Workers Industrial International Union WIIU

[heyjoe]

I just stumbled across this One Big Union reading comments on a news story. They seem to be very close in philosophy and preamble to their constituion to the IWW, Industrial Workers of the World. The differences from what i can tell are involvement in political parties and elections and seizing the means of production and holding them as opposed to the General Strike. Anyone with any thoughts on them? Wobblie perspective on them?

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you referring to the original WIIU or the modern group of the same name? I believe that the modern group was affiliated with the WPA or something of the sort at some point, so you may be interested in asking the user Miles about it; I believe that he has a fairly prominent position in the WPA, which is somewhat like being a one-eyed King. From what I've picked up, there may have been some squabbles between the two since then, or something of the sort.

[Paulappaul]

If you want the Wobbly Position and the Deleonist/WIIU position side by side, you may want to read this Polemic between the Wobbs and the Deleonists: As to Politics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1907/answers/index.htm): A Discussion Upon the Relative Importance Of Political Action and of Class-Conscious Economic Action and the Urgent Necessity of Both.

[mikelepore]

In his pamphlet "As to Politics", De Leon proposed these arguments for having an alignment of a socialist political party with the One Big Industrial Union. (Although this my numbering system, and De Leon didn't differentiate between logically separate reasons.)

1. The opportunity for ballot campaigning itself can be educational, and help to recruit membership for the industrial union (to "fill the bucket", as he put it).

2. Election results permit the workers' movement to know its own numerical strength, so that it won't act prematurely. (The "thermometer" argument that Engels also suggested in Chapter 9 of "Origin of the Family", and elsewhere.)

3. To keep the movement "above ground" and "in the open", instead of having it confined to "conspiracy" and "secrecy."

4. The political method is the more democratic one, because it is potentially indicative of the majority of the population's choice, therefore "civilization, not legality, demands it."

5. Since the state possesses the greatest armory of deadly weapons, to have a revolution that will consist of a "peaceful trial of strength"; to avoid "wading through a massacre."

In other pamphlets, De Leon offered these additional arguments for the necessity of the political party:

6. An election that may be won by a lone socialist surrounded by capitalist representatives would permit the use of that office as an educational rostrum. (De Leon made this argument in his pamphlet "Berger's Hit and Misses", a criticism of Victor Berger of the Socialist Party, who was elected to Congress, but then refrained from using his platform as a sounding board for socialist ideas.)

7. Only revolutionaries who first win political control of the state are able to dismantle it, which they can do from inside by "adjouring" their own assemblies. (De Leon's pamphlet "Socialist Reconstruction of Society".)

***

[ I am the founder and admin of the web site deleonism.org ]

[heyjoe]

Are you referring to the original WIIU or the modern group of the same name? I believe that the modern group was affiliated with the WPA or something of the sort at some point, so you may be interested in asking the user Miles about it; I believe that he has a fairly prominent position in the WPA, which is somewhat like being a one-eyed King. From what I've picked up, there may have been some squabbles between the two since then, or something of the sort.
the ressurected modern group of the same name.

[syndicat]

seizing the means of production and holding them as opposed to the General Strike.

distinction without a difference. seizing the means of production and holding them is what the IWW would call "a revolutionary general strike on the job."

[Ilyich]

Marxism-DeLeonism and anarcho-syndicalism are both variants of syndicalism. The WIIU subscribes to the former and the IWW to the latter. The IWW was founded as a DeLeonist union in 1905 in Chicago. In 1908, DeLeon and his followers left Chicago for Detroit and set up a rival IWW there. In 1915, the Detroit IWW became the WIIU. The only major difference between DeLeonism and anarcho-syndicalism is that the former supports a combination of political and economic action while the latter only supports economic action. The WIIU has not been able to pursue political action however because it broke with the Socialist Labor Party, its political wing, in 1924. The two union are on fairly good terms today and the WIIU permits dual membership. I am a member of the WIIU, but I am open to the Wobblies as well.

[syndicat]

The IWW was founded as a DeLeonist union in 1905 in Chicago.

not so. DeLeon's SLP was only one influence on the founding. the SLP's Socialist Trades & Labor Alliance was only one of the labor groups who came together to form the IWW. the largest founding group was the Western Federation of Miners who were mainly under Socialist Party influence. the remnants of Debs' American Railway Union were another component and they were also under SPA influence. and then there some anarchists like Lucy Parsons. so the IWW was put together initially as a kind of alliance among DeLeonists, Socialist Party's left, and anarcho-syndicalists. The political clause was removed in 1908 not necessarily as an expression of "anarcho-syndicalism" but because worker activists in IWW were tired of the sectarian bickering and jockeying for influence between the SLP and SPA.