# Amalgamation/Chapter 3

CHAPTER III.
Amalgamation the Way to Progress
AT this stage in the evolution of industry the strake of a single union has no more chance of success than did the strike of a single workman twenty-five years ago. Organization is subject to the same evolutionary process as ail other social institutions, and organizations of labor are no exception to the general rule, although there is a philosophy to the effect that it is. Capitalism, as we have seen, has evolved from its primitive stage of craftism into gigantic industrial combinations. Labor unionism must follow or it will be wiped out. It must consolidate it ranks ever more firmly through a steady process of amalgamation.
The Way that Failed
For many years it was the fate of the American labor movement not to recognize this fact. The militants held almost universally that the old unions were static and incapable of evolution. They believed that they had to set up new unions to replace the old ones. The new ones were, of course, modeled on the most advanced industrial lines. Everything was provided for that would be necessary in the march of Labor to the goal of its ultimate destiny. The best economic thought was consulted in the drafting of charts for such organizations; every detail was worked out on scientific lines. Nothing was lacking on paper to make them complete in every respect. But the program failed nevertheless.
The Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance was the first union of this character ever set up. It struggled along for ten years, never having more than a handful of members, and it was absorbed into the amalgamation that composed the I. W. W. in 1905. The Alliance attacked the old unions viciously. It had an able leader who possessed a vitriolic tongue that he did not spare, but to no effect. The scientific industrial union was let severely alone by the workers. In spite of this failure another attempt on a larger scale was made in Chicago in By that time the "new union" idea had gained intense popularity amongst revolutionists, who had come to look upon the old unions as only fit food for the fishes. They regarded these bodies as hopelessly lost, so deeply were the antiquated craft unions immersed ​in conservatism. They declared that the reactionary craft leaders were so firmly intrenched that it would be utterly impossible to dislodge them if that were tried. But the I. W. W., despite the great start that it got, has likewise proved incapable of replacing the old craft union movement with a new organization. Today is has far fewer members than when it was formed 18 years ago. Many other dual unions, most of them operating in single industries, have had the same fate. With but a couple of notable exceptions, they have never succeeded in getting a real grip in the industries.
The reason for this is the the dual union method is wrong. In the fight of the progressive elements against the reactionaries in the unions splits and secession movements are sometimes inevitable. The thing that is wrong is to advocate them as a settled policy, instead of doing all possible to avoid them. Splits are injurious because they set worker against worker and bring confusion and weakness into the movement. In this country they have resulted in pulling the great number of militants out of the mass unions and leaving these organizations in the unrestricted possession of the reactionaries. This is why our movement is so far behind in development.
Abandoning Past Mistakes
The method proposed by the Trade Union Educational League, an educational body composed of militant workers inside of the trade and industrial unions, is the exact opposite of the dual union program. Instead of pulling the active workers out of the mass organizations, be these A. F. of L. or independent, its plan is to keep the militants in these unions where, by organization and activity, they can put new life and vim into them. This is in harmony with the best policies of revolutionaries as practised all over the world.
The League maintains that it is not necessary to go off and start a new union just because one gets a new idea or has a tough struggle with the reactionaries. Experience proves that it is far easier to remodel the existing old organizations. It repudiates the spurious science which alleges that labor unions are not subject to the influence of a changed environment; that they are crystallized institutions incapable of modification. This charge, baseless and unscientific, was made originally under mistaken apprehension. That the unions have not kept pace in development with the capitalist institutions is largely the fault of the very rebels who condemn them. These militants deserted the old unions and left them to their fate in the hands of the ​reactionary leaders who have run them into the ground. But now, seeing the error of their old tactics, the militants are organizing themselves inside the mass unions and are working vigorously for the plan of amalgamation.
During the years that the radicals have been endeavoring to build up utopian dual unions, the old unions have been approaching amalgamation by very slow and careful steps and without being aware of what they were doing. Reacting to the pressure of the capitalists the unions have been closing in toward each other. In the various federations we have the expression of this abandonment by the unions of their former isolation.
It is a remarkable fact in the history of the labor movement that all forward movements had their beginning at the bottom, down amongst the rank and file. There is no record where the leaders have taken the initiative in any progressive move. But there are cases in plenty where the leaders have barricaded the path of progress and held back the regular forward movement of union affairs for a time. All blocking of progress is only for a time, and often a short time. The reactionaries are soon swept aside by the rising tide of progress. The federation movement first made its appearance amongst the building trades at a time when the International unions were too weak to block it. It went on for a time and the leaders saw it wasn't going to disturb things as they were, so they approved. It spread to other industries and finally became universal.
It is every evident, however, that the leaders were determined that the process Of getting together would not proceed any further, not if in their power to prevent it, for they have fought bitterly every suggestion that the idea be carried to its logical conclusion. They saw that any further advance along that line would involve fundamental basic changes in the unions, including the possible abolition of some of the salaried offices; and no well-paid officer, regarding his personal welfare as paramount, would consider practical and good union policy any change that might involve a reduction of his salary. But alas for the stability of officialdom, change is the order of evolution!
Craft Autonomy a Fetish
Federation appeals to the craft unions because it insures their craft autonomy. The unions are alt strong on "craft autonomy," which means to them the mastery over their own craft and the right to do ​as they please, irrespective of the rights of other trades that work beside them and whose liberties are tied up absolutely with theirs. Craft autonomy is a holdover idea from the craft stage of industry and it stands today in the same category as that Other ancient slogan, "individual freedom." Today the individual cannot have any freedom that is not bound up with the freedom of the group of which he is a part. Within the group or union he has a freedom compatible with the freedom of all the other members of the union, but he cannot be permitted any freedom that will involve the liberty of the other members Of the union. For instance; the individual is not permitted to make his own terms with the boss. Why? Because the union can make better terms for the individual than he can make for himself. Were he so permitted the whole theory of unionism would be undermined and the union might as well dissolve.
In the industries the craft occupies a place parallel to that of an individual in the craft union. It knows that the union of unions, the union of all the crafts in the industry, can make better terms for the several crafts than can any one of them individually. This discovery has been the basis of federation, and now of amalgamation. When the individual joins the union he trades his individual liberty to make his own terms with the boss, a very shallow privilege at best, for the more substantial returns in higher wages and shorter hours that the union procures for him. In like manner the craft union trades its "autonomy" for the better conditions the industrial union secures for its members. In both cases, the individual and the craft union alike get the best of the bargain. The "liberty" they give up is no liberty at all. It is pure-and-simple illusion. When an individual joins a union, or a union the industrial union, what takes place is simply this: They both get somebody else to perform a disagreeable duty for them, and do it a lot better than they could do it themselves.
Why Federation Falls Down
The words "Freedom" and "Autonomy" sound well to the ear, but they don't get us anywhere when we go up against a big capitalist combination. Craft autonomy has been the bane of the Labor movement for many years. Fearing the loss Of their mythical autonomy, the unions have not tied up together as tightly as they should have done. The consequences have been disastrous in many instances. The federation idea insures craft autonomy, because the unions would not join otherwise. In the federation each union is still master of its ​own destiny; it recognizes no power greater than its own; it controls its own particular kind of work and makes its own conditions most of the time. At such times as it "kicks-in" with the federation it still refuses to confer any of its power upon the federation, thus leaving the latter helpless. At such times unions through their numerous officials, get to wrangling and there is often a split in the midst of a strike. Time after time crafts have deserted the federations and made separate terms with the bosses. The latter know only too well the weakness of federation and have not been slow to play union against union over and over again. And the narrow selfishness of craft union leadership has made such union non-unionism possible.
Each craft union is a little republic and has its narrow craft selfishness highly developed through the years of individual craft union struggle. It cannot be relied upon to stand the strain of long drawn out federated fights; and the federations being powerless to control their craft units often go to pieces in the midst of a strike. So long as these little craft republics exist there can be no real unity and solidarity in the Labor movement. Each craft will continue to fight for its own particular place in the Sun, itself deciding just where that particular place shall be. In the scramble for craft placement the broad and all-important issue of industrial unity and solidarity is lost sight of and chaos reigns supreme.
When the unions amalgamate, as they must, the question of autonomy will be settled once for all. Then all power will be passed on to the industrial center and the crafts will be directed by it, as the individual member is now directed by his local. The industrial union will be the unit of authority. cannot have industrial unity until we have one union with one treasury and one directing center. Federation cannot supply these essentials of unity and therefore has proven a failure, and must make way for the superior form of organization.
The Necessary Next Step
Amalgamation is inescapably the next step in the evolution of the labor movement. It is the most practical and the easiest way to bring about the desired result, industrial unionism. It is the evolutionary process, the way mankind in the mass moves. Sometimes the mass may be driven out of its workaday channel, as in times of war; but left to itself it will mosey along in its natural way, adjusting itself to new conditions with the least possible disturbance of old customs and ways of life. It is not surprising then that the workers have not ​jumped into the new forms created for them right out of the intellect. The new "scientific" unions covering all industries were doomed to failure from the start. Amalgamation appeals to the worker because it is something close by. He doesn't have to give up his union that has become part of his life through years of association. He can understand the program of amalgamation, which is simply to fuse together the existing mass organizations in his industry. Instinctively he realizes that this is a step in harmony with normal labor union development.
If we look over into Europe we will see that our brother unionists have got quite a start on us in the matter of industrial unions, and in every case their method has been that of Amalgamation. The old craft unions are being lashed together, yea, rivited, never to be torn asunder. Over there industrialism is more clear to them than it is to us. And there is a reason. Over there they haven't had any "intellectuals" charting fancy scientific universal industrial unions with which to lure the militants away from the unions; and as a consequence real industrial unionism is well on its way. Amalgamation is the only method they think about over there; and Amalgamation is doing the work, .as it will here just as soon as we get down to business. There is no excuse for us now not to go right along and put this big job over. What others can do we surely can, and now that the militants are coming back to the ranks there is no doubt that the big Amalgamation drive will sweep the country clean of craft unions and bring our labor movement up to the intellectual level of other countries. Industrial unionism, through amalgamation, will soon be a reality in America.