Some more definite points of difference between the two organizations should be noted. They may be set down here as representing the contrasting viewpoints of Daniel DeLeon and Vincent St. John. The attitude of these two men can be tentatively accepted as representing the opinions of most of those in their respective followings. There is good reason, then, for saying that the lifting of the hyphen between DeLeon and St. John was largely due to their conflicting opinions about (1) industrial union structure--the _arrangement_ of industrial groups; (2) sabotage and direct action; and (3) political action. (1) DeLeon believed that the workers should be grouped in the local industrial union according to the _product_ turned out but that within the local union the lines of demarcation for segregating trade or shop branches must be drawn with reference to the particular _tool_ used.[456] St. John believed that _production_ should be the criterion throughout, with all workers whose activities contribute toward the output of a given _product_ enrolled in the same union. The driver of a brewery wagon contributes his labor power to the production of beer (as also does the stenographer in the office of the brewery!) and he should be in the Brewery Workers' Union, as indeed he actually is in this particular case. (2) Direct action and sabotage were condemned by DeLeon and approved by St. John. DeLeon's opposition was not based upon moral grounds. He simply had no confidence in the efficacy of these methods. He was firmly convinced that the habitual indulgence in sabotage and in destructive tactics in general was a poor preparation for a working class which expected some day to manage and control the industries of the world. It was a poor educational policy. (3) St. John was unconditionally opposed to political action. DeLeon advocated it as a temporary aid in the struggle for emancipation. He appears to have looked forward to the ultimate abolition of political or representative government and the establishment of a literal industrial democracy.[457] The _constitution_ of the I. W. W. is not anti-political. It is merely _non_-political. Any wage-earner is admitted regardless of creed, race or political opinion. But it is also true that in actual practice, as Levine remarks, "the Industrial Workers have played and are playing the game of antipolitics." "Their spokesmen," he says, "ridicule the 'politicians'; severely criticized the Socialist party and insult its most prominent leaders. The non-political portion of the I. W. W. is therefore practically anti-political."[458]