IWW: "An organization of beautiful losers"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=YrWAGMV-c8kC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=kazin+iww+%22organization+of+beautiful+losers%2 2&source=bl&ots=x2CqTbmX1t&sig=PNCMrfkm9-8ZVrtkhFIYBrBGXSE&hl=en&ei=vUSFTvrrFY3SiAKVstmdDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false


Radical workers drifted away, leaving less able and more conservative unionists to maneuver on unfavourable terrain. Haywood and other Wobblies of national prominence had left earlier to fan the flames of revolt elsewhere in America. Abjuring any truce in the class war, Wobblies refused to sign contracts or build durable locals, and their beachheads of militancy soon disappeared.

The Lawrence uprising had been a thing of beauty for the textile workers and their revolutionary spokesmen. Upton Sinclair later dubbed it "the Bread and Roses" strike, after a contemporary poem in which picketing women remark, "Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses." But the aftermath of the big strike revealed that, for all its romantic elan, the IWW was an organization of beautiful losers.

Is this really surprising, when considering the IWW never organized something explicitly political but as simple as a mass spoilage campaign?

[RED DAVE]

Is this really surprising, when considering the IWW never organized something explicitly political but as simple as a mass spoilage campaign?I doubt that I have ever read a more foolish or pretentious post.

Your precious Kautsky's memory lies buried in Flanders Fields while the memory of the Wobblies inspires to this day

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your precious Kautsky's memory lies buried in Flanders Fields while the memory of the Wobblies inspires to this day

PAME in Greece and the larger WFTU are way more inspiring.

[black magick hustla]

the iww didn't dissappear because it didn't institutionalize yourself, dnz is a weirdo. it disappeared for several reasons, one of them was that the international revolutionary wave more or less ebbed by the 20s with the rise of the stalinist counterrevolution and the moscovization of the "communist" movement, and also, the iww was basically destroyed in the palmer raids by the state. in the early 20th century, there was no doubt the iww was the vanguard of the working class in the us and basically the organic nucleus of the communist movement in the us, the socialist party carried a lot of reformist deadweight while the iww explicitly called for the abolition of wage labor.

[RED DAVE]

Your precious Kautsky's memory lies buried in Flanders Fields while the memory of the Wobblies inspires to this day
PAME in Greece and the larger WFTU are way more inspiring.Why don't you, instead of your usual sidetrack, address the fact that the man you draw inspiration from, Kautsky, and the party he was the chief architect of, perpetrated a massive betrayal of the working class by supporting WWI.

The only thing, basically, we have to learn from Kautsky is how to sell out.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Lenin on Kautsky:


Vladimir Lenin

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

Preface

Kautsky’s pamphlet, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, recently published in Vienna (Wien, 1918, Ignaz Brand, pp. 63) is a most lucid example of that utter and ignominious bankruptcy of the Second International about which all honest socialists in all countries have been talking for a long time. The proletarian revolution is now becoming a practical issue in a number of countries, and an examination of Kautsky’s renegade sophistries and his complete renunciation of Marxism is therefore essential.


First of all, it should be emphasised, however, that the present author has, from the very beginning of the war, repeatedly pointed to Kautsky’s rupture with Marxism. A number of articles published between 1914 and 1916 in Sotsial-Demokrat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/periodicals/s/o.htm#sotsial-demokrat) and Kommunist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/periodicals/k/o.htm#kommunist), issued abroad, dealt with this subject. These articles were afterwards collected and published by the Petrograd Soviet under the title Against the Stream, by G. Zinoviev and N. Lenin (Petrograd, 1918, pp. 550). In a pamphlet published in Geneva in 1915 and translated at the same time into German and French[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/preface.htm#fw02) I wrote about “Kautskyism” as follows:


“Kautsky, the leading authority in the Second International, is a most typical and striking example of how a verbal recognition of Marxism has led in practice to its conversion into ’Struvism’, or into ’Brentanoism’ . Another example is Plekhanov. By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; [I]everything is recognised in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of those methods, and the education of the masses in this direction. Kautsky reconciles in an unprincipled way the fundamental idea of social-chauvinism, recognition of defence of the fatherland in the present war, with a diplomatic sham concession to the Lefts—his abstention from voting for war credits, his verbal claim to be in the opposition, etc. Kautsky, who in 1909 wrote a book on the approaching epoch of revolutions and on the connection between war and revolution, Kautsky, who in 1912 signed the Basle Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/a.htm#basle-manifesto-1912) on taking revolutionary advantage of the impending war, is outdoing himself in justifying and embellishing social-chauvinism and, like Plekhanov, joins the bourgeoisie in ridiculing any thought of revolution and all steps towards the immediate revolutionary struggle.


“The working class cannot play its world-revolutionary role unless it wages a ruthless struggle against this backsliding, spinelessness, subservience to opportunism, and unparalleled vulgarisation of the theories of Marxism. Kantskyism is not fortuitous; it is the social product of the contradictions within the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#socialist-international), a blend of loyalty to Marxism in word and subordination to opportunism in deed” (G. Zinoviev and N. Lenin, Socialism and War, Geneva, 1915, pp. 13-14).


Again, in my book Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm),[This was the original title of Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.] written in 1916 and published in Petrograd in 1917, I examined in detail the theoretical fallacy of all Kautsky’s arguments about imperialism. I quoted Kautsky’s definition of imperialism: “Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian [Kautsky’s italics] territory, irrespective of what nations inhabit it.” I showed how utterly incorrect this definition was, and how it was “adapted” to the glossing over of the most profound contradictions of imperialism, and then to reconciliation with opportunism. I gave my own definition of imperialism: “Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; at which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; at which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; at which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.” I showed that Kautsky’s critique of imperialism is on an even lower plane than the bourgeois, philistine critique.


Finally, in August and September 1917—that is, before the proletarian revolution in Russia (October 25 [November 7], 1917), I wrote a pamphlet (published in Petrograd at the beginning of 1918) entitled The State and Revolution. The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution. In Chapter VI of this book, entitled “The Vulgarisation of Marxism by the Opportunists”, I devoted special attention to Kautsky, showing that he had completely distorted Marx’s ideas, tailoring them to suit opportunism, and that he had “repudiated the revolution in deeds, while accepting it in words.”


In substance, the chief theoretical mistake Kautsky makes in his pamphlet on the dictatorship of the proletariat lies in those opportunist distortions of Marx’s ideas on the state-the distortions which I exposed in detail in my pamphlet, The State and Revolution.

These preliminary remarks were necessary for they show that I openly accused Kautsky of being a renegade long before the Bolsheviks assumed state power and were condemned by him on that account.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/preface.htm

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is this really surprising, when considering the IWW never organized something explicitly political but as simple as a mass spoilage campaign?

wait, what? Does this actually make sense to anyone else?

[Искра]

wait, what? Does this actually make sense to anyone else?

Yes, to these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykCv7IHUc8
:D:D:D

[Delenda Carthago]

Why don't you, instead of your usual sidetrack, address the fact that the man you draw inspiration from, Kautsky, and the party he was the chief architect of, perpetrated a massive betrayal of the working class by supporting WWI.

The only thing, basically, we have to learn from Kautsky is how to sell out.

RED DAVE
What does PAME have to do with Kautsky?

[Искра]

Isn't PAME like a greek version of spanish CC.OO?

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not the most inaccurate of labels, but... Mass spoilage campaigns. Really.

Yes, I'm sure that that would have turned things around for them.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

DNZ isn't familiar with the IWW.

The IWW holds no official stance on contracts. A large amount rather focus on day-to-day struggles, but several organized workplaces of the IWW have contracts, both currently and in the past.

As for durable locals, why don't you go say that to Twin Cities, Portland, UK, and others?

You 'ought to do your research before you post half-assed polemics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

the iww didn't dissappear because it didn't institutionalize yourself, dnz is a weirdo. it disappeared for several reasons, one of them was that the international revolutionary wave more or less ebbed by the 20s with the rise of the stalinist counterrevolution and the moscovization of the "communist" movement, and also, the iww was basically destroyed in the palmer raids by the state. in the early 20th century, there was no doubt the iww was the vanguard of the working class in the us and basically the organic nucleus of the communist movement in the us, the socialist party carried a lot of reformist deadweight while the iww explicitly called for the abolition of wage labor.

There were discussions in the early Comintern about inviting the IWW in as the American section. This demonstrated that the IWW didn't have the same global reach as the likes of the WFTU later on, and that its rejection of the Comintern was also a rejection of political struggle.


DNZ isn't familiar with the IWW.

The IWW holds no official stance on contracts. A large amount rather focus on day-to-day struggles, but several organized workplaces of the IWW have contracts, both currently and in the past.

As for durable locals, why don't you go say that to Twin Cities, Portland, UK, and others?

You 'ought to do your research before you post half-assed polemics.

I was quoting the author. He ignores the IWW after its heyday.

[graymouser]

I think the Free Speech Fights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_fights) were fairly explicit political action, and in their time and place actually had a significant impact. The tactics are not easily generalized but they were important direct changes to the political scene. Much more so than any ridiculous "mass spoilage campaign" could ever have been. Most of the IWW couldn't vote, how the hell could they have led a campaign for spoiling your ballot?

The IWW organized as it did because it was an organization whose heart and soul lay in transient workers, who moved from town to town looking for work. After a period (and this is pretty well documented in Bryan Palmer's biography of Cannon) the IWW became sort of prejudiced against workers who stayed put and kept their nose to the grindstone - the "homeguard" - who they didn't really see as consistent footloose revolutionaries. This rootlessness created a romance and at the same time a vulnerability about the IWW much more than any doctrinaire position about signing contracts. On the whole, the IWW was torn apart not just by state repression but also by social change eliminating its transient base, and the split between anarcho-syndicalist inclined workers who stayed with the IWW and politically-inclined workers who went over to the new Communist Party. It was flawed but not in the least for the reasons you are letting on here.

[RED DAVE]

http://www.amazon.com/Wobblies-Graphic-History-Industrial-Workers/dp/1844675254/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317391103&sr=1-1

Fabulous graphic history of the IWW.

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Is this really surprising, when considering the IWW never organized something explicitly political but as simple as a mass spoilage campaign?
My god, derailing your own thread. +1 for social-proletocracy. It must be fun having that hobby horse to ride on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the Free Speech Fights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_fights) were fairly explicit political action, and in their time and place actually had a significant impact. The tactics are not easily generalized but they were important direct changes to the political scene. Much more so than any ridiculous "mass spoilage campaign" could ever have been. Most of the IWW couldn't vote, how the hell could they have led a campaign for spoiling your ballot?

OK, so what was the extent of the IWW's involvement in, say, the Vietnam War draft-dodging and related protests? By that time, whatever few members there were could also vote (and spoil).


The IWW organized as it did because it was an organization whose heart and soul lay in transient workers, who moved from town to town looking for work. After a period (and this is pretty well documented in Bryan Palmer's biography of Cannon) the IWW became sort of prejudiced against workers who stayed put and kept their nose to the grindstone - the "homeguard" - who they didn't really see as consistent footloose revolutionaries. This rootlessness created a romance and at the same time a vulnerability about the IWW much more than any doctrinaire position about signing contracts.

Upon further reflection, I have to ask this: Why does your statement remind me of present and future "workerist" tendencies glorifying today's precariat stratum?


On the whole, the IWW was torn apart not just by state repression but also by social change eliminating its transient base, and the split between anarcho-syndicalist inclined workers who stayed with the IWW and politically-inclined workers who went over to the new Communist Party. It was flawed but not in the least for the reasons you are letting on here.

In other words, industrial capitalism was shifting to minimize or eliminate precarity for its time.

[Devrim]

DNZ isn't familiar with the IWW.

DNZ generally doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.


There were discussions in the early Comintern about inviting the IWW in as the American section. This demonstrated that the IWW didn't have the same global reach as the likes of the WFTU later on, and that its rejection of the Comintern was also a rejection of political struggle.

I don't think that anybody ever claimed that the IWW had a global reach, so it is hardly something that needed demonstrating.

Actually, the IWW did have active sections in countries other than the US, mostly English speaking, but also in Chile. You are right though that it never had the global reach of the WFTU. It also never included state sponsored unions like the GFTU in Syria, which are closely linked to the ruling party, and are currently justifying massacres of civilians like the WFTU.

You can't have everything.

Devrim

[graymouser]

OK, so what was the extent of the IWW's involvement in, say, the Vietnam War protests? By that time, whatever few members there were could vote (and spoil).
The IWW after the '20s was not a mass political organization but a small ideological group - who I believe did have some role in the protest politics but a relatively minor one, as things went through the New Left, the New Communist movement and the SWP in that period and not through anarchist channels as much.


Upon further reflection, I have to ask this: Why does your statement remind me of present and future "workerist" tendencies glorifying today's precariat strata?
There was a romance to those hobos and their songs (FWIW, the IWW built much more of an "alternative culture" than any other US left organization, except maybe the black cultural nationalists) and the footloose rebels riding the rails, I suppose. I'm not really trying to glorify them, but to explain who they were and what they did. Read Palmer's bio of Cannon and Franklin Rosemont's book on Joe Hill, you'll understand the IWW a lot better.

If you REALLY want to understand the IWW, listen to Utah Phillips. "We Have Fed You All For a Thousand Years," "Fellow Workers," "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere." Also a collection of old Wobbly songs - "Rebel Voices". That is a connection to what mass working class counterculture looked like. (I am extremely fond of the old Wobbly songs, and Utah was a tremendous raconteur and really gave you the feel of these people.)


In other words, industrial capitalism was shifting to minimize or eliminate precarity for its time.
For a period. Precarity returned with a vengeance in the '30s of course but took drastically different forms.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

but several organized workplaces of the IWW have contracts

And some of them even have no-strike pledges!

[RED DAVE]

OK, so what was the extent of the IWW's involvement in, say, the Vietnam War draft-dodging and related protests? By that time, whatever few members there were could also vote (and spoil).Jesus, you are fucking ignorant. The IWW was given the kibosh by the suppression of the Left during and after WWI. They scarcely existed during the 60s.

IWW activities like the Lawrence and Paterson strikes were extremely political.


Upon further reflection, I have to ask this: Why does your statement remind me of present and future "workerist" tendencies glorifying today's precariat strata?Because you have no notion whatsoever of what it means to do working class organizing.


In other words, industrial capitalism was shifting to minimize or eliminate precarity for its time.I see no use for the word "precarity."

RED DAVE

[Искра]

Actually, the IWW did have active sections in countries other than the US, mostly English speaking, but also in Chile.
Chilean IWW joined IWA in 1922. They had like 20000 members.

http://wwww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Chilean IWW joined IWA in 1922. They had like 20000 members.

http://wwww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association
It should be noted that 4 years before that, they had less than 200 members. 200 to 20,000 in 4 years.

And some of them even have no-strike pledges!
I think some of those are in Madison, WI. Madison is the 4th or 5th largest branch. But as I've noted before, their GMB is typically considered a joke among other GMB's. However...
These workplaces that have no-strike pledges may be some of the remnants of the older generation from the 70s, 80s, and 90s who have been dying off. I'm not sure how close you pay attention to the IWW, but the last 6 years or so has become a major upsurge in militant worker radicalism and grassroots organizing, whereas the prior 3 decades was more of a left "activist" outlet: nothing more than soft protesting and a left-pressure group. The rise of working class militancy and grassroots organizing in the IWW along with the rise of the IWW itself (fast growing branches, bigger campaigns, attention in large mainstream sources, etc.) is very noticeable. A lot more branches are becoming self-organized, and setting up their own local and/or regional Organized Training sessions, to help organize your own workplace.
The IWW is changing, and quite fast at it. We embrace our radical roots.

As for contracts, that depends on who you ask and how they feel about it. I am okay with contracts, as long as it contains a No-Strike pledge, although I rather focus on day-to-day struggles.

[Искра]

It should be noted that 4 years before that, they had less than 200 members. 200 to 20,000 in 4 years.
I don't know about that (sources?)...

But, anyway it's not so important for us today (one little note: Spanish CNT also grew big fast... Swedish SAC also). These times were quite different. Working class was in majority consisted of industrial proletariat, there were not so many organisations, class differences were reckonable and a history of leftist abominations was quite poorer (especially in Chile where they probably knew only for socialdemocrats...). I don’t know anything about working class movement in Chile, but I can guess that if there was no revolutionary left organisation there which fought for workers rights before IWW, so after few battles they got into spot... I’m talking same old crap again, but I just want to emphasise how our job today is, imo, a lot harder, especially when we have these concepts such as “social partnership”, or when we have history of left which is marked by Stalinism, Maoisim etc. – in one word epic failures.
I would really like to hear for organisation from 21st century which evolved so much in 4 years. But I know that such organisation dosen’t exist. We need to work on that.

[genstrike]

I started writing a reply but my browser crashed, so I figured I wouldn't bother wasting my time rewriting it because is silly, even for a DNZ thread

[Jose Gracchus]

Michael Kazin? Of Dissent? Yeah no shit the academicians of reformism and "liberal internationalism" have nothing but shit to talk about Wobblies. You might as well quote Dominique Strauss-Kahn on what he thinks of Rosa Luxembourg.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I knew he was a liberal scumbag, but he made a couple of good points here and there.

[the last donut of the night]

wait, what? Does this actually make sense to anyone else?

i'm sure caesar could explain it to us. after all, he was a man of the people