Many U.S. revolutionary Marxists in the pre-war period defined themselves as ‘Industrial Socialists’ and their reformist opponents, ‘Political Socialists.’ One of the most important texts in U.S. left history is ‘Industrial Socialism’ by Frank Bohn and William D. Haywood, which also served as a manifesto and program for Haywood’s successful Socialist Party leadership run as standard-bearer of the Left Wing. A leading voice of that Marxist Left was San Francisco’s ‘Revolt’, published by Tom Mooney and others, with its lead writer Austin Lewis. Those definitions do not mean that each side was opposed to political or industrial action, rather where the power to enforce political and economic demands lay. The Political Socialists focused on the ballot box, the Industrial Socialists on the workplace. Austin Lewis explains.

‘Industrial Socialism’ by Austin Lewis from Revolt (San Francisco). Vol. 2 No. 18. October 28, 1911.

Political Recognition Grows With Economic Power–Working Class When Functioning Economically Will Bring Political Results

The object of modern politics is the marshaling of votes. But as we have seen there are conflicting economic classes and therefore conflicting economic ends to be secured which of necessity imply conflicting governmental concepts. So the votes are marshaled in the interest of the governmental needs of the dominant economic class. The interests of the various sections of the dominant class may not be identical, in fact they seldom are, and but give rise to the play of politics in a modern democracy somewhat analogous to the play of politics heretofore described under conditions prior to the advent of a democracy.

The whole of the capitalistic era has been filled with just such conflicts. Conservative and Liberal, Republican and Democrat, what are they but representatives of the diverse interests of the various sections of the capitalist overlords, playing, however, within a limited sphere, so that the political maneuverings do not threaten the actual persistence of the overlordship?

The essential therefore of political action is an economic basis; one must discover an economic foundation for a political party, and no other foundation will do. But when once that economic basis is found or declares itself, forthwith and automatically a political party forms itself upon that economic basis. It may not always be a political party as we generally use the expression; that is, an organized voting body whose avowed purpose is the employment of recognized constitutional methods for the purpose of obtaining governmental power, but it will be a political party in the sense that it aims at control of the government whether it uses votes for that purpose or not. In the slang phrase of the platform it becomes a revolutionary or an evolutionary political party.

In a democracy it naturally becomes a voting political party, and so far, modern democracy is a great advance in that it forms a ready way of determining the relative strength of opposing forces without recourse to physical conflicts. But when an economic class has developed sufficient strength to be effective that class obtains the ballot and the struggle is transferred from the physical force plane to that of voting.

Even when the class in question has no ballot it obtains the suffrage as soon as its display of economic strength is sufficient to render its acquisition a matter of course.

Perhaps the case of the chartists is one of the most conspicuous in this connection. A proletarian uprising based upon an economic condition, i.e. the status of a wage-working class under a regime of free competition and laissez-faire eventuated in an abortive uprising for the purpose of securing a political leverage. It will be observed that the demands of the charters were purely political demands and that the insurrectionists failed to achieve their object. The cause of the failure was of course lack of material power to achieve. The legitimacy of the demands and their politico-ethical significance were indubitable, for very nearly all of them have been since admitted and have become statute law. Why then did the chartists fail? The fact is that though they had an economic basis for their political demands they had no material economic power with which to enforce their demands.

Deprived of the ballot and unable to operate in the field of actual politics they turned to politics indirectly, that is, they set to work upon the formation of economic organizations; pure and simple trade unions. In the formation and conduct of these unions they eschewed politics, they ceased to take any notice of actual politics in their economic organizations, in fact they made rules in these organizations against the discussion of politics. But they developed their economic power; they came into conflict with the economic power of the capitalistic overlords in the shop and won victories, step by step, achieving power which forced their opponents to take notice of them and which made their economic position in the state more and more positive.

Just as certain as their economic power grew so also did political recognition grow with it. The franchise which they had vainly sought by insurrectionary means became theirs as soon as the economic force which they wielded became sufficiently great to render the denial of it practically impossible. The reflex in politics was complete; so that the very economic movement, which they had differentiated from a political movement was in itself indirectly political and resulted in the franchise, the entry of the class into political action proper, and the formation of a labor party, which functions as the political representative of the economic interests of the same class which so unsuccessfully pursued the demands of the charter, a craft union labor political party.

That the victory was not more complete and that the labor political movement does not function in terms of the proletariat is consequently solely from the fact that the initial economic movement was not proletarian but a movement in the direction of craft protection. The political effect does not transcend the original economic cause; it reflects no more than the actual economic power. In this case the actual economic power was that of the craft trades unions and. that certainly was very completely reflected even to the recognition of its personal representatives as cabinet ministers and in many other minor political and magisterial offices.

The same results are seen still more clearly in the later political development in Austria; in fact, practically every advanced country bears marks in its political life of the growth and development of the trade union.

The phrase “to go into politics” on the part of the working class has arisen in a discussion of the question as to whether political economic action is more advisable. There are no grounds for discussion in a subject.

It is obvious that the working class will first function economically, that is at its point of contact with the opposing class in the shop; but such conflict will have assuredly political results; they are unavoidable. Economic action will mirror itself more and more in political action as it develops strength, and as the ambition, indeed necessity to control becomes more and more evident with economic success.

Revolt ‘The Voice Of The Militant Worker’ was a short-lived revolutionary weekly newspaper published by Left Wingers in the Socialist Party in 1911 and 1912 and closely associated with Tom Mooney. The legendary activists and political prisoner Thomas J. Mooney had recently left the I.W.W. and settled in the Bay. He would join with the SP Left in the Bay Area, like Austin Lewis, William McDevitt, Nathan Greist, and Cloudseley Johns to produce The Revolt. The paper ran around 1500 copies weekly, but financial problems ended its run after one year. Mooney was also embroiled in constant legal battles for his role in the Pacific Gas and Electric Strike of the time. The paper epitomizes the revolutionary Left of the SP before World War One with its mix of Marxist orthodoxy, industrial unionism, and counter-cultural attitude. To that it adds some of the best writers in the movement; it deserved a much longer run.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/revolt/v2n12-sep-16-1911-Revolt.pdf