that