Another keen intervention from A.J. Muste as he asks a question the answer to which is needed today, what forces in the labor movement are capable of organizing the majority of workers that are unorganized?

‘Whose Job To Organize the Basic Industries?’ by A.J. Muste from Labor Age. Vol. Vol. 17 No. 2. February, 1928.

Everybody agrees as to who is to be organized, namely workers in the basic and trustified industries. It is not so clear who is to do the organizing, and that is the question we wish to discuss in this article. Does the past experience of labor in this country shed any light on it?

Sometime ago, from 1905 to the outbreak of the war, let us say, there was quite a wave. of organizational activity in America, strikes, expansion of old unions, building up of new ones both in the A. F. of L., among independent unions, and in such “outlaw” movements as the I.W.W. It is possible, I think to determine in part at least what were the basic conditions that led to this activity.

After the “hard times” of the 1890’s, there had come a period of comparative prosperity, of expansion in industry, development of new industries, changes in manufacturing methods, tending on the one hand to eliminate skilled workers to some extent, but on the other hand to create a demand for large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled. This latter need was supplied by immigration from southern and eastern Europe. These immigrants, most of them peasants in the old country with no knowledge of industrial conditions, nor habits of cooperation and organized activity, bewildered and afraid in the big new land with its huge and noisy mills and factories, unable to understand each other or the American workers, getting money wages that at least looked bigger than anything they had ever seen before, were at. first pliant tools in the hands of the employers, were used as scabs to break strikes of American workers, did not dare nor care to protest. Presently, however, there came a change. The strangers became acquainted and did not feel quite so bewildered and frightened. Depressions like the panic of 1907 threw them by thousands on the streets. Prices went up and real wages did not keep pace. The material hardships and hazards and the spiritual humiliation to which they were subjected made them resentful and ripe for revolt.

The revolt came. Ludlow, Lawrence, Paterson, Mesaba Range and other cities and regions became historic. Huge numbers of workers were organized more or less permanently, sometimes in the A.F. of L. unions such as the United Mine Workers or the railroad shop crafts, sometimes by movements like the I.W.W.

If we ask what factors contributed to the success of such activities, brought relatively permanent organizations into being, or at least put an end to rotten conditions, instituted positive improvements, taught the employers that there was a limit to the workers’ patience, the following seem to deserve attention.

1. The successful movements, whether in the A.F. of L. as in the case of the United Mine Workers or the United Textile Workers, or outside, sought to organize workers on an industrial basis. They recognized that in the industries and among the workers with whom they were dealing, craft skill had been eliminated, and could not longer serve as a basis for organization.

Stirring the Workers’ Emotions

2. They were movements that presented to the workers some vision, socialist, syndicalist, whatever the name or form might be, of a day when workers should be free, independent, self-respecting, masters of industry and of the world. They proceeded on the assumption that these masses of workers could be relied on to make sacrifices required for organization only by having their emotions deeply stirred, by having a great hope and not merely puny immediate gains held out to them.

3. In the same way they were not afraid to resort to mass action, to call tens of thousands of workers on strike, to lead them in mass picketing, to defy the hired thugs of the employers, and the judges, to set the workers singing, shouting, demonstrating. The leaders were Labor Revivalists.

4. To a large extent the organizer and his methods were adapted to the people who were in a given case being organized. They did not send an Italian to talk to Bohemians, a bricklayer to organize coal miners, a scholar to deliver a dry and learned dissertation to a mass of foreign men, women and children in a large textile center.

5.. For the most part these movements were interested in stirring up the workers to activity on the political field, tended to favor the formation of a labor party of some description, took advantage of political conditions to agitate for the general cause of labor and not for candidates of the old parties, even when like the I.W.W., they in principle repudiated all political action.

6. They were not afraid or ashamed to fight. As D.J. Tobin, head of the Teamsters International Union and Treasurer of the A.F. of L., said: “In the old days, when men fought for their unions there was a certain militant spirit pervading the air and you heard of the union around the houses, wharves and other places. You found men at meetings. You heard them out among their friends discussing the work of the union. Today you seldom hear members discussing anything of serious importance about the unions.”

We cannot blind ourselves on the other hand to the fact that this period registered its failures, that it frequently failed to hold ground gained, and it will not be unprofitable to know some of the reasons for the failures. For one thing, underlying economic and business conditions were often unfavorable. A group of textile workers was organized when along came a big depression which drained off the savings of workers and their spirit, and often scattered them far and wide, thus breaking up the union. The unions were bitterly attacked and persecuted, the leaders often martyred by employers, government and other agencies. Leaders and people were inexperienced and untrained and made the mistakes that might be expected under the circumstances. There was seldom any systematic planning of campaigns, leaders waited until a strike was on, or a wage cut brought workers to the verge of strike, before moving into the situation. Woeful ignorance of business conditions and other factors led to faulty planning once a battle was under way. Often there was failure to follow up a strike with systematic, patient organization work. Stubborn and dogmatic adherence to some social philosophy led to practical mistakes and factional divisions. The issues of dual unionism divided labor ranks, often robbed strikes of adequate support, sometimes led to one organization scabbing openly on another. In recent times militants in the American labor movement have repudiated this policy of dual unionism, doubtless wisely so. Nevertheless, an objective student of the movement will hesitate to put all the blame on one side. Dual unionism like other social developments does not result primarily from the wickedness or lunacy of theorizers; it arises out of conditions. Where a movement for a considerable period neglects certain groups of workers or fails to provide them with the type of leadership to which they are capable of responding, it is absolutely certain that they will sometimes seize upon the type of leadership that is suitable to them wherever it may be found.

Like Situation Impends

Does all this have any bearing upon the situation which American labor confronts today? I think it does. That situation is in many respects similar to the one we have been describing. Once again we have been passing through a period of prosperity, of rise in real wages, of expansion of old industries, building up of new industries, development of new machinery and methods depriving many workers of their skill and calling for the introduction of great numbers of unskilled and semiskilled workers into industry. Where have we found our new labor supply? The answer is the negroes, the Mexicans, children, women, and people leaving the farms. Now although in most instances these people were not foreign born but native born, they were strangers in the industrial world. Hence we find them responding in much the same fashion as the immigrant newcomers of twenty years ago. They have felt bewildered, they have been suspicious of each other, their wages in money have been so much greater than they have ever gotten before, and indeed in some instances their real wages have been so much bigger than anything they have previously known, that they have been for the time being satisfied. Of course, the employers have resorted to all sorts of devices such as welfare work and company unionism to keep them contented and have met with determined and bitter resistance any attempt to arouse revolt and to organize the workers into bona fide unions.

Already, however, there are signs of change. “Coolidge prosperity” is becoming a joke to the worker. For the past six months there has been a great amount of unemployment and part time employment which the newspapers apparently are trying to cover with a conspiracy of silence. It is by no means certain that wages can be kept up indefinitely. In coal, textile, and some of the miscellaneous trades there is already a slashing of wages right and left. It is not to be supposed either that relatively high wages alone will keep the workers forever content, nor that the automobile workers, for example, will submit quietly forever to the speeding up, the spiritual hardships and humiliations to which they are now subjected. Already there is revolt, actual or threatened, in a number of places, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, textile mills north and south, subway workers in New York City, etc. The workers are there in the big industries to be organized. It looks as though the time were favorable.

Facing the Task

If the job is to be effectively done, the methods that have proved effective in the past must be utilized and the mistakes of the past must be avoided. Workers will have to be organized on an industrial basis. As the Executive Council of the A.F. of L. states in its report to the recent Los Angeles convention, “The work of organization in mass production industries is such that there must be a new basis of appeal. The industry or plant must be studied in order to find a basis which would introduce elements of unity and joint interests.” For other situations the question of building a great union of General Workers may have to be seriously considered. Idealism, some vision of an ultimate goal for labor must be stressed. To quote again from the Executive Council’s report to the A.F. of L., “No human movement can exist long without idealism. Yet the day’s work compels us to focus our thoughts and purposes upon the things we are doing, and we are apt to forget | the ideal by which we would shape our living and doing.” Mass appeal will be necessary as well as intensive education; the use of organizers adapted to the requirements of the situation (some unions have not yet learned the elementary lesson of using. women to organize women and not using their oldest fossils in campaigning among the flappers); the use of political campaigns to advocate labor interests and not the interests of the old parties; and militancy, readiness to fight when necessary. Beyond all this it seems clear that systematic planning, money, energy, courage beyond anything required in the past must be available if we are really to threaten the intrenched position of the company union, the open shop, the huge industrial and financial interests of America. Who is to do the job? Where is the general staff for this great battle for industrial freedom?

Broadly speaking the job will have to be done or at least initiated either by the official labor movement or by unofficial groups as in the case of Passaic last year and in Colorado at the present moment, or by a combination of both types of agency. Which it is to be will be determined not by the whim or choice of any individual or any number of individuals, but by the great social. forces that work in American industry and in the world situation. In such an essay as this all that is possible is to suggest the general line of approach which individuals and groups may use in dealing with such forces, and this we attempt in closing.

1. All are agreed that the united effort of all available forces is wanted for this job of organizing the basic industries and that therefore the evil of dual unionism and factionalism must be avoided to the utmost possible extent.

2. All would rejoice to see the official movement undertaking systematically the great task of organizing the basic industries. Support must be given to all in that movement who see the need, who want to organize the unorganized, who are exploring ways and means for tackling the job. There is intense and effective work going on in a number of places, and there is wrestling with the problem. The Executive Council’s report to the A.F. of L. Convention calls attention to the development of new industries which is all the time taking place and then states: “Unless there is definite responsibility for watching such developments, the industries are organized and operating before the union begins to consider organization plans. It would be much more desirable to have industries initiated with union contracts and under union conditions.

It is obvious we need to have more systematic observation and study to direct organization activity. The responsibility must lie with a federated body—locally the central labor union and nationally the Federation. All unions would gain from such planning and foresight.” On the other hand it must be admitted that on the whole, no great gains in organization are being registered, and it is bitterly disappointing that the A.F. of L. should be unable to report any progress during the year in the automobile campaign.

3. Past experience in this country and elsewhere has made it plain that conditions will not wait on persons or movements. In the long run, oppressed workers cannot be stopped from revolting and attempting to organize themselves. If in a crisis leadership is not available in one quarter they will seek it in another and they will welcome those who help them, not those who stand aside or attack them, even if the help be very inadequate and faulty. Nothing will ever change that and no good will result from refusing to face it. Nobody has a right to decree a monopoly, to forbid the job being done unless he is permitted to boss it—and there are those of all wings and shades in the movement who tend to fall into this error.

Lincoln once said that his job was to save the union and if that could be done by not freeing any slaves, he would do it that way; if it could be done by freeing some of the slaves and not freeing others, he would do that; and if it could be done by freeing all the slaves, he would do that.

It Must Be Done

We may paraphrase that utterance. “Our job is to organize the unorganized. If that can be done by an ever growing and maturing official movement, we are for that; if it can be done partly under official and partly under unofficial auspices, we are for that; if it can be done only under ‘outlaw’ auspices, we are for that; if it can be done by united effort and without internal struggle, we are for that: if it cannot be done without the strain and stress of internal struggle we are for that. We are for getting the job done first, last and all the time. We are for those who are doing it and against those who are not doing it. The job is bigger than any individual. sect, Movement or organization. On that proposition we take our stand.”

Rightly understood there is room enough for us all on that platform. Have we the intelligence, the nerve, the disinterestedness to stand on it?

Labor Age was a left-labor monthly magazine with origins in Socialist Review, journal of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Published by the Labor Publication Society from 1921-1933 aligned with the League for Industrial Democracy of left-wing trade unionists across industries. During 1929-33 the magazine was affiliated with the Conference for Progressive Labor Action (CPLA) led by A. J. Muste. James Maurer, Harry W. Laidler, and Louis Budenz were also writers. The orientation of the magazine was industrial unionism, planning, nationalization, and was illustrated with photos and cartoons. With its stress on worker education, social unionism and rank and file activism, it is one of the essential journals of the radical US labor socialist movement of its time.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/laborage/v17n02-feb-1928-LA.pdf