# The International Socialist Review (1900-1918)/Volume 1/Number 1/Trades Unions and Socialism

Trades Unions and Socialism.
The question is often propounded: "What is the trade union movement doing for socialism?"
Before making answer off-hand, it will be well to consider a few facts. In the first place, the trade unions are composed of a heterogeneous mass of workingmen, the majority of whom have had little conception of economic development and industrial revolution. They have been taught by their fathers, by the old school of political philosophers, by the press and pulpit; that there is a chance for everyone to become president of the United States or a millionaire. Up to recent years there were still opportunities to take advantage of natural resources, to "go West, young man, and grow up with the country," and the average workingman, in or out of the union, honestly believed that the competitive system of capitalism was, on the whole, a just and scientific system—all that it needed was a little reform grease here and there to make it run smoothly.
But as machinery began slowly and surely to make inroads on the trades, the union member, undisciplined and untutored as he was, gradually became impatient and restless, and this dissatisfaction found vent, politically, in supporting Greenback, Union Labor or People's parties, or "good men" and "workingmen's friends" on the old party tickets. Throughout all this extraordinary "reform" maneuvering the stubborn fact of material interests stands out plain, and there was likewise a vague class-consciousness discernible. The labor giant was uneasy, truly, but he still had his eye on that million and the presidency. "If I can only knock down that tariff wall and bust the protection barons somehow, or get plenty of greenbacks and free silver," he argued, "I can get a start and become rich and a great statesman."
But as the tools of labor developed and grew larger, capital kept pace and centralized, until to-day the company and corporation is no longer a factor in production, and the individual producer is not even considered. The amalgamation of capital has utterly dissipated the day-dream of our trade union friend. He is now beginning to see that his "chance" has gone glimmering—that he chased a rainbow, that he cannot hope to compete with a Rockefeller industrially or a Hanna politically. All about him he observes trusts and combines raising prices of products and lowering wages at will. All about him he sees a ​Hanna or Croker, a Piatt or Jones, big and little political bosses, dictating nominations and platforms and manufacturing "issues" without consulting anybody but their immediate henchmen. The political machine has become as thoroughly organized and compact as the machine he operates in the shop.
Meanwhile, through all this economic and political change, the thinking, intelligent mechanic has at least stuck to his union, and struggled and fought as best he knew how to wrest some temporary benefit from the capitalistic master. He could not well do otherwise. He instinctively understood that there was strength in union, that to stand alone was suicidal. He had listened to the Republican campaign orator promise glorious conditions if the tariff wall were maintained, and he saw the protected barons resort to lockouts, wage-cutting and the smashing of unions. He listened to the free silver orator promise unbounded prosperity to labor, and he saw the mine barons declare lockouts, secure the annulment of eight-hour and mining laws, erect "bull pens" and use every effort to destroy unions—the one and only protection against absolute slavery.
To learn all this has required time, the expenditure of vast sums of money, and object lessons galore. The conscientious unionists have viewed with some amazement and disappointment how legislators juggled with "labor bills"—either by pigeonholing them or passing them in such form that courts found it an easy matter to declare them unconstitutional. In time of strike or lockout, the executives of nation, state or municipality, heralded far and wide before election as "the friends of labor," supinely called out troops, militia and police to do the bidding of employers. While blacklisting has been winked at by the powers that be, boycotting has been tabooed and is regarded as a conspiracy and crime in many states, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Besides the waste of immense treasure, these lessons have been costly in the spilling of blood, in the jailing of men, and in the sacrifice of human life.
To declare that these cold, grim facts have made no impression on intelligent trade unionists is to place them in the category with dumb brutes or inanimate things. Time was when the trade union was a stamping-ground for corrupt politicians, a market-place where votes were bought and sold. A dozen years back it was common to hear that certain "labor leaders" carried their unions in their vest pockets. City central bodies were an easy prey for the "workingman's friend," and a little "inflooence" and beer secured endorsements for any office-seeker. If perchance some union man was placed on a ticket and elected, one of two things happened. Either he "sold out," that is, betrayed, ​his constituents in the matter of fighting for palliatives, or, where he did attempt to secure some advantage for his class, he was quietly relegated to obscurity by the bosses.
Thus we have passed through a bitter school of experience, and, as before stated, the trade unionist has and is still learning valuable lessons. The question asked at the beginning of this article may be answered with the statement that the trade unions are at last moving in the right direction. Distinct and important progress has taken place. In the first place, the unions are no longer endorsing machines for politicians, and where some local or central body still allows itself to be used by some unconscionable member, it is the exception rather than the rule, and such organization is regarded with contempt by all active unionists. Secondly, the old falsehood that "the interests of employers and employes are identical" is now seldom heard in union circles. Once that generalization was considered gospel, and men were sharply criticized in union meetings if they dared to express the opinion that the claim of "identity of interests" was out of harmony with the truth under the profit and wage system of capitalism. Thirdly, there is a steady growth of sentiment among trade union people that they must act together politically as well as industrially, and where there is any step taken by organizations it is usually a declaration for independent political action. Still better, where union men accept nominations on old party tickets they are coming to be regarded with suspicion as decoy ducks and bellwethers for the capitalist class. Fourthly, quite a few of the national organizations have declared for the downfall of the capitalist system and the institution of socialism, and many more of the unions (in fact, nearly all of consequence) have declared that it is the duty of their memberships to take up the discussion of economic questions for the good and welfare of the organization and the labor movement as a whole.
There are other facts that might be cited to show that organized labor is making rapid strides along the right line, but those mentioned will suffice at present. It might be added that trade unions have become somewhat progressive despite obstacles of every kind. The frowns of capitalists, the flattery of politicians, the dishonesty and cupidity of members, and the open hostility of some who call themselves socialists are incidents that have been encountered during the march forward. These thorns in the pathway have, of course, had a discouraging effect at times, but the enmity and opposition has likewise had a tendency to quicken the pace of the labor army and make it more compact and disciplined.
To mention the various national, state and local unions that ​have joined the progressive labor forces, and to quote from their preambles, constitutions and resolutions, would only tend to weary the reader, and, therefore, it is only necessary at this time to recall a little recent history as proof that organized labor is moving forward. At the Detroit convention of the American Federation of Labor, last December, resolutions were adopted recommending "that the various central and local bodies of labor in the United States take steps to use their ballots, their political power, an independent lines, as enunciated in the declaration of principles of the American Federation of Labor." This action was taken after it was shown that lobbying for labor laws in Congress and State Legislatures accomplished little if anything. Some of the most influential delegates admitted the logic of the socialist position and predicted that the time is rapidly approaching when a plain declaration for Socialism can be made without injuring the unions by frightening the ignorant members, who are nevertheless necessary in carrying on economic struggles. The Federation took even a more advanced position, declaring that the trusts and capitalistic combinations are the natural product of the capitalist system, and that they cannot be destroyed by enacting laws against them. The rank and file is warned to pay no heed to political demagogues who promise to disrupt the capitalistic combines, lest the laws will be used to break up unions, and the convention went on record as calling upon "trade unionists of the United States, and workingmen generally, to study the development of trusts and monopolies with a view to nationalizing the same."
This call practically places the A. F. of L. in the position of endorsing the collective ownership of the means of production. It opens the door to socialism.
The writer is firmly of the opinion that the Federation and any national unions would have declared in favor of socialism same years ago if certain fanatical leaders, so-called, had not kept up a running fire against trade unions, and made loud boasts and bluffs of disrupting the "pure and simple" organizations. Ten years ago one "leader" made the ridiculous assertion in the convention in the same city that "we will cram socialism down your throats!" That ill-advised and nonsensical threat has proven costly. Just as one can drive a horse to a trough but cannot force him to drink, so the average self-respecting human being will resist the attempt of any one to "cram" anything down his throat. Had there been some little diplomacy used, had an honest and persistent and tolerant effort been made to educate the workers, the American labor movement would now undoubtedly be abreast of the European movement.
​However, we profit by the mistakes that are made, and I am convinced that since the overthrowal of bossism in the socialist movement, and the sincere acknowledgment that was made by the Rochester convention of the S. L. P. that errors had been committed, a better understanding will be had between the socialists and trade unionists of this country. Indeed, the political and economic organizations of the working class are drifting together, and as the development of labor-saving macinery and capitalistic combines must go on, the new socialist movement will naturally gain strength and support from the trade union forces.
M. S. Hayes.