The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-11-24
MARINE WORKERS
MOVING FORWARD
TO NEW STRUGGLES
Shipowners' Offensive and BetrayaIs by A. F. L.
Miseaders Is Being Met By Growing
Discomfort and Developing Strikes

4.o.O. IhktIo WlbAlOuJ mass lOlH
lowing. even though sentiment for
strike action was beginning to orys-
talliEe as a result of the influence Of
the West Coast strike and the CAM
paign carried on by the Marine
Workers Industrial Union prior to
and after the Baltimore Unity Con-
ference. But the LS.U. takers had
the following factors in their favor
upon deciding for making a bid for
power" that is recognition, by is
suing a call for strike Oct 9th to
the Atlantic and Gulf seamen;
(a) A mass discomfort amongst
the sesmen.
(b) The longshore negotiations
created a situation where a mass
seamens strike certainly contained
strong threat Of a general marine
strike.
&C. Certain important shipown-
ers, who, before the strike call, had
adopted favorable attitude to the
I. S. U. leaders whom they believed
capable of controlling" the sea-
men, undoubtedly could be relied
upon for support.
Cd Events during and since the
strike prove that Roosevelt and the
Government had a favorable at
titude, if there was not a direct un-
Outstanding with the I. S. U. Of
ficials who had every reason to
hope that the government, through
its control OF subsidies and super
vision Of the various shipowners'
conferences where rates are decided
upon, would bring strong pressure
to bear on the side Of the l. S. u.
This attitude Of the Government is
arising out of the growing war dan
ger and the need to combat. and
if possible, crush the Marine Work
ers Industrial Union, secondly, the
support given by the government
to the A. F. Of L. officials (which
conflicts with some important Sec
lions of the capitalists so as to
strengthen the hand Of the reform
list officials in order to help the
bourgeoisie in its offensive against
the working class and to stifle the
mass movement against this often
sive.
LS.U. "Bid for Power"
There can be no doubt that the
I. S. U. leaders were not interested
in fighting for the demands Of the
workers but only wanted "recogni-
ton" of their right to collect dues
in return for preventing or betray-
ing strike. The I. S. u. takers
probably figured that the combined
danger Of general strike. plus
strong political support, would
serve to convince those shipown-
ers who doubted the ability Of the
/. S. u leaders to control the sea-
men, or the abvisability of doing
business with the I. S. u. leaders.
But it would be a mistake for us
only to see the objective" Of the
I. S. U. takers and fail to see the
tremendous upsurge that took place
in the ranks Of the sealnen and
which made possible the I. S. u.
bid for power" In this situation
where every force was modified to
prevent the struggle which the
seamen were willing to undertake,
largely having been aroused through
vi. w. !. U. activities, the NJ. w. I.
U. knew that in spite Of inadequate
preparations and weakness organ
nationally, there existed strong pos
sibilitieS of developing a mass strike
and that even small strike would
have tremendous bearing on the
results of the negotiations. The
strike achieved a number of things
insofar as the demands and inter-
ests of the workers are concerned.
The ability of the seamen to pre-
pare for even more effective action
is increased, due to the exposurs
of the I. S. U. leaders, the N. r.
A. and the strengthened position of
the M. w. 1. U. as a result of the
United Front movement it organ
lied.
Had the Marine Workers Indus
trial Union taken negative at
titude as the I. w. w. did on the
I. S. u strike call, it would have
been discredited. An even worse
mistake would have been to say,
Yes, we will support the strike if
it takes place but take no
initiative in organizing the strike.
This stand would have resulted in
US splitting the ranks of the work.
ers. giving the initiative to the I.
S. U. takers who would have found
it much easier to fool the seamen
and made it nearly impossible for
us to expose their strikebreaking
activities. Those who say that it
was our strike activities which won
recognition" for the I. S. U. takers.
fail to see that the mass of seamen
were ready to struggle and that if
the l. S. U. leaders had not received
our support they would even have
to lead a strike movement to be-
tray it in return for recognition.
The policy pursued by the Marine
Workers Industrial Union was in
the interests of the workers and
has strengthened our position many
fold, even though the truce" en-
gineered by the N. R. A. succeeded
IN preventing the spread Of the
strike on a mass scale.
Delegates from Newark