Always on the internationalist far-left of the Socialist Party, Antoinette M. Konikow intervenes sharply in the ‘debate’ over immigration that occurred around the 1907 Stuttgart Congress of the International where the U.S. party was rebuked for its stance against ‘Asian immigration.’. Attacking top leaders of the Party Morris Hillquit, A.M. Simons, and Victor Berger for their racism in joining the call of the most conservative elements of the U.S. workers movement for anti-Asian restrictions, Konikow affirms this was a symptom of the larger right-wing trend in the Party’s leadership.

‘For Unrestricted Immigration’ by Dr. Antoinette M. Konikow from The Worker (New York). Vol. 17 No. 43. January 25, 1908.

Member of the National Committee of the Socialist Party for Massachusetts.

It is rather late now to criticize the proceedings of our party upon the immigration question. Still, better late than never. I hoped all the time that a comrade with a trade-union record would start the discussion of this question in our press. But what seemed impossible happened. Conservative American trade unionism actually holds our comrades under the spell of its prejudices. It is left to me, “the foreigner, the intellectual, the woman without any trade-union experience” (I see all the epithets coming to me), to start the ball a-rolling.

At the Amsterdam International Congress Comrade Hillquit requested to postpone the discussion of that question so as to give the American comrades a chance to discuss it thoroly. How much of such discussion was done? At this late date even Comrade Simons states: “I had not fully made up my mind on the immigration question at Stuttgart and took no active part in the discussion.” If our editors and speakers had not made up their minds and, I know, that Comrade Simons is not the only one, what can be expected from the rank and file? Hillqult’s resolution, which was adopted by the National Committee, was really never thoroly discussed. I wonder how many of the comrades knew about it, or knew that Comrade Berlyn and myself voted against it. Thru a lack of experience my comments at that time appeared only in the monthly bulletin of the party which is hardly read by any one.

The proceedings at the last meeting of the National Executive Committee, where the Simons resolution was adopted, makes It imperative for all comrades who can recognize the narrow and unsocialistic tendency of this resolution to proclaim and defend their views, for it is yet possible, perhaps. to save the reputation of our party at least, if not of our wise National Executive Committee, from utter ridicule in the eyes of our European comrades. The question will come to a referendum vote and it is time that it should be given a thoro consideration.

First, as to the rights of the Stuttgart Congress to “meddle” with our tactics or “attempt to legislate” for our American Socialist Party. Is the immigration question a matter of “tactics” or a matter of principle? It is just as well to call our relation towards the trusts a matter of tactics. The question of immigration must be decided by general Socialist principles, and it is well that the International Socialist Congress deemed it necessary to set aside the compromise resolution of our party.

What are the reasons of the restrictionists? 1. The Chinese and other Asiatics cannot be organized and therefore will lower the standard of living in America and thus will disrupt all the results attained by organized labor. 2. The Asiatics will come in such tremendous masses that “we will have to give up to them our country.” (See Berger’s speech at the N.E.C. meeting.) 3. The American Federation of Labor and all other labor organizations are against free Immigration.

Before I consider these three points, let me remind the comrades that we do not speak here about contract labor, for the Stuttgart resolution condemns it also.

There was hardly any nation, backward in capitalistic development, whose working class was not accused of inability to organize. Who would have supposed twenty years ago that the Russian working class will be first to inaugurate a successful general strike? Who would have expected fifteen years ago that Japan will be represented in the International Socialist Congress? In the coal strike the so-called “lowest” foreign element proved to be the most reliable in upholding the principles of trade unionism. To claim that a certain race is immune to the principle of class organization means to overthrow the whole theory of the class struggle, of economic determinism. So the theory of Socialism holds good only for the white race? Capitalism not being developed in China and Japan, the working class of these countries is naturally backward. But let them work under capitalist surroundings, and the Chinese will prove the truth of the Marxian theory, just as the Japanese have done already. I do not deny that the Amerlcan working class may temporarily suffer from an influx of Chinese, but this should serve as an Impetus to uplift his Chinese brother to his own standard.

The exclusion of Chinese is but a logical outcome of the conservative tactics of present trade unions, with Its lack of comradeship and brotherhood; I mean the tendency of getting good wages for a few lucky ones by restricting the learning of a trade and by charging Immense initiation fees. Will such aristocracy lead to comradeship and class consciousness?

The influx of Chinese would never occur in such tremendous masses as to swamp our civilization. The American capitalist could not make any use of the Chinese in many industries at all. There would be only certain industries where Chinese could influence the market and thereby special concentrated efforts, organized labor could counter-influence the tendency of lowering the wages. Without doubt the Chinese would respond, if people of their own race and language would only appeal to them. Socialists do not legislate only for a few years. They have to foresee coming events. Ten years will hardly pass before China will have entered the capitalist era. Already wonderful progress is shown in the building of railroads, which always are the carriers of capitalism.

American capitalists will soon learn to get cheap Chinese labor by transferring their establishments directly to China, like the Massachusetts textile manufacturers, who are building their “new factories in the South to avoid organized labor of the North.

“We want our proletariat, our children and our children’s children to inherit the civilization of this country,” says Comrade Berger in his heated protest against the imaginary swamping of America by the hordes of Asiatics. “Our proletariat” is good. There exist, then, for Comrade Berger, different kinds of proletariats–“ours”, “theirs”, “his”, etc. No, Comrade Berger, we want that the civilization of the world should be inherited by “the” proletariat, not by “ours” only, or let us throw to the winds all our ideals or theories.

It is said that we play into the hands of unscrupulous capitalists by upholding free immigration. But do we not. In a sense, work in the same way by criticizing the anti-trust movement of the American middle class. In fact, I do not believe that the American capitalists are so intent on getting the Chinese workers. If they really were, they could get him. The very fact that so many restriction laws were passed so easily proves to that the capitalists do not yet require the Chinese laborer.

The fact that the American Federation of Labor and other labor organizations are for restriction is very deplorable, but ought not to serve for us Socialists as an argument for restriction. It is true that the conservative leaders of our trade unions will try to make the best of it, if the real Socialist attitude towards the immigration. question is accepted by our party; but to be popular with them, let us just well give up Socialism entirely.

In my wanderings from Russia to Switzerland, Germany, France, and the United States I have seen so much race hatred due to traditional and economic prejudices, that I am cured from it forever. How long yet will it take till at least our so-called class- conscious comrades will free themselves from the prejudices of the bourgeois world?

The Worker, and its predecessor The People, emerged from the 1899 split in the Socialist Labor Party of America led by Henry Slobodin and Morris Hillquit, who published their own edition of the SLP’s paper in Springfield, Massachusetts. Their ‘The People’ had the same banner, format, and numbering as their rival De Leon’s. The new group emerged as the Social Democratic Party and with a Chicago group of the same name these two Social Democratic Parties would become the Socialist Party of America at a 1901 conference. That same year the paper’s name was changed from The People to The Worker with publishing moved to New York City. The Worker continued as a weekly until December 1908 when it was folded into the socialist daily, The New York Call.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/the-people-the-worker/080125-worker-v17n43.pdf