No top leader of the early Communist movement was more associated with the Industrial Workers of the World than James P. Cannon. Joining the I.W.W. in 1911, Cannon was a paid wobbly organizer and national delegate for years, retaining his membership even as he shifted his focus to the emerging Socialist Party left wing in 1917. Like many others from an I.W.W. background inspired by the Russian Revolution, Cannon supported the Communist Labor Party in 1919 when the Socialist Party splintered. With that history, Cannon was often called on by the Communist movement to comment on relations with the I.W.W. In this article, transcribed here for the first time, Cannon responds to E.W. Latchem’s 1923 essay ‘The Real Workers’ International’ from the I.W.W.’s ‘Industrial Pioneer.’

‘The I.W.W. and the International’ by James P. Cannon from the Voice of Labor (Chicago). Vol. 11 Nos. 600 & 601. May 26 & June 2, 1923.

Some time ago the I.W.W. “settled” the question of international affiliation the question by the very simple process of refusing connection with any international body. Caught in the conflicting currents of the world movement, the “one-track minds” who controlled the organization found the situation entirely too complicated. They could not answer the question, “Which International?” So they solved the problem by saying, “To hell with them all!”

Peddling Capitalist Lies.

This decision sufficed for a time. No doubt many of the members suspected that the question had something to do with “politics,” and were well satisfied to be quit of it. The Russia-hating Sandgrenites could well afford to be quiet for a while. They had control of “Solidarity” and they reasoned, quite logically too, that the steady publication of capitalist press lies effect of estranging the readers of the Red International. As for the outspoken internationalists and communists in the I.W.W.–the expulsion and the gas-pipe dealt with them.

Much Dissatisfaction.

But the question of internationalism will not down. The official I.W.W., that is, the surface I.W.W., maintains an attitude of serene and cheerful ignorance of the problems of the world movement. But beneath the surface all is not so well. There is much dissatisfaction with the steady drift of the official organization away from the revolutionary workers of other lands. And if there are no men in the I.W.W. to speak out clearly and boldly against the present official policy of the organization, there are, at least, a few who apologize for it.

One of these is E. W. Latchem.

Latchem belongs to that group of old-timers of the I.W.W. who have not forgotten the days when internationalism was written on its banner, and whose consciences, perhaps trouble them because of its departure from the spirit of its founders.

Latchem contributes an article to the May issue of the Industrial Pioneer, entitled “The Real Workers’ International.” It is vague and discreet enough. The entire spirit of his article is negative; his reasoning is very involved, and it is difficult to tell just what he really wants. Nevertheless he does manage to make it clear that he is against the nationalist conception of the class struggle, and agrees with Marx that the struggle for economic emancipation has failed as yet “because of the absence of the fraternal tie of unity between the working classes of the different countries.” He goes further than that, and puts himself in a different category from the predominating syndicalist elements in the I.W.W. by declaring for an international based on Marxian lines. He sets up as a model “The International Workingmen’s Association”–the first international, founded by Marx.

I.W.W. Internationalists Asserting Themselves.

It is this premise that gives his article a value and importance, despite the rambling argument and illogical conclusions which follow it. The fact that the internationalists in the I.W.W. are again finding a voice, even though it be a weak one, is of no little significance.

As long as fellow-worker Latchem sticks to the theory of international organization of the working class, he does fairly well, but when he begins to talk about the application of the theory he gets into trouble. This could not be otherwise, because he sets for himself an impossible task. In one article he undertakes to advocate internationalism and to defend, or apologize for, the anti-international, official stand of the I.W.W. No man can live in the town and the country at the same time Fellow-worker Latchem will have to decide where he is going to locate.

Principal Points.

There are three main points in his thesis:

1. One of the most important problems confronting the international working class today is the solidification of their forces industrially and internationally.

2. The international should put into practice the principles enunciated by the first international.

3. We can understand and sympathize with Russia, but we, as proletarian workers, cannot allow our sympathies to over-ride our judgment.

These three points constitute common platform upon which all revolutionary workers in America, generally speaking, can meet and talk things over. If there is a considerable body of men in the I.W.W. who are willing to stand on that platform, and its logical implications, I am sure that we communists can soon come to an understanding with them. A working agreement could soon be arrived at, which would naturally develop towards a closer unity. But fellow-worker Latchem, unfortunately, runs away from the implications of his own program. The  double task he sets for himself compels him to do this. He is obliged to defend the present official policy of the I.W.W., and that policy has nothing in common with the “international solidification of forces;” “The principles enunciated by the first International;” and “Sympathy with Soviet Russia.”

Third International Marxian.

In order to defend that policy he must oppose the Third International and the Red International of Labor Unions, which are certainly organized on the general lines laid down by Marx. He says things about them which have no foundation in fact, as he will discover if he makes a more thorough investigation.

Surely he makes no case against them by condemning the Second International for its “phraseology and resolutions, which were but camouflage for a nationalistic political movement.” Was it not the Third International which raised the banner of revolt against this traitor International and which today fights it to the death all over the world? If he wants to fight the Second International he needs only to turn to Moscow. There he will find a mountain of facts accumulated to prove its treachery. His attempt to link the two together is a poor stroke. All the world knows that these two internationals are as fire and water. They are as far apart as courage and cowardice, loyalty to the workers and treachery to them, the proletarian revolution and surrender to capitalism.

Fellow-worker Latchem resorts to a charge against the Red International which has often been made but never substantiated by facts. He says, “Nearly all the programs and policies are the reflex of Russian economic needs.” He will have to be specific on this point. We should like hint to tell us in plain words what information he has on this matter.

What specific parts of the program of the Red International are the reflex of purely Russian economic needs? And in what way are the economic needs of Soviet Russia incompatible with the interests of the international proletariat?

The charge that the Third International and the Red Labor International are serving Soviet Russia, which is made by all our enemies in the labor movement, is also made, in reversed form, by the capitalist enemies of Soviet Russia. These latter say that Soviet Russia serves the revolutionary internationals who stir up trouble in their territories.

In a certain sense both of these charges are true. But the capitalists are the only ones who have a right to complain about it. Soviet Russia and the revolutionary labor internationals serve each other. But it is not a bargain between them, because they are not separate entities, but parts of one whole–the international working class.

What is Soviet Russia anyway? It is a part of the world labor, movement which has been on a five-year strike against the whole capitalist world. That is all. The capitalists understand it well enough, and never cease their fight against it. It is only amongst the workers that there is any confusion on the subject.

Latchem’s Foot Slipped.

Latchem fell into a trap of his own making when he condemns the Red International as a “sectarian group which excludes workers because they fail to endorse certain phraseology.” If he holds that view of the unimportance of phrases, how can he defend the I.W.W. when it refuses to join the International because of “certain phraseology?”

But it happens that the Red International is also not so particular about phraseology. And it is not true, as he charges, that its “reasoning and contentions center around the idea of a revolution in all countries, which is to happen in the same manner and go through the same processes as the Russian Revolution.” When this same complaint was made by the Revolutionary Syndicalists of France, the Red International answered, “What we want to know is this: Are you prepared to take up the struggle for the proletarian revolution? If so, we will not quarrel with you so much as to the method of making the revolution. All the workers who really want to fight, the capitalist system will find it possible to get along with us.”

International Not Concerned with Phrases.

And the Red International showed, by its compromise with the syndicalists, in dissolving the organic connection with the Communist International, that it is most concerned with “getting the revolutionary workers together,” and that it does not exclude those who object to “certain phraseology” unless it means also an objection to the revolutionary struggle.

I was present at the Second Congress of the Red International at Moscow. The Syndicalists of France were there along with the communist trade unionists of Germany. The representatives of the rebel workers in all countries met there on common ground to work out special programs for the various countries in harmony with the broad general program of the International. Only a small percentage of the delegates were from Russia, and never at any time was there a sign of conflicting interests between the Russian workers who have gained control of the industry and the workers of other countries who are fighting for that control.

One Great Purpose.

The whole Congress was dominated by one question only: “What is the best way to unite the workers nationally and internationally for the revolutionary struggle?” Out of this Congress, as a result of comparison of experiences, friendly controversy and mutual concessions, the militant workers emerged with an International Labor Union body more closely united and better equipped for the struggle than ever before.

Around the red banner unfurled at that Congress already millions of workers have organized themselves; the revolutionary wing of Europe’s labor movement. Here in America the rebel minority in the A.F. of L most of the Independent Unions have acknowledge the Red International as their guiding star.

I.W.W. Stands Apart.

Only the I.W.W., once the rebel vanguard, once the proud defender of internationalism, stands aside; rejecting this great mass movement of the world’s workers and separating themselves more and more from the revolutionary workers of other organizations.

But the present policy of the I.W.W. will not stand. It is not a revolutionary policy. If there is a considerable body of men in the I.W.W. who agree with Latchem that international solidification of forces is “One of the most important problems confronting the International Working Class today,” they already stand where we can meet them on common ground in brotherly discussion. Then, if they will face the facts squarely and accept the logical implications of that statement, they will soon find it possible to come to a working agreement with us. When the I.W.W. gets to the point where it is willing to join in a united front of radical labor, that very action will inevitably lead it to the Red International, for the unity of militant labor is the main program of the Red International for America, and the progress already made in that direction is due to its influence.

The Voice of Labor was a regional paper published in Chicago by the Workers (Communist) Party as the “The American Labor Educational Society” (with false printing and volume information to get around censorship laws of the time) and was focused on building the nascent Farmer-Labor Party while fighting for leadership with the Chicago Federation of Labor. It was produced mostly as a weekly in 1923-1924 and contains enormous detail on the activity of the Party in the city of those years.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/vol/v11n600-may-26-1923-VOL.pdf

PDF of issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/vol/v11n601-jun-02-1923-VOL.pdf