After unity negotiations with the Socialist Labor Party went nowhere, and with the relative growth and success of the Socialist Party in the 1908 elections brought it new opportunities, the Party’s left feared and felt a rightward turn. One of the issues that was hotly debated was over the Labor Party, an issue which returned over and over again in the Socialist movement since the formation of the Workingman’s Party of 1877. Charles H. Kerr, receiving a letter written by former ISR editor, and former personal friend, of A.M. Simons endorsing a Labor Party addressed to W.E. Walling–two leading S.P. figures–immediately sent out this question and demanded comrades then running for the National Executive reply for the public record: “If elected to the N.E.C, will you favor or oppose merging the Socialist Party into a Labor Party?” Giving a taste of the discussion by a layer of the movement, two dozen party leaders responded, from the thoughtful to the snarky, from the principled to the disingenuous.

‘Do You Favor or Oppose Merging the Socialist Party into a Labor Party?’ from The International Socialist Review. Vol. 10 No. 7. January, 1910.

THE letters which follow are all written by candidates whose names appear on the official ballot now being taken for a new National Executive Committee. The first is a letter addressed by A.M. Simons to William English Walling, and is here published by permission from Mr. Walling. He wishes us to state that he had at first intended not to publish this letter, but had quoted a large part of it in private letters to a number of socialists.

“However,” says Mr. Walling, “Mr. Simons has published a letter in which, while not mentioning my name, he casts certain reflections upon me on account of the action just mentioned. To exculpate myself I consider that I am now fully justified in giving his letter to the general public.”

A.M. SIMONS TO WILLIAM ENGLISH WALLING.

November 19, 1909.

My Dear Walling:

I was extremely sorry that it was impossible for me to come to New York from Toronto. I feel more deeply than ever before in the history of the Socialist movement that we are in an intensely critical period and one in which it will be easy to destroy the work of years and set things back for some time, or where the forces of revolution can be organized and crystalized at such a rate that the social revolution can be brought to our very doors.

I was deeply impressed with things I saw and heard at Toronto, not upon the floor of the convention, but in private conversation and little social gatherings. The most pitiful thing about the situation is the intense hatred against the Socialist Party combined with a perfect willingness to accept the philosophy of Socialism. I believe, and my opinion was shared by many others of wider knowledge and longer experience, that fully one-half of the delegates, and many said two-thirds, were EX-members of the Socialist Party, or the S.L.P. That is the most terrible indictment that could be drawn of OUR methods. Moreover I found that nearly three-fourths of these EX-members and many besides are ready and anxious for a working-class party.

Now we have two alternatives before us, for the moment at least, but the first of these is going to be gone before long. The first of these, and the one that must be seized quickly or it will disappear, is to so reform the Socialist Party that it will fill the function for which it was intended. Right here we come to the most delicate portion of the work before us. How to preserve the S.P. through the transition that is absolutely necessary is the difficult task. Here is where we MUST not jeopardize action for the sake of our own peculiar ideas.

The S.P. has become a hissing and a by-word with the actual wage-workers of America. It has become a party of the two extremes. On the one side are a bunch of intellectuals like MYSELF and Spargo and Hunter and Hillquit, on the other is a bunch of “never works,” demagogues and would-be intellectuals, a veritable “lumpen-proletariat.” The actual wage-workers, the men who are really FIGHTING the class struggle are outside.

It is not a question of philosophy with which we are confronted, but of facts. To meet this situation we must clean out this bunch of petty politicians. I wish you were here that I could show you the evidence of their work in nearly every state in the country.

Now unfortunately they have seen fit in some places to throw in their lot with the I.W.W., although in others they are its most bitter opponents. So there will be an effort to involve this question.

Personally I have great sympathy with industrial unionism, but not as a panacea. I think that its most deadly enemy is the man who talks about it as a means of getting the co-operative commonwealth. We are not organizing unions in the future or in the past but NOW, and for the purpose of fighting the class struggle.

I believe that there have been most ridiculous exaggerations of the work of the I.W.W. in Pennsylvania, and of the French syndicalists. In fact I know this to be the case. At the same time there should be a place in the Socialist Party for those who wish to work through “direct action.”

There must be a reorganization of the S.P. That is almost unanimously agreed upon. It must be reorganized into a working-class party, fighting every battle of the workers, all the time, and using every weapon.

I do not like the English policy, but I say frankly it is better than the present S.P. It is doing something, is rousing the antagonism of the capitalists. It is forcing them to fight back. It is vitalizing the class struggle, and I have full faith that out of such a fight will come clarity and revolutionary action, without regard to programs or platforms or even designing political leaders. Here we are dead, repeaters of phrases, and neither politically nor industrially are we feared by the capitalists.

I am sure, from my experience at Toronto, that the trade unionists are as much at sea as we are, and that a SANE revolutionary position would bring them to us almost en masse. You represent an element and a point of view that is needed, greatly needed. You are almost the only person who does represent such a position that could carry weight in a council of war with Socialists and trade unionists.

For this reason I am tremendously anxious that you should give us your help in this crisis. I know your antipathy to Hunter, and  perhaps to Spargo and Hillquit. At the same time they also represent an element that is needed, and greatly needed.

Above all else we MUST have the union men. No one has denounced the defects of the A.F. of L. more than I, but I am forced to recognize that it comes much nearer representing the working class than the S.P., and unless we are able to so shape our policy and our organization as to meet the demands and incarnate the position of the workers we will have failed of our mission.

I think that there are several lines of possible immediate change in the S.P. First, its machinery must be simplified. I think this scarcely needs discussion with you. Your practical sense will tell you that.

Second, the appeal of the party must be made more directly to the union men. We have appealed through soap box theorists, ignorant of everything, and have wondered why we reached only the ignorant among the workers. We must send out men who are themselves union men, who go directly and specifically to the men of their trade and who preach the class struggle as union men understand it with the Socialist explanation.

Third, we must drive from our own ranks the demagogical politicians, who are seeking to raise rebellion against every person whom they cannot use for their purposes. The present Executive Committee is more than willing to surrender their position if real working-men are to take their places. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TO SURRENDER TO THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED SAVE WITH THEIR JAWS, and who are tearing down every organization to which they belong.

This statement is somewhat incoherent. I have written it amid a mass of interruptions and can only hope to have dimly conveyed some of the things for which I am working. I shall await your reply giving me your idea of the future, and hope that you may bring it in person. If not let us have it at as great a length as possible. There are preparations under way to bring about an internal revolution, and we will need all the brains at our disposal to steer through the shoals before us. Yours fraternally,

(Signed) A.M. Simons.

—

Immediately upon reading the preceding letter, the editor of the Review addressed to each candidate who had received enough nominations for a position on the N.E.C. to entitle him to a place on the official ballot, and who had not already declined the nomination, the following brief inquiry:

Comrade:

If elected to the N.E.C, will you favor or oppose merging the Socialist Party into a Labor Party? Please answer at once for the information of the readers of the International Socialist Review. Yours for the Revolution,

Charles H. Kerr.

The following replies are all that have been received from those whose names will appear on the official ballot, several who answered having subsequently declined. Two or three could not be reached for the reason that they were traveling:

W.J. Bell:

Responding to yours of 30th ult., would say that if I were elected to the N. E. C, would oppose merging the Socialist Party into anything but the coming Industrial Democracy.

Tyler, Texas, Dec. 2, 1909.

B. Berlyn:

Yours received, and in reply would say that the Socialist Party is a labor party which in its declaration of Principles, Platforms and its Immediate Demands, voice the needs and aspirations of the militant working class in their every day struggle. The Socialist Party should always be with the workers, not to dictate “to them how they shall go about it but pointing out to them the intimate relation of their struggles for economic betterment and political action. This can be done best by telling the truth without crazy exaggeration. The party should avoid taking sides in the internal squabbles that from time to time arise in economic organizations.

I believe that the party should steer clear of middle class demands and emphasize the class struggle on the political field.

Chicago, Dec. 7th, 1909.

James H. Brower:

If elected to the N.E.C. I shall fight, if necessary, to hold the Socialist Party true to the glorious traditions of its past, both in this and other lands. That half-baked evolvers will organize labor parties here and there I have no doubt — but, that the only revolutionary force in the politics of this nation (the Socialist Party) should, in a moment of weakness, aggravated by an acknowledged need of a bit of house cleaning, be carried off its feet, and thrown into the pot in which a hundred half-thought-out reforms will be mixed, I deny.

Today—yesterday—and for many moons behind, I have been eaten with a desire to take a good club and go after some of the gentlemen who insist that our party is going to the devil. If I were orthodox I’d say the devil is after the party.

Joliet, Ill., Dec. 1st., 1909.

Victor Berger:

I oppose the merging of the Socialist Party into a “Labor Party.”

I have always stood for a labor movement with two arms—the economic arm, which is the trades union,—and the political arm, which is the Socialist party. Both arms belong «to the same body. Both arms must work in perfect harmony and help each other, but each arm is to do its own work and shall not interfere with the other’s business.

I do not propose to turn the trades union into a political machine, nor the Socialist Party into a trades union. However, I want the trades union to be a part of the same movement as the political party and vice versa. We want every trade unionist we can get to join the Socialist Party and every Socialist who is eligible to join his economic organization—thus we unite both activities in every worker.

This is the “Wisconsin Idea.”

Milwaukee, Wis., Dec. 2, 1909.

O.F. Branstetter:

I have not yet decided whether or not I will accept the nomination for N.E.C, but in case I do so and am elected I can say most emphatically that I will oppose such a merger as suggested. One does not always know what his ideas will be at a future date, but the change in my ideas and opinions would have to amount to a complete revolution before I could believe in either the desirability or advisability of such a course.

Oklahoma City, Okla., Dec. 2, 1909.

James F. Carey:

You ask “If elected to the N.E.C. will you favor or oppose merging the Socialist Party into a Labor Party?” I will oppose. Permit me to say that up to receipt of your letter I had not decided to be a candidate for the N.E.C. but I am beginning to gather from several sources that there is going to be something like that proposed. I do not believe however that there is the slightest danger of an effort in that direction succeeding. If on the other hand there is considerable strength behind that movement, there will be an “illegant ruction” and I am almost persuaded to try and get in it. I have a few days of grace left to decide, but, however I may decide about being a candidate, and if I run, whether elected or not, I am opposed.

Boston, Mass., Dec. 2, 1909

John M. Collins:

In answer to whether I would be in favor of merging the Socialist Party into a labor party. If elected to the N.E.C. I don’t consider that question very logical as you have not stated in your letter what kind of a party it is now. I will be better able to answer.

Chicago, Ill., Dec. 2, 1909.

E.E. Carr:

The question is peculiar, for there is no labor party to merge into. If there were, whether elected to the N.E.C. or not, I would oppose the N.E.C. taking any steps in such a matter, except to refer the subject to party conventions, or to the whole membership by referendum. Whatever is done with regard to such an important issue should be done only after long and careful discussion by the whole party, not merely by a committee.

If the Socialist Party should unite with the labor unions in a new political party, I would urgently favor maintaining the Socialist party as a clear-cut, revolutionary propaganda society and for the purpose of nominating candidates where the labor party for any reason put none forward. This would constantly tend to make the labor party more truly revolutionary and to keep it so.

If a labor party were formed, it must, from the nature of the case, stand on the class struggle whether it recognized the fact or not, and would therefore be in effect a Socialist Party. It would be branded and fought as such by the capitalist organizations, and would sooner or later, according to the precedent established in the case of the British Labor Party, be recognized by the International Socialist Bureau. If such a party were formed, supported generally by the great labor unions, it would probably draw the Socialist Party members into it. And while I would greatly regret to see the Socialist Party fail of rising to political power, I would feel impelled to favor the labor party as our political avenue of expression, while holding to the Socialist Party for special propaganda work. The Socialists in the Labor party would soon dominate it and guide it into a truly revolutionary position according to current economic development, as the I.L.P. of England is affecting the Labor Party there.

Chicago, Ill., Dec. 2, 1909.

Stanley J. Clark:

The Socialist Party should be the political expression of the material interest of the working class. I am opposed to merging into any other party.

Huntington, Ark. Dec. 8, 1909

Louis Duchez:

I emphatically oppose the merging of a Socialist Party into a Labor Party. A Labor Party will mean a few fat jobs for Gompers and those alleged Socialists and nothing for the proletariat and the revolution. The function of a political party, for the present at least, is educational and destructive. Let us keep it in that channel as near as possible. Vote-getting should be secondary.

East Palestine, Ohio, Dec. 8, 1909.

George H. Goebel:

Your question as to merging the Socialist Party into a labor party just caught up to me.

Would say without waste of words that I have always been and am opposed to merging the Socialist Party into any party, no matter what its name or character. In replying to this question, however, I want it distinctly understood I do not recognize the right of the N.E.C. to decide such questions, the membership through convention or referendum in my judgment being the sole authority. If elected to the N.E.C. I shall insist on that course of action, concerning matters of principles or tactics, the N.E.C., in my opinion, having solely the work of better propaganda and organization. When the membership get that view we will begin to elect to the N.E.C. comrades who understand organizing and executive work, and who know party conditions, rather than for their ability to split hairs, and philosophize over the philosophy of philosophy.

Newark, N.J., Dec. 6, 1909.

Robert Hunter:

In answer to your question I beg to say that so far as I know there is no immediate likelihood of a labor party. Consequently it seems to me the question put is entirely speculative. Furthermore, in case a labor party was formed, the entire party membership, in my opinion, would have to decide by referendum vote what attitude the Socialist Party should take. The seven members of the National Executive Committee have no more power in such matters than any other seven members of the party.

Nevertheless, I realize that organized labor is being forced to the wall and that, during the next few years, it may take steps toward forming a labor party. Many comrades see that possibility and it is but right that they should seek to know the attitude of those who may occupy official positions in the party in regard to that matter.

As a Socialist I should want to wait until I see what kind of a labor party was formed. In any case I doubt if I should think it advisable for the Socialist Party to merge itself with any other organization. Certainly before taking any action a Socialist would want to have the labor party declare itself distinctly on the following lines. It would have to be a truly class-conscious labor party. It would have to declare itself absolutely opposed to any fusion or alliance with capitalist parties. It would have to place in its c6nstitution a declaration that any members of the labor party that advocated the election of any capitalist candidate would thereby be excluded from the labor party. In other words, I, as a Socialist, would want to know whether or not the labor party intended to be absolutely independent and to carry out actually on the political field the class struggle.

If such a party were formed no doubt all of us would want the Socialist Party to confer with the labor party at least in regard to candidates so that these two working class organizations would not be forced into a bitter, fratricidal warfare, thereby cutting each others’ throats.

I believe in common with most other Marxian Socialists in every country that we want to help the working class to find its feet, to battle politically and industrially for its emancipation, but in my opinion we ought to keep our organization intact. We ought to continue to carry on our propaganda, to conduct our newspapers and forward Socialism with the same spirit and enthusiasm as now. Briefly, my opinion is precisely that so well expressed by Frederic Engels many years ago: “I think all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organization.”

Highland Farm, Noroton Heights, Conn.

Morris Hillquit:

Your question is purely academic. We have no Labor Party in this country, and, as far as I know, there are no present indications of a movement to create one. Should our trade unions, contrary to general expectations, constitute themselves into a political party within the near future, the Socialist Party will have to determine its attitude towards it in national convention or by referendum vote. The incoming National Executive Committee will have no power to formulate the policy of the party, and it matters little whether the members of the committee as such “favor” or “oppose” a merger of the Socialist Party with a hypothetical Labor Party.

My personal views on the general question are, briefly stated, as follows: The main object of the Socialist Party is to organize the workingmen of this country into a class-conscious, independent political party. If our movement is to succeed at all, this object must be accomplished, and I am not worrying very much about the manner and form of the accomplishment. It would, of course, be preferable to organize the working class of America within the Socialist Party: this would ensure permanent soundness and clearness of the movement. If, however, the organized workers of the country, independent of our desires and theories, should form a party of their own, a bona-fide and uncompromising working-class political party on a national scale, I believe the logical thing for our party to do, would be to co-operate with such party. I would not favor a complete merger in any case, because as long as the assumed Labor Party would not be thoroughly Socialistic, our party would still have an important mission to perform, even more so than now. On the other hand, if such Labor Party should proceed on the theory of class-harmony, enter into alliances with middle-class reform movements, and be reactionary in its general character, I would consider it very unwise on the part of our party to abandon or even to modify our policy of independent Socialist politics. But all this is to-day mere speculation. What confronts us to-day is not a political Labor Party, but a mass of workingmen, organized and unorganized, supporting the capitalist parties, and, whatever the future may hold in store for us, our present duty is to wean these workers from the politics of their masters, to instill in them a spirit of class-consciousness and an appreciation of the Socialist philosophy. This work should be done with far greater intensity, regularity and planfulness than heretofore, and this policy I will favor, if re-elected as a member of the National Executive Committee.

New York City.

Morris Kaplan:

Answering the above I am against the compromisation of our fundamentals. The Socialist movement is the bona-fide class conscious organized expression of the Exploited Class in Society. It—the Socialist Party on the political field—is the Labor Party. Am not against conventions or discussions being held with the A.F. of L. or other economic labor organizations—conscious or otherwise of their class interest. Our movement at the present hour is in a decidedly chaotic condition and needs a change of policy and tactics. We have worshipped too long at the shrine of Craft-Unionism. It is time to change about.

What I would favor if elected on the National Executive Board:

Abolition of State Autonomy and Centralized National Dictum. Organization of wage-workers along lines of industrial unionism. National control and custodianship of daily English organs. Abolition of programmistic reforms from national platform. Unity of all Socialist forces.

Duluth, Minn.

James H. Maurer:

In your letter of Nov. 30th you ask: “If I were elected to the N.E.C. would I favor or oppose merging the Socialist Party into a labor party?”

The manner in which this question is asked is so very indefinite that I hardly know how to answer you.

The Socialist Party as it stands today is the party of the working class, therefore it is impossible to merge it into something that it already is. Or is it merely the object to change the name and take out of the movement the sting as Gompers put it?

Well, in this part of the country the word socialist has no terrors for any one excepting the parasites.

You may call the socialist movement by any other name and the other name will be hated as much by the exploiting class as they fear the word socialist now. The name is of little consequence. It’s the principles of a party they like or fear, and the Socialist movement whose mission it is to wipe out this parasitical class, would become useless if it attempted to make itself inoffensive to the enemy.

Perhaps there are those who would like to change the Socialist Party into a simple, yet pure reward-your-friends-and-punish-your-enemies” Labor Party, built upon a sugar-coated platforms. Meaningless enough so as to gain the support of the capitalist class and its press; broad enough to admit every lobster-brained labor skate, civic federation, manufacturers’ association, Taft, Van Cleve, Bryan, Post, etc.

The Socialist Party may and will, as conditions warrant, change its tactics, but the scientific principles of socialism, never.

The question you ask is very much out of order, as I see it, because the N.E.C. does not have the power to do any merging. The committee might favor the merging idea, but what could they do if the rank and file said otherwise? And should a majority of the party membership favor the merging of the Socialist Party and vote for a Keir Hardie Labor Party, they could not do it because socialism is socialism and even the socialist can not change it. No matter what mistakes some may make, you will find me fighting for Socialism in the Socialist Party.

No compromise, no political trading, is my warning to the American Socialist.

Reading, Pa., Dec. 3rd, 1909.

Thomas J. Morgan:

In reply to yours, please mark me NO.

Chicago, Ill., Dec. 2, 1909.

Sumner W. Rose:

I will certainly oppose any proposition to go into the “merger” business except on the basis of merging labor into the Socialist Party.

I am a Trade Unionist myself, but to my mind the day of so-called labor parties is past. The old party politicians, who have always been in our ranks to mislead and enthrall us, have made those names, honorable as they should be, smell of suspicion of a concealed trap.

“Merger?” Never! except a merger into the Socialist Party. I have steam up, the engine oiled and a straight track off before me and I will not assist in any side tracking maneuvers.

Biloxi, Miss., Dec. 10, 1909.

J.W. Slayton:

Your inquiry of Nov. 30th relative to my attitude in the matter of “merging the Socialist Party into a Labor Party,” if elected to the N.E.C, just at hand. Just why this question is asked, I am somewhat at a loss to know, but taking it as it is asked—without details or reasons—I answer NO.

I do not mean by this that it is impossible to form a labor party that will stand for the emancipation of the laborers—but the article “A” is too indefinite ; and, since I am opposed to all appearance even of compromise, fusion, or political trading, I shall oppose all fusion, or “merging” until I am at least convinced that the fusion won’t mean confusion—or the merging, submerging.

By merging, we might get millions of votes — but what kind, what would they really represent; 10,000,000 votes backed up with reason, conscious reason, would be great for good, but without—calamity. By merging we might elect some—in fact many—officers, but what then? Would they be representatives of and for socialism?

I recall the thousands of reasons advanced in favor of the Populist Party merging with the Democratic Party. The result is history. I must be convinced that the Socialist Party is not making, nor can be made to make, for the emancipation of the working class before 1 shall favor any other name or alliance. We may have to amend, alter or abolish many things; I think we will. What of it? If we can’t do that as it should be done in and for the movement, what will we d6 after we merge? Again I say NO; at least till I get more light—but it must be light, not glitter.

McKeesport, Pa., Dec. 2, 1909.

John Spargo:

In reply to the above question I will say that (1) I have not yet decided to accept nomination for re-election to the National Executive Committee; (2) I do not see how, under our constitution, the National Executive Committee could merge the party into any other party, “Labor” or otherwise; (3) I do not want a Labor Party, but desire to have the Socialist Party establish itself as the real party of labor; (4) I am inclined to believe that forces now at work will compel the organized workers of America to adopt political action, quite independent of all capitalist ties, and in the event of such a development taking place I believe that it would be the duty of the Socialist Party (note that I say “the Party”) to make an attempt at least to co-operate with it rather than to fight it. Yonkers, New York.

J.B. Snyder:

As far as I know the Socialist Party is a “Labor Party”; a class conscious organization.

It takes in all the producers of the world and all the thinkers, such as you and Marx, Engels and Debs and Warren. I am not in favor of fusion or compromise with a Gompers or a Bryan reform movement.

No fusion. No political trading. No compromise. I never owned any property and yet I have a college education. Please, am I a working man or not?

Girard, Kans., Dec. 2, 1909.

Fred’k. G. Strickland:

I am certainly opposed to your electioneering within the Socialist Party with a privately owned press at your beck and call. It is about the worst case of the “intellectual” that we have in our ranks.

Anderson, Ind., Dec. 1, 1909.

Carl D. Thompson:

In reply to your inquiry will say that I should not favor the merging of the Socialist Party into a labor party. I see no reason for any such action, and so far as I know there is no prospect of it being proposed. Should it be, I certainly would not favor it.

I feel very strongly that the Socialist Party must always be a working class party and that it should seek especially to draw the organized working classes into its ranks. But the party should never, be made a mere trades union party, nor on the other hand should the party attempt to dominate or run the trades union movement.

The comrades in Europe seem to have the right tactics in this regard, for the trades unionists and Socialist Party organizations work together in harmony and thus have created a working class movement of tremendous power and efficiency. I should like to see the American Socialist movement develop along the lines of the International Socialist Party.

Milwaukee, Wis., Dec. 7, 1909.

John M. Work:

The Socialist Party is the genuine labor party. The so-called labor and wage-worker parties now existing on the Pacific coast are the sheerest fakes. Any union party likely to be formed in the United States will start out by being rankly opportunistic. The Socialist Party will then have a greater mission than ever, for it will be its province to stand unflinchingly for Socialism and guide the new party into the right channel. When such new party became genuinely socialist in its principles and tactics, it would then be the right course for us to unite with it. But, not until then.

En Route, Dec. 8, 1909

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/v10n07-jan-1910-ISR-gog-LB-cov.pdf