The I. W. W.: A Study of American SyndicalismBrissenden, Paul F. (Paul Frederick)
History
The I. W. W.: A Study of American Syndicalism
Brissenden, Paul F. (Paul Frederick)
Industrial Workers of the World; Syndicalism
The most important aspect of this convention was the sentiment which
was evidenced by some of the delegates in favor of reducing the power
of the national administration--the central office--often referred to
in this and following conventions as "Headquarters." This agitation
for decentralization was not particularly successful, but the idea
was given a hearing. At the following convention a much more extended
discussion took place and the subject will be resumed in connection
with the discussion of that meeting.[592] At this 1912 meeting the
question of decentralization came up in the discussion of a motion
to give the General Executive Board jurisdiction over the calling,
management and settlement of all free-speech fights. The alleged object
of the motion was to restrict the number of such controversies. The
"Wobblies" had been even more inclined to overindulge in free-speech
fights than in strikes, and some thought this appetite might be kept
in better control if it were made more difficult for locals to get
support for such struggles from the national office. The motion was
lost by an overwhelming majority. The vote expressed a significant
reaction from the traditional I. W. W. policy of centralization. That
the latter policy was still strong was indicated in the overwhelming
defeat of motions to deprive the General Executive Board of its power
over the strike activities of the organization.[593] The policy of the
convention was centralist on strike and decentralist on free-speech
fights. The editor of _The Agitator_, an anarchist exponent of
industrial unionism, believes that this was due to the fact that
the I. W. W. had had much experience of "free-speech fighting" and
realized the need for local autonomy, whereas it had had limited strike
experience and so had "not yet learned the danger of allowing a few
men ... to control its strike activities." The writer imagines that
geography was also a factor. The proponents of continued centralization
of strike power were the more disciplined eastern members. The
defenders of local autonomy in free-speech fights were the western
"Wobblies," and the nature of their life and experience bred in them
much of the anarchistic spirit of individualism.
The Socialist Labor party and the doctrinaires of Detroit thought
that this convention was a very insignificant gathering. One of the
DeLeonites described it: "About thirty men acting in the capacity of
delegates and about a score of onlookers, leaning with their backs
against the walls leisurely smoking their pipes or chewing tobacco....
This constituted the convention...."[594] It is interpreted differently
by one who is with the direct-actionists at least in sympathy. He says:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account