Frank Bohn provides definitions of ideas in dispute in the Socialist Party and gives us insights into the terrain the left and right fought over in that period.

‘Some Definitions’ by Frank Bohn from International Socialist Review. Vol. 12 No. 11. May, 1912.

THE degree of looseness indulged in by Socialist speakers and writers as regards the use, or misuse, of very common words and phrases has never been so painfully apparent as during the discussion lately conducted in the party. Words the meaning of which should have been long ago known to the most casual reader of Socialist literature have been so misused that the discussion finally became fruitless. We shall here make an effort to bring some degree of order out of the chaos.

Socialist. A Socialist is one who favors the common ownership or social ownership and the democratic administration of the socially used means of production. The means of production include land and all natural resources–factories, railroads and the plants for the storage and distribution of the products. A determining characteristic of the Socialist is that he recognizes the necessity of an administration of general affairs, which administration, he holds, should be democratic in character. Anyone who favors the common ownership and organized democratic control of the industries is a Socialist and not by any means an anarchist, even though he may not sanction political action by the workers. The goal and not the means is the determining feature. Syndicalists or members of the I.W.W. who oppose political action are not anarchists. but Socialists, and this in practice if not in theory. A real anarchist would never submit to the discipline of a union which aims to control and administer the affair of industrial society.

Anarchist. An anarchist may be either an individualist or a communist. In either case he opposes any essential governing social organization.

He opposes all government. Both individualist and communist anarchists shrink from any large or complex social organization, or the control of individuals or of smaller groups by larger groups in their relation to industry. In a word, while the Socialist believes in government, the anarchist does not.

Political Action. By political action is meant any effort of whatever kind to gain control of the powers of the political state through the machinery provided by that political state. For instance, a campaign to win the suffrage for people who are now denied that right is not political action. Political action involves use of the election machinery and the holding of political offices. In general Socialists advocate the use of political action while all anarchists oppose it. But this is not at all a distinguishing feature. The fundamental distinction is, to repeat, not a matter of the means but of the goal in view.

Direct Action. Of all the terms made use of in our discussions during the past six months this has been the most abused. By direct action is meant any action taken by the workers directly at the point of production with a view to bettering their conditions. The organization of any labor union whatever is direct action. A strike is direct action. Sending the shop committee to demand of the boss a change of shop rules is direct action. To oppose direct action is to oppose labor unionism as a whole with all its activities. In this sense the term has been used by those who made use of it down to the time of the late controversy. It was the misuse of this expression by those comrades who oppose class-labor unionism which has caused so much uneasiness in the Socialist party. When we come to the question as to what direct action shall be taken and when and how–that is for the organization on the job to determine. For the Socialist party to try to lay downrules for the conduct of the unions or one union in this matter would be as ridiculous as for the Socialist party to seek to determine what the workers shall eat for breakfast. It is the business of the Socialist party to organize and conduct political education and activity. This does not imply, however, that in a lecture dealing with unionism conducted by the Socialist party these matters shall not be discussed. On the contrary it is of the highest importance that the Socialist party shall keep its membership informed through its press and its lecture courses of the latest developments in the field of organized labor.

Sabotage. Sabotage means “strike and stay in the shop.” The striking workers thus are enabled to draw pay and keep out scabs while fighting the capitalists. Sabotage does not necessarily mean the destruction of machinery or other property although that method has always been indulged in and always will continue to be used so long as there is a class struggle. More often it is used to advantage in a much quieter way. Excessive limitation of output is sabotage. So is any obstruction of the regular conduct of the industry. The ancient Hebrews in Egypt practiced sabotage when they spoiled the bricks. The slaves in the South practiced it regularly by putting stones and dirt in their bags of cotton to make them weigh heavier. An old cotton mill weaver in Massachusetts once told me that when base ball was first played the boys in his mill stuck a bobbin in the running gear of the water wheel and so tied up the shop on Saturday afternoon that they could go and see the ball game. No workers ever heard that practices of this nature were “naughty” or “bad” until some “Socialists” told them so within the past few months. Above all, let it be remembered that what the Socialist party thinks or does not think in this matter has absolutely no significance. When the workers face a specific situation they will very likely continue to do as their interests and intelligence dictate.

Revolutionists, Opportunists and Impossibilists. As the term is at present used, a social revolutionist is one who believes that the change to Socialism, when it comes, will take place during a relative short period of time. The revolutionary period, whether it continue during days, months or years it matters not, will occur when the working class takes possession of the means of power and make themselves masters of the socialized industries. An opportunist, on the other hand, thinks that the change to Socialism will come about or is coming about during a long period of time in which the force of social control will pass gradually from the capitalist class to the working class. The Socialist opportunist is therefore, in practice, a social reformer. To him Socialism is but the sum of reforms proposed by all shades and varieties of reformers. The outright advocate of opportunism or of Socialism through reforms is almost always a member of the middle class or professional class and hence tends to ignore the mass action of labor. He therefore overemphasizes the value of political action. To him the big vote is the criterion of Socialist success. This leads or misleads the opportunist into the characteristic feature of opportunism—political trading or compromise with capitalist parties. Accompanying this is office seeking and office holding as a profession. Political wire pulling and professional politics is the natural fruit of this “playing the game.” The history of the movement in every country, however, indicates that opportunism is not as dangerous as a novice in the Socialist movement might think. The gigantic appetites of the office hungry always defeat their public policies as well as their private purposes. The danger, then, is that the tactics of the movement may swing to the other extreme.

Impossibilism is a term of reproach hurled by the office seekers upon the heads of those who claim that Socialist education is the most important feature of the movement. However, the word impossibilist has a legitimate use. Too often in the Socialist movement we find those who do nothing but attack politicianism and sometimes this degenerates into making a trade of criticism and bitter invective. A real impossibilist is, therefore, one who does nothing but criticise the words and works of others, one whose activities are entirely negative in character.

Industrial Unionism–Revolutionary Unionism– Syndicalism. An industrial union is a union of those who work in the same industry. It binds together everyone engaged in making the same product. For instance, an industrial union of clothing workers includes everyone from the cutters to the pressers. Some of the workers in this industry use tools and others machines, but an industrial union unites them all into the same organization. A craft union, on the other hand, is a union of those who use the same tool or machine, thus all stationary engineers are supposed to belong to the same craft union of engineers. Industrial unionism would place those working in breweries in the brewery workers’ union and those who work in mines in the miners’ union, etc. Generally, craft unionism represents the stage of tool production, while industrialism follows the more recent growth of machine industry.

A Revolutionary Unionist is one who aims to use the union, or the class union and the Socialist political organization to overthrow the existing order of society and to establish an industrial democracy. A philosophical anarchist cannot consistently advocate revolutionary unionism, because revolutionary unionism implies government, order, discipline–in a word, administration, and this is just what the anarchist most strenuously opposes. To be a political Socialist and a unionist does not imply that one is a revolutionary unionist. A revolutionary unionist holds that the union is, or should become, the fundamental revolutionary or Socialist organization. It appears to him to be the growing form of industrial democracy. If the revolutionary unionist advocates political action, as most of them do, it is chiefly for the purpose of preventing the destruction of the union by the capitalist political power.

Syndicalism was originally merely the French word for unionism. It is now everywhere taken to imply revolutionary unionism.

A Parliamentarian is one who overemphasizes the value of political legislation, and particularly of parliamentary discussion.

A Pure and Simple Labor Unionist opposes Socialism, opposes all political action by the working class and usually opposes class action entirely. On the contrary, he favors peace and harmony with the capitalists.

A Pure and Simple Political Socialist looks upon all unionism as ineffectual. To this type a pure and simple political Socialist party alone is required to advance the interests of the workers and establish Socialism.

The International Socialist Review (ISR) was published monthly in Chicago from 1900 until 1918 by Charles H. Kerr and critically loyal to the Socialist Party of America. It is one of the essential publications in U.S. left history. During the editorship of A.M. Simons it was largely theoretical and moderate. In 1908, Charles H. Kerr took over as editor with strong influence from Mary E Marcy. The magazine became the foremost proponent of the SP’s left wing growing to tens of thousands of subscribers. It remained revolutionary in outlook and anti-militarist during World War One. It liberally used photographs and images, with news, theory, arts and organizing in its pages. It articles, reports and essays are an invaluable record of the U.S. class struggle and the development of Marxism in the decades before the Soviet experience. It was closed down in government repression in 1918.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/isr/v12n11-may-1912-gog-Corn.pdf