Fraudulent or Genuine?

by Nathan Karp Price 25 cents UNI ~ ONISM F-raudulent or Genuine? By Nathan Karp What is the mission of union­ ism? Is it to reconcile the workers with exploitation, to preserve capitalism, to serve the exploiters as merchan­ disers of the workers' labor power? Or is it to defend the workers in the class struggle, to organize the economic power needed to back up the political demand for Socialism, and to provide the governmental structure to succeed capitalism's coercive State? The questions are analyzed and answered in this pamphlet in a fundamental discussion of the dif­ ference between fraudulent and gen­ uine unionism. An appendix consisting of basic editorials by Daniel De Leon on un­ ionism makes this work an exhaus­ tive study of a subject that is of prime importance to all workers. 64 pages Price 25 cents postpaid The New York Labor News Co., publishing agency of the Socialist Labor P a rty, publishes equally sound lit erature on other aspects of the union question, and on capitalism and Socialism in general. Send for a free catalogue. NEW YORK LABOR NEWS CO. 61 Cliff Street, New York 38, N.Y. UNIONISM:

Fraudulent or Genuine?

By

. N~~THAN J(ARP

New Sub Rates One year $3; 6 IVIonths $1.50

t..J e'~ Address 116 Nassau St., ~rooklyn, N. Y. 11201

1962 NEW YORK LABOR NEWS CO., 61 Cliff St., New York 38, N.Y. First printing, 1958 Second printing, 1962

(Printed in the United States of America.) Contents

1. The Union Question Still Burns ...... 1 2. Fraudulent Unions and the Class Struggle...... 4 3. Labor Lieutenants of the Capitalist Class...... 9 4. Labor Divided...... 17 5. Unions As Big Business...... 20 6. Genuine Unionism .... ·-· ...... 25

APPENDIX

Explanatory Note, by Eric Hass ...... 35

By Daniel De Leon: Industrial Unionism...... 37 Industrial Union Structure...... 41 Strikes and the "Public"...... 49

Socialist Labor Party Resolution on Strikes...... 53 By cowardly g1vmg way in their everyday conflict with capital, they [the workers] would certainly dis­ qualify themselves for the initiating of any larger move­ ment. At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wage system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate work­ ing of these everyday struggles. They ought not to for­ get that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the down· ward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerrilla fights incessantly springing up from the never-ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the MATERIAL CONDITIONS and the SOCIAL FORMS necessary for an economic re­ construction of society. Instead of the CONSERVATIVE motto, "A FAIR DAY'S WAGE FOR A FAIR DAY'S WORK!" they ought to inscribe on their banner the REVOLUTIONARY watchword, "ABOLITION OF THE WAGE SYSTEM!" - KARL MARX 1. The Union Question Still Burns

That the trade-union question is a burning one is obvious from the space it :fills in the public mind, the acrimony of thE' discussion and the wide divergence of opinion on the subject. Obvious also is the conclu­ sion that a subject that can draw upon itself so much attention. that can produce so much acrimony, and on which opinion takes so many shades-running from extreme and unqualified support through all manner of gradations across the gamut, to extreme and unqualified opposition-cannot choose but be a vital one, and certainly must have a latent something about it that will not down. Finally, it is obvious that stlch a question deserves attention - close, serious aad sober-and that the solution must be grappled with and found.-Daniel De Leon, in "Burning Ques­ tion of Trades Unionism."

As IJaniel De Leon, America's foremost Ma·rx­ ist, :~mphasized over 53 years ago, trade unionism is indeed a vital subject-particularly to the workers of America. Recent events have once again brought it to the forefront of public attention. And, as usual, the discussions on this important subject have produced much more heat and acrimony than fact and logic, there­ by emphasizing- the need to give the union question ''close, serious and sober" consideration once again. In fact, it is of the utmost importance that this be done, since the future welfare of the workers of America ( anC., in the final analysis, of the world) depends di­ rectly upon a proper and correct evaluation of the na­ ture and character of the unions in existence today, a proper understanding of the historic mission of union­ ism and a knowledge of the correct principles of union

I organization. It is the purpose of this pamphlet to deal '\'ith these fundamentals. WRONG PRINCIPLES SIRE CORRUPTION Before oealing with these matters specifically, how­ ever, it may be well to point out briefly that the revela­ tions made by the special Senate Rackets Committee investigating corrupt practices by various union lea.d­ ers, etc., were hardly startling to anyone even super­ ficially informed on the nature of the existing unions. Nor are future revelations likely to be any more startling. {Jnfortunately, however, more than any­ thing else these revelations have created the illusion that there is nothing \\Tong with today's unions that the ren1oval of a few corrupt leaders would not rectify. .Actually, the truth is that corruption among union officials is a result of, not the cause of, what is -.~rrong with these unions, as lve shall soon see. It should also he noted at this point that the AFL­ CIO "merger" has created no basic or fundamental change in what passes for the American union move­ ment. It has not hrotl"ght unity to the. lahor movement. A.ll the evils that existed separately in the AFL and the cro before the Hffierger'~ Still remain. Jurisdic­ tional differences, the emphasis on "job control" and the -autocra6c control of each union by entrenched bu­ reaucrats still continue. In some instances, the jurisdic~ tional ciispntes ha\7 e become more bitter than ever. ·rhou!!.h the national hodies of the AFL and the CIO h~nr~ "'merp:ed,'' n1ost state and local AFL and CIO units found that they had jurisdictional and bureau­ cratic differences that interfered with state- and local­ level "mergers." As Stanley Levey expressed it in the New York Times (in discussing the failure of the New York State units of the AFL and CIO to "merge") : "The main obstacle to merger is a basic dis­ agreement over organic structure-meaning jobs 2 ..1 and power.... "- New York Times, Feb. ro, 1957· 1'he Socialist Labor Party is, of course, directly concerned vvith all aspects of the union question. For the Socialist Labor Party is the strongest advocate of proper working-c1ass unionism in America,· and al­ Yvays has been during the 67 years of its existence. But the Sociali~t Lahor Party charges that the present unions-all of then1--are not working-class unions. ·rhey an::, instead, organizations dedicated to princi­ ples contrary to the best' interests of the workers. As a result, thev are in fact definite obstructions to the workers' efforts to free th~mselves · from the horrors of wage slavc.ry and exploitation. And; as V\~e shall see, the Socialist Lahar Party has sound and, logical reasons for this unyielding position. 'fhe union question is, of course, a large one with n1any Important ramifications. r~,or obviOUS reasons, onlv. the most e$S.entiaL£acts and principles can be dealt with in this parop]1l~t -;" Briefly they may be divided into the follo\ving "four major points: ' I. 'rhe purpose and m~ssion - of unionism. · 2. The goal that a v~'orking-class 't1pion must aim for. y ... \•· " 3· The sti·ucture and · objectives of the present unions. (Including the rol\ of the labor leader.) : 4· The union organizatipn the workers must es­ tablish in order to pt:otect ,,th~~li ( interests and achieve their complete emancipati:on ·from wage slavery and exploitation.

1!· 3 2. Fraudulent Unions And the Class Struggle

The first question that must be answered is: \Vhat­ is the rnission of unionism in a fully developed capital­ ist society? It would be 'veil if we could explain in detail all the basic problems and contradictions that exist in a fully developed capitalist society such as we have in the United States. But this would be a major work in itself, far beyond the scope of this pam­ phlet. For our purpose here, however, it is necessary that we emphasize the all-important fact that capi­ talism is a class-divided society. One class, composed of a small minority, owns and controls all the so­ cially required means of production and distribution. This class is the capitalist class. The other class, com­ posed of the vast majority, is completely deprived of ownership and control of the tools of production and the instruments of distribution. This class is the work­ ing class. In order to live, it must sell its labor power, its ahility to work, mentally and manually, to the capitalist class. The working class produces all so­ cial wealth and performs all necessary social services. In return it receives in the form of 'vages but a small fraction of the w·ea1th it alone produces. The capitalist dass: hy virtue of its ownership of the tools, appropri­ ates the •balance (by far the Ia rger portion) of this wealth. 7'his process is called exploitation. The work­ ing class, driven by stark necessity, strives to increase its wages (its share of the wealth it produces), while the capitalist class. driven by the profit motive and related 4 economic con1pulsions, constantly strives to increase the rate of exploitation. The result is an irrepressible class struggle for life in capitalist society. 1'hese are social and economic facts, and not "So­ cialist propaganda." Daniel De Leon summed up these facts succinctly and emphatically in his epic lecture, . "What l\1eans '[his Strike?" as follows: ''The pregnant point that underlies these pregnant facts is that between the working class and the capitalist class there is an irrepressible conflict, a class struggle for life. No glib-tongued politician can vault over it; no capitalist professor or official statistician can argue it away, no ,capital­ ist parson can veil it; no labor faker can straddle it; no 'reform' architect can bridge it over. It crops up in all manner of ways, as in this strike, in ways that disconcert all the plans and all the schemes of those vvho would deny or ignore it. It is a struggle that will not down, and must be end­ ed only by either the total subjugation of the working class, or the abolition of the capitalist class."

MISSION OF UNIONISM 'Vhen we recognize the fact of these social condi­ tions and realize their import, the mission of unionism becomes clear. The union must be an organization that, first, enables the workers to resist the constant en­ croachments of the capitalist class. Secondly, it must recognize and accept the fact of the class struggle and, accordingly, educate the workers in their true class interests. 'Thirdlv, it must drill the 'vorkers in the necessary self-disdpline and organizational disci­ pline that will enable them to act in harmony to ad­ minister and control their union organization demo­ cratically. Finally, it must organize the workers as a

. ' 5 ! . control of the industries and to conduct production in their own interests. \Vhich are also the interests of so­ ciety. This, in fact,' is the supreme mission of unionism in a fully developed capitalist society. This fact fur­ ther dictates the necessary industrial structure of a working-class union, as weli as the tactics it must utilize in working toward this goal. But more on this later. First let us look more closely at the uni·ons we have to­ day and see why they are not working-class organiza­ tions. Originally, many of the present unions at least paid lip-service to the fact of the class struggle. For example, the constitution of the American Federation of Labor stated in part: " ... A struggle is going on in all 'nations of the civilized \vorld, a struggle bet,,.reen the capital­ ist and laborer. which gro,vs in intensity from year to vear, and will work disastrous results to the toiiing millions if they are not combined for mutual protection ... . " · Other unions went even further, not only paying lip-service to the fact of the class struggle, but also de­ fining correctly the true mission of unionism. A case in point is the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Yvhich said in the preamble to its constitution: "1'he economic or.ganization of labor has been called into existence by the capitalist system of production, under "''hich the division between the ruling class and the ruled_class is based upon the ownership of the means of• production. The class owning those means i~ the one that is ruling, the . ·dass that possesses nothing· but its labor power, which is always on the. market as a commodity,· i~ the one that is being ruled. . A constant and unceas­ ing struggle is being· waqed ·between these .two r c,lasse.r~ In this struggl·el the ·economic organization · 6: of labor, the union, is a natural weapon of offense and defense in the hands of the working class ... . The working class must accept the principles of In­ dustrial lJnionism or it is doomed to impotence . . . . 1'his ... will eventually lead to a universal working-clas·s organization, united along the en­ tire line of the class struggle economically and politically, instead of being split up and divided against itself, a·s it unfortunately is at present, under the antiquated teachings and methods. For the consummation of this great end the education of the 'vorking class is most essential. This must, therefore, he a very important part of the mission of the labor movement. Every oppressed class in history achierecl its emancipation only upon its at­ taining economic supren1acy. The same law oper­ ates in the struggle ihehveen Capital and Labor. The industrial and inter-industria] organization huilt upon the solid rock of dear knowledge and classconsriousness 'vill put the organized working class in actual control of the system of production, and the working class will then be ready to take possession of it ..." - Cited in "American Labor Year Book, I9I9-I920." (Italics mine-N.K.)

WHY THE RANK AND FILE WAS VULNERABLE TO BETRAYAL Yes, many unions paid lip-service to the fact of the class struggle and some even correctly proclaimed the mi~sion and goal of unionism. But for the most part the workers who joined these early unions had no clear underst(fnding of the import of the class strug­ gle, although their militant class instinct enabled them to recognize the need to organize for the purpose of resisting the encroachments of the capitalist class. Their lack of a clear understanding of the class struggle made them vulnerable to betrayaL As a result, it was not long before the careerists and opportunists 7 an1ong them began to don1inate and control the unions. 'fhey exploited the workers' instinct for solidarity and their sentiment for unionism in launching their careers as union bureaucrats. Strike after strike, the declared objectives of which were higher wages, shorter hours and i1nproved lvorking conditions, was settled for ''union shop," "dosed shop," and "check-off" agree­ nlent~ with the bosses. And it was these very agree­ Jnents that enabled the ·Union leader to entrench him­ self and assume bureaucratic control over the union and its men1bership. Control of the jobs through col­ lusive agreements with the employers meant control of the duespayers.

8 3. Labor Lieutenants Of the Capitalist Class

OnC'e the union was "recognized" by the capitalist and accepted as the official job-filling agency in his in­ dustry, the union was established as a going concern. 1'he labor leader was now in the labor-merchandising husiness. The class struggle and the historic mission of unionism were quickly forgotten. Instead of em­ phasizing the class interests of the 'vorkers, the union leaders preached the "brotherhood of capital and la­ bor." Instead of advocating the emancipation of the working class from wage slavery they accepted capital­ ism as an eternal system, and "the best of all possible systems" at that. 1'he unions became, in fact, pro-capi­ talist job-trusts. They concentrated on organizing the jobs. 1'hey appealed to the worker's job-consciousness, describing the union as a means of protecting his job fron~ other workers ';vho might be competing for it. Not only did the unions "protect" these jo:bs against the competition of unorganized workers, but also against rival unions. But while they vigilantly guarded the jobs within their own jurisdictions and control, they were ever on the alert for jurisdictional "territory" that could be successfully invaded.

UNION BULWARKS OF CAPITAL The labor leaders' biggest and most impoT-tant job became Yelling themseh·es to the capitalists as uphold­ ers and de.fend~rs of the p,-operty and profit Tights of

9 the capitalist class} and as purveyors of docile labor ready and 'lvilling to be exploited without creating in­ dustrial strife. Mr. Julius I-Iochn1an, manager of the Dress Joint Board of the International Ladies Gar­ ment Workers Union, once put it this way: " . . .. Our job was to convince the employers that we didn't want to take awav their business. You see we were in a paradox: w~ had to tell our memhership a different story than we told the em­ ployers. . . . Remove capitalism and the reason for the existence o.( unions [pro-capitalist unions, that is] is abolished. \Vhen you get to this point in your thinking, then cooperation with the em­ ployers !becomes possible and desirable .... "-New York Post} Sept. 4, 1955. And Philip Murray, late head of the CIO, once assured the capitalist class that: " ... the first thing a labor union does when it is established is to assume its share of respon­ sibility for industrial peace ...."--J7irginia Quar­ terly, Spring, I 940, issue. 'rhe charter-of the "merged" AFL-CIO complete­ ly ignores the existence of the class struggle. It com­ pletely and unqualifiedly accepts the false theory of the "brotherhood of capital and labor." T'his fact did not pass unnoticed or unappreciated by the defenders of capitalist interests. T'he Nevi' York Ti·mes, commenting editori :tlly on the ~'n1erger," observed: "1'ht advance of labor has not been accom­ plished without difficulty and struggle; but it has; fortunately, heen struggle within the framework of our democratic institutions. It has given the lie to the theories of Marx and, as President Eisen­ ho~ver notc>d yesterday, out of it has emerged the r~~li. za.tion that theories of class warfare make no sense in our kind of community, hut that the eco- ·

JO nomic interests of etnployer and employee are in fact complementary. . . . "-New Y ark Times, Dec. 6, 1955. \Vhile Fortune magazine, January, I 9 56, express­ ed pleasure that: · " ... these echoes of ·Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' are happily absent from the new AFL-CIO tharter ..." Actually: the new charter merely recognized -of­ ficially '''hat has been a fact for a long, long time. For the whole history of these pro-capitalist unions ha·s been a history of the betrayal of working-class inter­ ests. l\tlany of the labor leaders openly brag of their "proud record'' of service to the capitalist class and their system of exploitation. The William Greens, Philip Murrays, and Sidney Hillmans did so in the past. The Jnhn L. Lewises, Jacob Potofskys and Walter Reuthers continue to do so today.

THE CAPITALISTS' LABOR CHAMPIONS Some of the present-day unioh leaders are down­ right blunt in their declarations of loyalty to, and de­ fense of, capitalisn1. One such is Louis P. Marciante, president of the New Jersey State Federation of La­ bor, who once declared~ " ... \Vhen and if the profit system fa.ces a ~howdown with Marxism. as I feel some dav it must, it V\'ill need the .support of labor ..." New Jersey State F edcration of Labor Convention, December, 1946. What l\1arciante rneant was that the profit systern would need the support of the labor leader, and .he left no douht that the support would be readilv forthcom­ ing, as it always has heen when capitalist interests re- quired; it. · · ,;

I I Perhaps one of the best examples of the perverted rea"oning and anti-working class attitude of these labor leaders is an open letter addressed to the members of his union by vValter Cenerazzo, president of the American Watch '"\-r orkers U 11ion. Cenerazzo wrote: "Dear Fell ow Members: "1'his is going to be tough. Some of you may get sore. But I'm a 'labor leader.' And what sort of leader 'vould I he if I didn't tell you what I see ahead? So here it comes straight. "A few years ago our employers had it all their own ·way. Now the pendulum has swung tov;ra rd us. Are we now going to be as unfair to our employer3 as they once were to us? Or are \Ve going to shoYv son1e sense? Not for their sake, but for ·our own . Because listen: "Sales make "\-Yages. Production makes sales, and lo\v-cost, low-p~·ice production makes n1ore sales. In the last ~~o years our employers' average profit per \Vatch has been less than a dollar. Prof­ its are necessary. Only out of p~ofits can our em­ ployers give us better tools for better production, out of which we can get our cut in bigger wages. vVe've got to help our employers make good profits. "Son1e guys will yell: So you're 'company­ minded.' Sure, I'm 'company-minded.' I'm 'union­ minded' too. A n1an who is only 'company-minded' and who can't see the union except as something to fight is a class-struggle man: a man who is only 'unioned-minded' and who can't see the company except a~ sornething to plunder is a class-struggle man. To prevent the class struggle from wrecking the country, America must be 'union-minded' and 'company-minded' both .... "You know our union is headed the right way.

12 Jf/ e're for .free enterprise and our employers know it. We've got only a few screwballs who get any kick out of shouting: 'To hell with the boss 1 ••. ' ''-Reader's Digest, December, 1946. (Italics min e-N .K.) Here in their crudest form we have all the false economic theories with which the labor leaders have blurred the existing class lines ·and distorted the true interests of the workers. 1'he letter also reveals the ~ontempt that these labor leaders have for the in­ telligence of the workers. Other labor leaders have not hesitated to present their union's "credentials" as defenders of capitalist interests directly to the capitalists. A case in point is that of Jacob Potofsky, president of the Amalgamated Clothing vVorkers of America. (This is the same J acoh Potofsky whose name is one of the two that ap­ pear in the American Labor Year Book as signers of the 1\malgamated prean1ble, from which we quoted earlier.) Some years ago when the Amalgamated was planning a department-store organizing drive, Mr. Potof.sky ''vas anxious not to have the department­ store owners misconstrue the union's intent or become unduly alarmed. l-Ie asked Victor Riesel, then colunl­ nist for the. New York Post-Home News, to- " ... tell this to the department stores. We wouid like the owners everywhere to go to the men's ciothing inuustry or to the National Asso­ ciation of Clothing Manufacturers. Let them in­ vestigate our record in the industry, our respect for contractual obligations. Let them talk to the firms with ·which vve've dealt for 40 years and which have made millions of dollars a year." -Quoted from the WEEKLY PEOPLE, Jan. 15, 1949· Note that l\1r. Potofsky did not suggest that the

[". ) department-store employees go to Amalgamated dues­ payers to find out what a "good union" the Amalga­ mated w·as, but rather that the department-store owners go to the clothing n1anufacturers and ask these capitalists how they had !benefited from their relations with the union. 1\tlr. Potofsky knew what he was about. lie had every reason to believe that the capitalist recommendatio-ns for his union would be enthusiastic. lie well knew the Amalgamated's reputation for cooperation with the bosses. In fact, the .l\malgamated has been pointed to as an example of a union that has brought about "industrial peace" and established excellent "labor-management" rela­ tions. Here is an example of the reputation enjoyed by the Amalga,mated: ''In the clothing industry ... regional associa­ tions of e1nployers dealing with a strong uniun have 1nade strikes rare. Even more rare are viola­ tions of agreements with employers, and once when workers in Rochester, N.Y. got out of con­ trol, the national ~1 rnalgamated Clothing Work­ ers [/nion helped the employers lock tht1 rebels out until they prorni.,ed to maintain discipline. . . . Although the Amalgamated doroinated the clothing industry, it has always left employers a free hand and has encouraged introduction of new machinery and new methods ... The Amalgamat­ ed's production and financial experts have helped reorganize weak firms, have helped tide over others by lending them union funds. The union once undenvrote several hundred thousand dol­ lars of securities for a Baltimore firm, cut wages, and helped run the co·mpany until it 'l.vas on its feet."-" Industrial Warfare" by L. Velie, Col- 14 lier's magazine, March 2, r 946. (Italics mine­ N. K.) \Vhat more coulci the capitalists in the men's cloth­ Ing industry v:ant? 'l'he union did and does more for them than they could or would do for each other. What has been cited about the anti-working class nature of the Amalgamated is quite typical of the en­ tire pro-capitalist union movement. The United Auto­ mobile Workers Union has earned the respect of the capitalists in the automobile industry. Mr. Walter Reuther, the "former Socialist," has on frequent oc­ casions proclaimed his loyalty to capitalism and capi­ talist class interests. A.s for proof that this allegedly "militant" union has served the interests of the auto­ mobile C8.pitalists \Ve have no less an authority than Mr. Charles E. Wilson himself. The former chair­ man of the board at General Motors has stated: " .... I am personally convinced that, if there were no unions and no labor contracts like Gen­ eral Motors has in the automotive industry, the increase in wages would already have greatly ex­ ceeded what has occurred. This increa·se to mv mind would be much more comparable with th~ increase that has occurred in commodities, for if we had a completely free labor market with no unions and no contracts, la'bor would have been able to sell its services at a rapidly increasing price just as the owners of commodities have been able to do. "-New York Herald Tribune, Aug. 29, 195 I. Equally illuminating is the more recent testimony from another spokesman for plutocratic interest·s. In an address before the AFL-CIO Metal Trades De­ partment, Mr. Harry 1\!Iorton, attorney for the Henry Kaiser interests, stated: "We did not get religion just because we like IS you people. I am speaking of management now [meaning the capitalist class]. We learned this: The cost per yard of concrete poured at Grand Coulee wa·s less than it ·was of concrete in Boulder Dam. The cheaper jo:b was the closed shop, the union shop. The more expensive job was the open­ shop job. This is your !beginning and reason for us getting religion, and when we got it, we went all

the way."-Quoted in Labor Econontic Review1 January, I 9 56. The conclusion is inescapable that the existing un­ ions are allies and accomplices of the capitalist class dedicated to the proposition that the capitalist system be preserved and the working class kept in wage slavery. The labor leader himself is nothing more nor less than the labor lieutenant of the capitalist class in charge of the job of misleading the mass of workers into meekly accepting capitalist wage slavery as the "best of all possible systems."

16 4. Labor Divided

One more important point must be made in pre­ senting the SLP' s ca·se against the present unions, though it is by no means the last important point that could he made. The present job-trust un.ions are in­ stigators and promoters of organized scabbery. Their chief weapon in pron1oting this organized scabbery is the "contract."

UNION ((CONTRACT)) SCABBING First of alL it must be remembered that in each industry the workers are divided by dozens of separate contracts. For example, in an article he wrote for the September, I 9 S 2, issue of Reader's Digest, Charles E . Wilson revealed that in I 9 s I General Motors had nearly I oo separate union contracts with I 7 separate unions. And, .of course~ to a greater or lesser degree the same was undoubtedly true of Ford, Chrysler, American Motors, etc. Under such cir.cumstances, when the workers of one union go out on strike, work­ er-s who belong to the same or affiliated unions, but who have separate contracts, continue to work. Thus they scalb on the striking workers and not infrequently con­ stitute a decisive factor in breaking strikes. If the non-striking wTorkers, moved by their class instinct, show the slightest inclination to support the striking workers by joining the ·strike, their leaders immediately remind thetn that they cannot do so because they have I7 separate "contracts." They are warned that they must respect their ':contracts" and, in effect, sca:b on their fellow workers and union brothers. In short, the col­ lective interests of the workers are betrayed by the very organizations pledged to protect them. (When the rank and file take matter·s into their own hands and go on strike in defiance of their leaders' orders, the strike is la1beled ""vildcat." When this happens, union leaders join the capitalists and their mouthpieces­ press, radio, 'fV, etc.,-in hurling epithets at the strik­ ing workers~ denouncing the1n for breaking their "contracts.") The Becks, the 'fobins, the Lewises, and other "top-flight" union leaders have referred to workers who have refused to cross picket lines on their orders in the vilest and n1ost insulting terms, and have used every means at their disposal to force them to do so. Actually, more strikes have been broken by the "or­ ganizeci" crafts than by professional scabs. In recent years, in fact, the professional scab has become a rarity. As Daniel De Leon observed over 50 years ago: "It is a fact, deep with significance, though it seems to escape the observation of superficial observers, that it is not the unorganized scab who breaks the c;trikes, but the organized craft that really does the dirty work . . . . all in fatuous revei=ence to 'contracts.' "-"Socialist Reconstruc­ tion of Society."

JURISDICTIONAL STRUGGLES Another divisive factor is the jurisdictional fight. Every union is looking to control as many jobs as possible. Control of a job means the · right to collect dues and assessments from the worker who holds the I8 job, in addition to the per capita contributions made by the employer to health and retirement funds, etc. These jurisdictional fights for j.ob control are frequent and bitter, and pit worker against worker, with the boss standing by waiting to see which union will be able to give him the best deal and the strongest con­ trol over the workers in his plant. Sometimes, when a union strikes in a given plant or industry, another union will move in and offer to supply "cooperative workers" and maintain "industrial peace" in return for jurisdiction over the jobs. This practice caused New York Post columnist Murray Kempton to observe: "In the old days, with minor exceptions, only scabs crossed a picket line. These days, the ~ best way to break one union's strike is to call in an­ other union .... "-NewYork Post, Oct. 15, 1951. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is not difficult to understand why so many capitalists support and defend the present unions and befriend and encourage the union leaders. They recognize in these unions and their leaders the instruments through which labor can be rnost readily regimented to wage slavery and, moreover, regimented in the name of labor. As Mr. Howard Chase, a Canadian capitalist, once put it~ "Labor unions are here to sta v ... The un­ ions must he str-ong in order to discipline their own members. Employers should help make them strong so that any agreement they have with em­ ployees will be ca·rried out... ."-The Socialist Press, December, 1945. 5. Unions As Big Business

The pro-capitalist unions have become big business -really big business. T'hus they have a vested interest in the retention and perpetuation of the capitalist sys· tern of exploitation. They own millions of dollars \vorth of re

20 is bound to be a source of corruption. The individ­ uals who hold office in these unions want to remain in office in order to control this wealth and reap the benefits that result from it. In addition to the possible material benefits, it gives them prestige and position. Huge bureaucratic machines are built to perpetuate their control. Furthermore, the existence of such vast amounts of wealth inevitably attracts racketeers and gangsters who seek to share in the loot.

THE SENATE HEARINGS Congressional investigations can do no more than emphasize the existence of this corruption. They can reveal the baneful results of pro-capitali·st business unionism. 'They can reveal the contempt that many of these labor leaders have for their constituents, the workers, out of whose sweat and suffering their wealth has been extorted. But they cannot expose the basic iauJt of these unions; their failure to represent the true interests of the working class; their failure to perform the true mission of unionism. The Senate Rackets Committee's exposure of corruption in high union places n1erelv feeds the illusion that with "hon­ est rnen" in these offices these unions would be o.k . .A.nd this is to be expected. For while the capitalist politicians expose this or that labor leader, partly for political purposes and partly to lay the ground for the enactment of legislation that would make it more and 1nore difficult for a bona fide working-class union to come into being and function without interference from the capitalist political State, these politicians will not do anything rcal1y to undermine the influence of the pro-capitalist unions generally. They are well a\vare of the capitalist tenet which Business Week magazine

21 succinctly expressed n1ore than ten years ago as follows: " . It has become axiomatic that an em- ployer would rather deal with a strong union than a weak one. Hence, in facing the prolblem of regulating union activity ... an important consid­ eration is getting .it done while, at the same time, preserving the strength of the union institution." -cited in WEEKLY PEOPLE, Jan. 25, 1947. And Business Week added significantly: " ... It is in precisely those unions which are strongest, most responsible under their contracts, best disciplined: and best alble to conduct an eco­ nomic retreat peacefully, that the abrogation of the individual members' rights ha·s gone the far­ thest." It is hardly any wonder then that da.ssconscious capitalist spokesmen often come to the defense of the union leaders. Many of them have recently pointed out that for every Beck there are dozens of "respectable" and "decent" labor leaders. As an example, the follow­ ing is quoted from a New York Times editorial: "Neither the committee [the Senate Rackets Committee headed by Senator McClellan] nor any enlightened employer will take a stand in these days against an honestly organized and scrupulously conducted labor union. lVIost large­ scale employers indeed weloome the existence of unions so organized and so conducted. Without them labor·-manage1nent relations would be chaotic."-New York Times, .Aug. 2, 1957. Yes, indeed, the classconscious capitalists ha.ve good reasons for defending the present unions. For, in addition to the more obvious reasons already cited, they know that if these unions are destroyed or completely

22 discredited the workers would instinctively seek to or· ganize new and perhaps clas·sconscious unions. As the National Secretary of the Socialist Labor Party once put it: "Capitalist interests require the existence of conservative unionism, not because capitalists love unionism per se, but because their instinct tells them that the alternative to capitalist-inspired unions and capitalist-minded union leaders is revo­ lutionary Socialist unions and Marxian spokesmen of such unions."-Arnold PetePsen, in "Bourgeois Socialism." A number of years ago the New York Post com­ mented on an editorial that· had appeared in the Des Moines Tribune that admitted this instinctive capitalist fear. The following is quoted from the New Y ark Post} f)ct. I 3, I 944: "The Tribune defends high pay to union lead­ ers. 'There is only one way unions can get top brains without paying for them, and that is to hire fanatics who will take out their pay in power.... Fortunately, labor is beginning to build up a corps of top men who are there lbecause they have the executive abilitv and the business acumen which permit them to- deal with employers and govern­ ment officials on the same ·businesslike basis.' What the Tribune fears is that otherwise Vi7 e would have 'revolutionary' unions instead of the 'business' unions that have now developed." Accordingly, the capitalist defenders of the existing unions 'vill do everything possible to keep their allies, the present la·bor leaders and the pro-capitalist business unions, in existence, instinctively realizing that "the im­ pulse for labor solidarity is hamstrung, the path of labor's emancipation is barred by the pure-and-si1nple cna ft unions." (De Leon) 23 The state of the uniOns today can be ,summed up as follows: I. They do not enable the workers as a class to resist effectively the encroachments of the capitalist class. Instead of uniting the workers, they divide them into separate units and utilize the "contract" effectively to prevent the workers from acting as one in their own interests. Thus, they promote organized scabbery and betray the very interests of the workers they are pledged to protect. 2. They do not educate the workers in their true · class interests. Instead they conceal the fact of the dass struggle and preach the false theory that "capital and labor are brothers." 3· They do not prepare the workers to assume control of industry and conduct production for the benefit of all society. On the contrary, having blurred the class lines in the minds of their members, having divided them into competing units, they have com­ mitted themselves to the "principle of private owner­ ship, private initiative and the protection of private property," as the AFL Executive Council once put it. 4· The lahar leaders have acquired wealth and prestige under this system. They therefore try to con­ vince the workers that this capitalist system can be made to work in their interests. They foster the illu­ ')ion that somehow the workers can improve their con­ dition under the capitalist system, an obvious impossi­ bility to anyone who understands the inherent laws of capitalist society. 5. In short, the present-day unions are not work­ ing-class unions but capitalist defense organizations. 'fhe labor leaders are the labor lieutenants of the capi­ talist class; and they are determined to perpetuate the capitalist system ~f \Vage slavery. 24 6. Genuine Unionism

rfhis brings us to the very important question: What must the working class do? The answer is that the workers tnust organize a union of their class; a union that will accept as a fact the existing class clivi· sian in capitalist society; a union, accordingly, that will recognize the need to abolish the class.divided capital· ist ·system and that will organize, educate and drill the workers to that end. This calls for abandonment of the present unions and the complete rejection of the false premises on which they are built. In their place, the workers must build the Socialist Industrial Union.

THE CIO's FAKE INDUSTRIALISM I-Iere we must digress for a moment and clear up an important point. The claim ha·s been made that some "industrial unions" already exist. For yea.rs the CIO claimed that many of its affiliated unions were "industrial unions." Furthermore, when the CIO and the AFL "merged," they set up a so-called "Industrial Union Department," the effect of which is to fortify the illusion that "industrial unions" exist. The "merged" AFL-CIO stated that the purpose of the "Industrial Union Department" was: " ... to promote the interests of industrial un­ ions within the AFL-CIO consistent with the prin­ ciple established in the AFL-CIO constitution that both era ft and industrial unions are appropriate, 25 equal and necessary as methods of union organiza­ tion ..."-New York Times, Dec. 8, 1955. This is pure hogwash. For one thing, industrial unionism ipso facto eliminates craft unionism and its false principles. Secondly, the unions that today claim to be "industrial" have absolutely no resemiblance to bona fide Socialist Industrial Unions. And no one can speak with greater authority on the subject of Indus­ tria.! Unionism than the Socialist Labor Party. For So­ cialist Industrial Unionism is the epic discovery of Daniel De Leon and the Socialist Lalhor Party. It was De Leon, foremost American Marxist and for almost 25 years the Editor of the Socialist Lahar Party's of­ ficial organ, the 'iVEEKI.Y PEOPLE, who first dis­ covered and formulated the principles of Socialist In­ dustrial Unionis.m. And for the past fifty years, and more, the Socialist Labor Party alone has a.dViocated the principles of Socialist Industrial Unionism. The falsity of the CIO's claim that it was composed of "indt~strialn unions is readily exposed by citing a brief description of Industrial Unionism by DeLeon. Said De Leon: "Industrial Unionism does not mean a federa­ tion or confederation of the crafts engaged in the industry. It does not mean even the dose !blend­ ing of those several crafts into one organization. It means the integral organization of the working class." The absurditv of the claims of the U A W, UMW, USA, and simila~ unions tQ being "industrial" becomes apparent when one realizes that there is not a single plant union belonging to these organizations that em­ braces every worker in the plant. Such workers as bookkeepers1 stenographers, file clerks, stock clerks, maintenance men, designers, night watchmen, foremen, 1.6 etc., are all or in part excluded from such plant unions . .A.s we have already pointed out, in I 9 5 I General Motors had nearly I oo union contracts with I 7 unions covering more than JOO,ooo employees, thus giving the lie to the United i\.utomobile Workers claim that the automobile workers were organized into "industrial unions." Not only were I 7 different unions inv-olved, but each of these unions divided the workers into so many categories that a total of nearly I oo contracts was needed to cover them all. And unquestionably there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional General Motors' employees who belonged to no union at all. Though the figures may vary, the same condi­ tions still exist in all essential respects today. The absurdity of the daim of such unions to being "industrial" becomes even more apparent when all the basic principles of bona fide industrial unionism are understood. For Socialist Industrial Unionism dif­ fers fundamentally from the present unions in fonn, tactics and goal.

How THE SIU ORGANIZES Specifically, Socialist Industrial Unionism aims to organize all the workers as a class. Accordingly, it will organize the skilled and unskilled, the employed and unemployed, all the workers of brain and brawn in all the industries and services of the land - the 1nines, the n1ills, the factories, the railroads, the hospi­ tals, the schools-all the workers in all the industries. The form or structure of the Socialist Industrial Union will follow the lines of industry and production. The subdivisions needed for logical and efficient 0r­ ganization will be determined by the tool used and the product produced. But all these necessary subdivisions will be integrally united in one Socialist Industrial lJnion, with a common purpose and a common goal. All the officers of the Socialist Industrial Union will be democratically elected by the rank and file by direct vote. There will be no "appointees." And all the of~ ficers of the Socialist Industrial Union will be directly and constantly responsible to their industrial con~ stituents. They will be subject to recall at the will of the majority. Neither the Socialist Industrial Unions nor their elected officers will become involved in capi~ talist business. Their energies will be devoted solely to advancing the interest of the "\Vorkers as a cla.ss . .And the guarantee that this vvill be so is the fact that the Socialist Industrial lJnion must, and will, be com­ posed of classcnnscious workers who will know and understand their Socialist goal and the correct struc~ ture and tactics that their industrial organization must embrace in order to achieve that goal. Classconscious­ nes<; is the only thing that will ena·ble them to retain complete democratic contra] over their organization and to use it to serve their class interests.

THE SIU's TACTICS Tactically, the Socialist Industrial Union will op­ erate squarely on the FACT of the class struggle. It will comrletelv reject the false theory of the "brother­ hood of capital and labor." Rather, it will emphasize at every opportunity the fact that the working class and the capitalist class have absolutely nothing in com~ man. Insofar as it is possihle, at this late date in capitalist decadence, it will fight for the amelioration of conditions and against the encroachments ·of capi~ talism, but ''rithout losing sight of its real goal, which is: to effect the complete emancipation of the working class from wage slavery by abolishing the capitalist system at the earliest possible date. And, it should be emphasized that this class union will fight the en- 28 croachrnents of capitalism with the full weight of its strength. It will operate on the principle that an in­ jury to one worker is an injury to all the workers. The workers in the Socialist Industrial lJnion will not be bamboozled and divided by meaningless contracts, nor forced or cajoled into organized scabbery. How­ ever, at all times the Socialist Industrial Union will understand and be guided by the fact that such battles are at best rear-gua.rd actions forced upon it by eco­ nomic conditions under capitalism and that nothing short of the abolition of capitalism can lead to freedom and affluence for the working class. As De Leon ex­ pressed it: ". . . Industrialism [i.e. industrial unionism] is that svstem of economic organization of the working class that denies that labor and the capi­ talist class are brothers; that recognizes the ir­ repressible nature of the conflict between the two; that perceives that that struggle will not, be­ cause it cannot, end until the capitalist class is thrown off labor's back; that recognizes that an in­ jury to ont> workingman is an injury to all; and that, consequently, and with this end in view, or­ ganizes the whole working class into one union, the same subdivided only into such 1bodies as their respective craft tools demand, in order to wrestle as one body for the immediate amelioration of its membership [as far as that may be possible to­ day] and for their eventual emancipation by the total overthrow of the capitalist class, its eco­ nomic and political rule. ''-DAII.Y PEOPLE, Jan. 2J, 1906. Furthermore, the Socialist Industrial Union will teach and pfloclaim the need for the political organ­ ization of the working class in order that they, the vast majority, may be able to establish via the ballot their clemocratic right peacefully to accomplish the Socialist reconstruction of society.

THE SIU's GoAL The a vowed goal of the Socialist Industrial Union is the Socialist Industrial Republic of La1bor or the Socialist Industrial Commonwealth. It will be the power that will back up the political victory of the workers by taking, holding and operating the means of produc· tion and distribution in the interests of society as a whole. It will thereby become the instrument of So· cialist Industrial Union Government. " ... Industrial Unionism bends its efforts to unite the working class upon the political as well as the industrial field-on the industrial field be· cause without the integrally organized union of the working class the revolutionary a.ct is impos­ sible; on the political field, because on none other can be proclaimed the revolutionary purpose, without consciousness of which the union is a rope of sand. Industrial Unionism is the Socialist Re­ public in the making; and, the goal once reached, the Industrial LT nion is the Socialist Republic in operation. Accordingly, the Industrial Union is, at once, the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself. "-Daniel De Leon, DATIJY PEOPLE, Jan. 20, 1913. To repeat: it must and will be the industrial or· ganization of the working class, and not the political organization, that takes over reins of government in the Socialist Repuhlic. And this government will, ac· cordingly, be hased upon industrial constituencies and will be administered by industrial representatives elec- 30 ted democratically by the workers in all the industries. As De Leon described it: ';Civilized society will knovi' no such ridiculous thing a·s geographic constituencies. It will know only industrial constituencies. The parliament of civilization in America '"ill consist not of Con­ gressmen frotn geographic districts, but of repre­ sentatives of trades throughout the land, and their legislative work will not be the complicated one which a society of conflicting interests, such as capitalism, requires but the easy one which can be S'Ummed up in the statistics of the wealth needed, the yvealth producible, an~ the work required - and that any average set of Vi'Orkingmen's rep­ resentatives are fully able to ascertain, infinitely better than our n1odern rhetoricians in Congress." -"Burnmg Question of Trades Unionism." And this brings us to the question: Where does the Socialist Labor Party fit into this picture? The Socia.Jist Labor Party is the political party of the working class. This is so because the Socialist Labor Party is the sole protagonist of the prcgran1 and principles which the working class must adopt if it is ever to achieve its complete emancipation from wage slavery and, at the same time, save society from catastrophe. The Socialist Labor Party is the only organization demanding the abolition of capitalism and advocating the Socialist reconstruction of society. It has been doing so for over 67 years. It is, in short, the organization through which the worker·s can es­ tablish their majority right to reorganize society. At the same time, through its agitational and educational activities, it is the recruiting agency for the Socialist Industrial Union-The \Vorkers' Power.

31 APPENDIX The profits of the capitalist class represent unpaid labor of the working class. The :fleecing of labor implied in the raking in of profits is predicated upon the exis­ tence of a wage-slave class, a working class, in short, a proletariat; and the continuance of the existence of such a class is in turn dependent upon the private ownership of the means of production - of the land on and the machinery, capital, with which to work. Given the pri­ vate ownership of thesel combined elements of production, and the capitalist class will congest ever more into its own hands the wealth of the land, while the working class must sink to ever deeper depths of poverty and de­ pendence, every mechanical improvement only giving fresh impetus to the exaltation of the capitalist and to the degradation of the workingman. The issue between the two classes is one of life and death; there are no two sides to it; there is no compromise possible. Ob­ viously, it is in the interest of the working class that the issue be made and kept clear before the eyes of the rank and file, and that capitalism be held up to their view in all its revolting hideousness. What does the labor leader do? He lends to the monster that preys upon the workers the color of labor by his sanction of its methods. -DANIEL DE LEON Explanatory .Note

Daniel De Leon, author of the three essays that follow, was the foremost Marxist of the twentieth cen­ tury and the father of the Socialist Industrial Union idea. Karl Marx had perceived the revolutionary po­ tentials of trade unions. To the Geneva Congress of the First International he said: "Besides their elemen­ tary problems they [the unions J must learn to act con­ sciously, as the organizing center of the working class in the interest of its complete emancipation." But it \vas Daniel De Leon, living in a country of full-orbed capitalism, who worked out both the tacti.cal role of the unions in the struggle for complete emancipation, and their role after the Socialist revolution as the fra·mework of the Socialist Industrial Republic. De Leon was born Dec. I 4, I 8 52, o~ the island of Curacao, off the coast of Venezuela. He was educated in Europe and settled in America, joining the faculty of Columbia University in I 8 8 3 as a lecturer on inter­ national law. Subsequently he hecame interested in the labor movement. He retired from Columbia in I 889, firmly turned his back on a promising career as a bour­ geois professor, and gave himself wholly to the move­ ment for working-class en1ancipation. He joined the Socialist Labor Party in I 890, and two years later was made Editor of the WEEKLY PEOPLE. In I 900 he also .35 became Editor of the DAILY PEOPLE and held both posts until his death in I 9 I 4· No one worked harder than De Leon, or with greater intelligence, to ;make the unions "the organ­ izing center of the working class in the interest of its. complete emancipation." But he discovered very early in his career as labor champion that unions that were organized on the basis of capitalist principles were utterly corrupt, completely in the hands of labor lieu-­ tenants of the capitalist class, and that any attempt to· "capture" them for Socialism would be futile. Since· the pro-capitalist unions were, in f.a.ct, adjuncts of cap-­ italism, De Leon concluded that the workers' interests. called for a new union movement, one that would move­ with its eyes open and with full consciousness of its. historic mission. Step by step, in speeches and editorials, De Leon· \Vorked out the principles-form, tactics, goal-of So­ cialist Industrial Unionism. His theoretical work was. climaxed with an epochal address delivered in I 90 5, now printed under the title, "Socialist Reconstruction of Society." The first two essays in this appendix are outstand-­ ing examples of De Leon's incisive thoughts on correct working-class union principles. The third, "Strikes and· the 'Public,' " illustrates his perceptiveness in an area heavily clouded by capitalist propaganda and misinfor­ mation. The appendix also includes the Socialist Labor­ Party's "Resolution on Strikes," a Marxist document that rewards close study. ERIC HASS: Daniel De Leon: INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM

In these days, when the term "Industrial Unionism" is being played with fast and loose; when, in some quarters, partly out of conviction, partly for revenue, "''striking at the ballot-box with an ax," theft, even mur. der, "sabotage," in short, is preached in its name; when, at the National Councils of the AFL, lip­ ·service is rendered to it as a cloak under which to jus­ tify its practical denial by the advocacy and justification of scabbery, as was done at Rochester, at the I 9 I 2 con­ vention, by the Socialist party man and International Typographical Union delegate Max Hayes; when no­ toriety-seekers strut in and there1by bedrabble its fair feathers; when the bourgeois press, partly succumbing to the yellow streak that not a member thereof is wholly free from, partly in the interest of that con­ fusion in which capitalist intellectuality sees the ulti­ mate sheet-anchor of Class Rule, promotes, with lurid reports, "essays" and editorials, a popular misconcep­ tion of the term; at this season it is timely that the Socialist Laber Party, the organization which, more than any other, contributed in raising and finally plant­ ing, in I 90 5, the principle and the structure of Indus­ trialism, reassert what Industrial Unionism is, restate the problem and its import. Capitalisrn is the last expression of Class Rule. The economic foundation of Class Rule is the private own­ ership of the necessaries for production. The social .37 structure, or garb, of Class Rule is the political State­ -that social structure in 't.vbich Government is an or-· gan separate .and apart from production, with no vital function other than the maintenance of the supremacy of the ruling class. The overthrow of Class Rule means the overthrow 0f the political State, and its substitution with the In­ dustrial Social Order, under which the necessaries for production are collectively owned and operated by and for the people. Goals determine methods. 1~he goal of social evolu­ tion being the final overthro"v of Class Rule, its meth­ ods must fit the goal. As in nature, where optical illusions abound, and stand in the 'vay of ,progress until cleared, so in society. The fact of economic despotism by the ruling class raises, with some, the illusion that the economic organ­ ization and activity of the despotized working class is all-sufficient to remove the ill complained of. 1'he fact of pulitical despotism by the ruling class raises, with others, the illusion that the political organ­ ization and activity of the despotized working cla.ss is all-sufficient to hring about redress. The one-legged conclusion regarding economic or­ ganization and activity fatedly abuts, in the end, in pure and si ~ mple bombism, as exemplified in the AFL, despite its Civic Federation and Militia of Christ affiliations, as well as by the Anarcho-Syndical­ ist so-called Chicago IWW - the Bakuninism, in short, against which the genius of Marx struggled and warned. The one-legged conclusion regarding political or­ ganization and activity, as fatedly abuts, in the end, in pure and "Simple ballotism, as already numerously and 38 lamentably exemplified in the Socialist party, like­ wise struggled and warned against by Marx as "par­ liamentary idiocy." Industrial lJnionism, free from optical illusions, is ,clear upon the goal -- the substitution of the political State with the Industrial Ciovernment. Clearness of vision renders Industrial Unionism immune both to the Anarchist self-deceit of the "No Government" slogan, together with all the mischief that flows therefrom, and to the politician's "parliamentary idiocy" of looking to legislRtion for the overthrow of Class Rule. The Industrial Union grasps the principle: "No Government, no organization; no organization, no co­ operative labor; no co-operative labor, no abundance for all without arduous toil, hence, no Freedom." Hence, the Industrial Union aims at a democratically centralized Government, accon1panied by the demo­ cratically requisite L'local self-rule." The Industrial LT nion grasps the principle of the political State - central and local authorities dis­ connected from productive activity; and it grasps the requirements of the Government of Freedom - the ~entral and local administrative authorities of the productive capabilities of the people. The Industrial lJnion hearkens to the command of social evolution to cast the nation, and, with the nation, its government, in a mold different from the mold in which Class Rule casts nations and existing govern­ ments. While Class Rule casts the nation, and, with the nation, its governn1enti in the mold of territory, Industrial Unionism casts the nation in the mold of useful occupations, and transforms the nation's govern­ ment into the representations fro·m these. Accordingly, Industrial Unionism organizes the useful occupations of the land into the constituencies of Future Society. 39 In performing this all-embracing function, Indus­ trial Unionism, the legitimate offspring of civilization, comes equipped with all the experience of the Age. Without indulging in the delusion that its progress will be a "dress parade"; and, knowing that its program carries in its folds that acute stage of all evolutionary process known as Revolution, the Industrial Union connects with the achievements of the Revolutionary Fathers of the country, the first to frame a Constitution that denies the perp~tuity of their own social system, and that, by its amendment clause, legalizes Revolution. Connecting with that great achieven1ent of the Ameri­ can Revolution; fully aware that the Revolution which it is big with being one that concerns the masses and that needs the masses for its execution, excludes the bare idea of conspiracy, and imperatively commands an open and above-board agitational, educational, and organizing activity; finally, its path lighted by the bea­ con tenet of Marx that none but the bona fide Union can set on foot the true political party of Labor; Industrial Unionism bends its efforts to unite the work­ ing class upon the political as well as the industrial field, on the industrial field because, without the integrally organized Union of the working class, the revolution­ ary act is impossible; on the political field, because on none other can be proclaimed the revolutionary pur­ pose~ without consciousness of which the Union is a rope of sand. Industrial lJnionism is the Socialist Republic in the making; and, the goal once reached, the Industrial Union is the Socialist Republic in operation. Accordingly, the Industrial Union is, at once, the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress: of capitalisn1, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself. Daniel De Leon: INDUSTRIAL UNION STRUCTURE

Industrialism is a trefoil that constitutes one leaf; it is a term that embraces three domains, closely inter­ dependent, and all three requisite to the whole. The three domains are Form, Tactics and Goal. The Goal is the substitution of the industrial for the political gov­ ernment; another term for the Socialist Republic; the T'actics are the unification of the useful lalbor of the land on the political as \Vell as the economic field; the Form concerns the structure of the organization. Each of the three domains covers an extensive field, being the gathered experience of the Labor or Socialist Movement. It is next to impossible to handle properly any of the three departments without touching the others. Unavnidahly they closely dovetail with one another.

THE MATTER OF FORM In the ·matter of Fonn or Structure, Industrialism is a physical crystallization of the sociologic principle that the proletariat is one. From the fundamental prin­ ciple of the oneness of interests of the proletariat arises the ideal to be obtained - their solidarity; and that shatters all structures reared upon the theory of Craft Sovereignty. It shatters that theory as completely as, upon the political field, State Sovereignty was shattered in the country. It does so for parity of reasoning. Whatever the state lines, the separate states are but 41 fractions of the whole nation. \Vhatever the craft lines, the separate crafts a.re but fractions of the whole Proletariat. Consequently, however different the nature of the occupation, the work done, and the con­ ditions of work, the useful labor of the land is one nation, hence, must be organized as one union. 'The industrialist principle of one union, on the same ground as one nation, excludes, as a matter of course, the jelly-fish conception of oneness. The oneness of the high structure of the human being is a different onenes·s from that of the lower jelly-fish. As the struc­ ture of the human being implies parts and co-ordination of parts, so does the structure of Industrialism, a con­ cept born of the higher development of modern so­ ciety, imply divisions and subdivisions. The field upon which Industrialisrn operates warrants the parallel with a modern army. One though an army is, it has its separate divisions and subdivisions. These a.re also im­ perative to the Industrialist Army. It also has and must have companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, divi­ siOns.

HOW lNDUSTRIALISl\'I ORGANIZES The important question then arises, What fact traces the lines that are to mark these several parts from one another? \Vhat the line of demarcation is among the several parts of the Industrialist Army is determined by the facts in production. The central principles in the determination flow from the facts that dictate the form, or structure, of the corps designated as the "Local Industrial Union," and correctly so designated, seeing that, although the "Local Industrial Union" does not comprise the whole organization, but is only a part thereof, nevertheless its structure typifies Industrialism. Does the same fact, which traces the line between one Local Industrial lJnion and another in one locality, also trace the line between the "Trade and Shop Branches"? It does not. The fact that tra·ces the line between one Local Industrial Union and another in one locality. and the fact that determines the boundaries of the .c.omponent fa.ctors of the Local Industrial Union, are different. 'Vhat facts are these? The answer to this question ans\vers the question, How does Industrialisn1 organize? The fact that traces the external boundary lines of the Local Industrial Union is the output. I-Iere are two illustrations--one, the printing shop, a concern which turns out an actual product, printed matter; the other, the trolley line, a concern which does not turn out any actual product, but fills that necessary and supplementary function in production which con­ sists in transportation. In each instance the output - printed matter in one case, transportation in the other­ draws the boundary lines of the respective Local In­ dustrial Union.

OUTPUT DETERMINES In the instance of the printing shop, the output be­ ing printed matter, all the wage workers, whatever their specialized occupation may be, are in that locality, engaged in the same industry. Being so engaged, they belong in one printers' Local Industrial Union. In the instance of the trolley line, the output being transportation, all the ·wage workers, whatever their specialized occupation may be, are in that locality en­ gaged in the satne industry. Being so eng.aged, they belong in one: in a traction Local Industrial Union. Before proceeding to the internal construction of the Local Industrial Union, an objection that has been 43 raised against the external construction of the Local Industrial Union n1ust be here considered. Compositors, proofreaders, etc., are frequently found employed in other than establishments the output of which is printed matter; they are found employed in some large textile concerns, they are found employed in electrical! in hotel, in railroad, and other establish­ ments. In the traction industry there are electricians, firemen, etc. At the same time, electricians and firemen are found employed in other than establishments the output of which is transportation; they are found at work in hotels, in foundries, in big offi.ce buildings. And so all along the line. There hardly is an establish­ ment, yielding a certain output, which does not employ occupations that contribute to some other output in some other establishment This fact has been seized by AFL craft union­ ism as a proof positive of the ''absurdity" of Industrial­ ism. "Think of it,"' these gentlemen have said and even written, "one time a compositor is a 'printer,' another time he is a 'textile worker,' in another place he is .an 'electrician,' in another place he is a 'restaurant work­ er,' in a fifth place he is a 'railroader'! As to electri­ cians and firemen, in one instance they are 'traction workers,' in another 'hotel and restaurant workers,' in a third they are 'foundrymen,' in a fourth 'elevator and janitor men'! How 1aughable !" And much is the mirth these gentry have indulged in on that score.

CRAFT VANITY HARMFUL For one thing, the foundation for the seeming ab­ surdity is "Craft Vanity," a sentiment, which, traced to its source, is a denial of the oneness of proletarian interests. For another thing, the only alternative to the "absurdity of Industrialism'' is the tragedy of "Craft ' 44 Sovereignty." The first objection superficial thinkers may be disposed to dismiss as "theoretical." Some rea­ soners will be less prone to sneer at a "theory." In this matter, however, the theory can be left aside. Its pra,ctical manifestation is "Craft Sovereignty," and the practical manifestations of that should be shocking enough to shock the laughter out of the most mirthful Craft lJnionist -- provided, of course, he is not a labor lieutenant of the capitalist class. What the practical manifestations of "Craft Sov­ ereignty" are have often enough been on view in AFL [and CIO] strikes, when one craft on strike in an in­ dustry would be left in the lurch :by another craft in the same industry, which makes the AFL [and the CIO] a veritable craft scabbing affair. Such things are only carried further at the AFL conventions, where 'vhole bunches of delegates denounce one an­ other as sc:~bs. Such ~ spectacle places the practical issue, or alternative, squarely, either Industrialisrn, despite its incidental and very limited "laughableness," or Craft lJnionism, despite its permanent and chronic­ ally constitutional scabbery; in other words, either a little and far-fetched amusement, or a mass of actual tragedy. Industrialistn -- that form of economic or­ ganization that capitalist development dictates - dic­ tates the output as the controlling fact which traces the external line of demarcation for the Local Industrial Union.

THE TOOL THE DECIDING FACTOR What, now, determines the internal lines of demar­ cation for the Local Industrial Union? As the fact in production that traces the boundary line of the Local Industrial Union is the output, the correlated fact in production, which traces the boundary lines between 45 the component factors of the Local Industrial Union, that is, the Trade and Shop Branches, is the tool. From all that precedes it follovvs that the Local In­ dustr'ial Union is a unit composed of a variety of occupations. The component parts of the Local Industrial Union are the Trade and Shop Branches. These Branches con­ sist of workers engaged in specific work; within each Branch belong all and only those engaged in ·such spe­ cific work. \Vhat characterizes their work in each in­ stance? The tool used by each. Sticking to the two illustrations - the printing in­ dustry and the traction industry - used before, all the ·workers who in one locality contribute to the output printed matter belong in one Local Industrial Union. The specific occupation of all these workers is, however, not the same. Some are compositors, others stereo­ typers, still others editors, etc. The specific work in each instance is different, requiring specific consideration. Each specific occupation requires its own organization -Branch. The tool used by the individual in his specif­ ic work determines the boundaries of his Branch, and the Branch to which he belongs - the workers whose tool is the type-case or n1achine belong in a ·compositors' Branch; the workers vvhose tool is the stereotyping ap­ paratus, in a stereotypers' Branch; the workers whose tool is the pen belong in a '~:riters' or editorial Branch; and ·so forth. Likewise with the traction industry. Dif­ ferent being the specific occupations of the workers who jointly contribute to the output transportation, each specific occupation has its own specific business, requir­ ing a specific Branch - the workers whose tool is the motor belong in a motormen's Branch; thos'e)whose tool is the machinery in the powerhouse belong in. a· power Branch; and so forth. All the Trade and Shop Branches of each Loc.a.l Industrial Union, being properly con­ nected by respective representative ibodies, constitute the local unit of Industrialism. With the Trade and Shop Branches there is order within the Local Indus­ trial Union; w·ithout them there would be bedlam. For the completion of this sketch in the descending line of organization there remains one organism to con­ 'iider - the "Recruiting" or "Mixed Local." This or­ ganism is purely transitory. Its members are transient. So long as there are not enough workers in any one ~pecific occupation to organize a Trade and Shop Branch the worker is temporarily housed in a Re­ cruiting Looa.l, from ·which he is transferred to a Trade and Shop Branch of his industry, just as soon as there are enough of such workers to constitute such a Branch.

IN A NUTSHELL How does Industrialism organize? From the sketch rapidly traced above the answer is, in the ascending line: rst. By gathering into and keeping in "Recruiting Locals" the individual workers of whose specific oc­ cupation there may not as yet be enough to organize a "Trade and Shop Branch." 2nd. By gathering into "Trade and Shop Branches" all the workers 'vho use the identical tool. 3rd. By gathering into "Local Industrial U n­ ions" a11 the several "Trade and Shop Branches" whose combined work furnishes a given output. There can be no "Local Industrial Union" ,vithout at least two "Trade and Shop Branches." These 'are the first three stages. The further stages 47 in the ascending line - Industrial Councils, National Industrial Unions, and Industrial Departments - are obvious. Their structure, hence the method of their organization, flows from the structure and reason for the structure of the "Local Industrial Union." _Daniel De Leon: .STRIKES AND THE "PUBLIC"

The Yonkers trolley strike-a strike exemplary in its manner of calling, the receiver of the road not hav­ ing been forewarned and thereby invited to stack his .cards to defeat it - is affording the capitalist press, from yellowest up to ~ bluest, opportunity once more to introduce to fame that mythical body always so prom­ inently held to the fore whenever a strike is on-the ~'public." "The ~nconvenience to the traveling public," "the vast neutral public affected,'' "the disinterested but suf­ fering public"-these are some of the choice phrases newspaper colun1ns are just now running over with. 'fhere is no such "public." Such a \'public" could only exist if its members were totallv isolated and devoid of concern in the out­ ·come of th.e conflict. But is there in fact any such iso­ lated fragment of the population? Are the bakers out on strike? Then shoemakers, miners, trolleymen, every­ bod~, who eats bread but is not either a. baker or a bakeshop owner, is called the "public." Are the shoe­ makers trying to raise their wages? Then the miners, trolleymen arid bakers-everyone not a shoemaker or a shoe manufacturer-becomes the "public." Are the miners · seeking a shorter workday? Immediately into 49 the "pu.~--tlic" are n1etamorphosed the shoemakers, trolleymen and bakers; all, that is, except miners and mine operators. Finally, is it the trolleymen, as in this instance, who call a halt on their employer in order to better their conditions? Presto! Into the "public" are marshaled the bakers, miners. and shoemakers­ everybody who by chance is neither ":rolleyman nor ~rolley stockholder. In other words, in each case, the so-called "puhJ.ic" is composed overwhelmingly of workingmen ( ar:d in only slight degree of employers) who are thern~elvcs contingents of the army then en­ gaged in the struggle, and as such have a direct, a burn­ ing interest in the outcome. Specious is the atten1pt to divide society into em­ ployed, emplover~, and a neutral Bpublic" between them. The division is false. There are no such three classes. There a1 e hut hvo, the employed class and the employing, and every individual must be in either one or the other. The "public" is not a body aloof, and foreign to the interests of the struggle. It is a body romposed of rcprt~entatives of both the warring ele­ ments. As to the handful of emrloyers, they know vvhere their class interests lie. ,_fhey are a unit against the strike. They ·will slander it, rant against it, and even, if necessarv, levy contributions upon themselves to defeat it. No aloofness there. Why then should the workers hold aloof? As has ~ten seen, every branch of labor may be­ rome by turn engaged in a struggle to 1better its con­ ditions. To speak of "disinterestedness'' and "aloof- ness " un d er sur. ..I 1 Circumstances. 1s. to spea k o f "d'tsm- . terestedness '' and "aloofness" to one branch of an army while its comrades are under fire. Every battalion of an army is directly concerned in the victory and de­ feat of every other hattalion. The repulse of one is so the repulse of an; the advance of one is an advance for all; the dutv of each is to stand ready to support ·by a11 possi ~b1

~ I Workers strike simply because they must protest against every reduction, even if dictated by necessity; because they feel bound to proclaim that they, as human beings, shall not be made to bow to social circumstances; but social conditions ought to yield to them as human beings; because silence on their part would be a recog­ nition of these social conditions, an admission of the right of the bourgeoisie to exploit the workers in good times and let them starve in bad ones. Against this the workingmen must rebel so long as they have not lost all human feeling.... These strikes, at first skirmishes, sometimes result in weighty struggle; they decide nothing,. it is true, but they are the strongest proof that the de­ cisive battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is approaching. -FREDERICK ENGELS.

The strike against an employer, or even against an employing class, is not a method of revolution; it is a . method of warfare within existing conditions. It is a . tacit recognition of an existing social order. It is more; it is in the nature of a declaration of loyalty to the sys­ tem in force. The workingman who goes out on strike does first of all leave in the hands of the capitalist the plant of production. By that mere fact he admits that: the employer is the rightful owner, at least as much is implied. The revolutionary act of the working clasS-­ should that act become necessary by the attempt of the capitalist class of America to thwart the fiat of the · ballot--will not be a strike. It will be the proclamation -issued by the central authority of the integrally or· ganized industrial proletariat--locking out the capitalist class from the nation's industries, pronouncing itself the· government.... Nevertheless, though a strike is not a . revolution, it may lead directly thereto. -DANIEL DE LEON. SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY Resolution on Strikes

(Adopted by the National Executive Committee, Socialist Lalbor Party, May Session 1940.)

I. The Socialist Labor Party declares that strikes by workers under capitalism constitute the logical and unavoidable reactions on the part of the workers. to the inhuman and unbearable conditions irnposed upon them by a social system (capitalism) which places the work­ ·trs in the category of commodities, and which accords them as wage slaves a treatment economically not es­ -sentially different from that accorded the chattel slave ·or serf. Driven by the lash of hunger, subdued largely by the thought of the-privations visited upon their loved ·ones if they refuse to submit to being exploited, but goaded finally to rebellion by the utter misery and degradation to which they and their families are even­ tually reduced, it is inevitable that they should strike back at their exploiters, how·ever blindly, and however 1nistaken they may be in their manner of striking back. While reserving the right to criticize the inadequacy of the methods employed by the workers in seeking redress on the econornic field, the Socialist Larbor Party applauds the spirit 'vhich prompts the workers to strike against the inhuman wage slavery under ,vhich they suffer, and, reaffirming its previous resolutions and dec­ larations on this head, pledges itself to the support of striking workers in any manner consistent with the 53 principles and ulti1nate ain1 of the Party. In so doing­ we also reaffirm our acceptance of the statement by­ Daniel De Leon in his immortal address, "What Me::tns This Strike'?" to wit: "The attitude of workingmen eng,a.ged in a bona fide strike is an inspiring one. It is "· an earnest that slavery will not prevail. The slave alone who will not rise against his master, ,--vho will meekly bend his back to the lash and turn his cheek to him who plucks his. beard- that slave alone is hopeless. But the slave who ... persists, despite failures ~ and poverty, in re!helling, there is always hope for." 2. The Socialist Labor Party, however, warns the workers of America that strikes in and by themselves ·cannot solve their problems, let alone abolish the cause which creates these problerns, namely, the capitalist sys­ tem. We . etnphasize that however understandable is their resort to 'strikes and related aCtivities, such efforts ·and attempts at an1cliorating their lot must prove futile while the capitali'st s)rstem of private ownership in the land and the means of production prevails. As the great champion of the working class, Karl Marx, once said: . . ''. ·. . the general tendency of capitalist production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages or to push the value of labor more .or les·s to its ntinimz.!m l~mit. Such :being the tendency of things in this system: is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachm·ents of capital~·. and abandon their attempts at making the best of the· occasional chances for their temporary im­ provenient? If they did, they would be degraded to one leveLmass of b1~oken wretches past salvation... .. The necessity of debating their price with the capitalist

54 is inherent to their [the workers'] condition of having to sell themselves as cornmodities. By cowardly giving way in their evervJay contlict with capital, they would certainlv disqualify thetnselves for the initioating of any !arger movement." While tnc workers are wage slaves under capital­ isin, their Ct)nditi()n. is bound to grow worse and worse, and, whatever incidental in1provements or increases in ~vages groups of vvorkers n1ay achieve, they are secured either at the t.xpcnse of the working clas·s as a vvhole, or becau~e of a temporary condition which happens to favor such groups o-f w~ orkers economically. N everthe­ !ess, and notwithstanding the -facts referred to, the workers must resist the e~croachments of their capital­ ist exploiters and through their day-by-day struggles seek at least to marntain the prevailing working condi­ tions where these cannot be improved. 3· The Socialist Labor Party points to the fa.ct that capital1sm fatedly creates conditions which render the lot of the workers ever ·more precarious and inse­ cure. The P~ arty also points to the fact that attempts at this stage at bettering their lot through legislative enactments can result in nothing tbut the fastening of the chains of wage slavery upon then1 ever more firmly and securely, ·while at the same time such legislative enactments in effect constitute certification of their slaverv. and amount, in fact, to a codification of the terms of this slavery, besides accelerating the tenden­ cies, and consolidating the social and economic forces which, barring Socialism, must inevitably lead to abso­ lute economic serfdom. T'he Socialist Labor Party, accordingly, heeding the words, and acting in the spirit of labor's great champions, Karl lVfarx and Daniel De Leon, urges the working class of America to organize into class unions to the end of doing away with the 55 causes which now reduce them to the status of wage­ slaves, and which inescapably block their every attempt­ ~o throw off the yoke of this degrading and intolerable· slavery. The primary cause is capitalism, but among· the subsidiary causes stand out prominently the out-­ worn craft unions anci the reactionary, so-called ma·ss-· organizations known as the CIO, and kindred bodies .. ~"-nd last, but not least, there stand as enemies of la-· hor's emancipation from virtual economic serfdom the· corrupt labor leaders. Whether these are of the AFL. or ClO variety matters not at all. While on the political field there stand prominently as lalbor's. enemie·s the political reformers and visionaries who· fraudulently claim to be able to effect improvement of the lot of the working class under capitalism through the mere enactment of lav\'S, even as the so-called labor leaders false]y claim to be able to do so on the eco-­ nomic field. To develop the requisite power with which to resist the encroachments of their capitalist exploiters, and eventually to effect their emancipation, the workers: must organize into Socialist Industrial Unions, thor­ oughly integrated, prepared to take, hold and operate the industries when through the hallot a majority shall have decreed the abolition of capitalism, and the inau­ guration of the Socialist Republic of Labor. 4· Being nnab1e to furnish employment to millions of workers [that is, in peacetime, or between wars],. and fearing the consequences of these millions get­ ting out of control and taking matters into their own hands, the capitalist class, through their political pup­ pets in national anci state governments, has been com­ pelled to dole out relief, so-called, to the starving j()lb­ Jess workers, though constantly seeking to keep down s6 ro its lowest level, or to reduce to such level, the pit­ tance which thev otherwise find themselves compelled to hand out. The Socialist Labor Party warns the workers not to barter their manhood, or their politie:al rights, privileges and prerogatives as citizens, for such miserable doles. vVhile under the circumstances the workers are compelled to, and naturally ought to, ac­ cept such so-called "relief," we warn them not to re­ gard such "relief" as either gifts or as measures leading to permanent improvement of their condition. Where such "relief" is not absolutely prompted by their capi­ talist masters' mortal fear of working-class rebellion, it is intended as bribes by scheming and corrupt or re­ actionary politicians. "Relief," then, should obviously be accepted by the workers as the very least they are entitled to as victims of a social system whose beneficia­ ries live on the wealth produced solely by the working class. 5. To sum up. vVhile, therefore, the members of the Socialist Labor Party must never £ail to explain to the workers the ultimate futility of all attempts made by them to better their conditions under capitalism, and "vhile Socialist Labor Party members must constantly point out to the ·workers that there is no hope for them except through a speedy overthrow of capitalism and all ;ts works, on the basis of the program and prin­ ciples of the Socialist Labor Party, no member of the Party should belittle or underestimate the social sig­ nificance of ~trikes and similar manifestations of work­ ing-dass rebellion, for the reasons stated before, and on the principle, moreover, that a contented or submis­ sive slave is a degr,aded and all but hopeless creature. While it is not the function of SLP members to en­ courage workers to strike under the prevailing ci rcurn­ stances, it is their duty to encourage and stimulate the 57 spirit and the sentiment which prompt the workers to strike, and they should also at the same time attempt to direct that c;entiment into revolutionary channels via Socialist political and economic organizations, on the lines laid down by the Socialist Labor Party. AUTOMATION, by Eric Hass and Stephen Emery. (64 pp. -Price 25 cents postpaid.) This pamphlet tells "what workers should know about automation-and what em­ ployers don't tell them.'' It is a non-technical, soundly reasoned, fact-suppprted explanation of. the social and economic implications for the workers of automation. It not only answers the glib lies employers tell their workers (that, for example, automation will create more jdbs), but it also shows why the capitalists lie. The pamphlet shows, too, how automation cl'l.n ·be turned into a blessing under Socialis·m.

SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM, The Workers' Power, by Eric HasB. (64 pp.-Price 1.0 cents post­ paid.) The goal of Socialism can be achieved only .by obeying the logic of the ciass struggle, and in So­ cialist Industrial Unionism the working class has available the one logical method of obtaining its eman­ cipation from the wage slavery of capitalism. This pamphlet outlines the program of Socialist Industrial Unionism. Applications are taken from industries with wruch all workers are familiar.

TWO PAGES FROM ROMAN HISTORYY by Daniel De Leon. ( 112 pp.-Price 35 cents postpaid.) A unique contribution to history and social analysis. Proof is offered that the labor leaders of the AFL-CIO, etc., are indeed labor lieutenants of the capitalist class. The pamphlet contains De Leon's famous "Ten Canons of the Proletarian Revolution," a code that must be adopted by the workers if a sane and decent society is to be built. (Clothbound edition, $1.50.)

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS OOMPANY, 61 Cli1f St., New York 38, N.Y. ATTENTION UNION LOCALS!

For speakers to address union locals and other groU;ps on the program and principles of Social­ ist Industrial Unionism, write to----

Arnold Petersen)

National SecretaryJ Socialist Labor Party, 61 Cliff St.) New York 38J N.Y. SOCIALIST LANDMARKS By Dani@l De Leon This work is a systematic analysis of capitalism and of So­ cialism. It contains De Leon's famous addresses: "Reform or Revolution," "What Means This Strike?" "The Burning Question of Trades Unionism," and "The Socialist Recon­ struction of Society." Introduction by Eric Bass. Complete­ ly indexed. ( 240 pages) Price: $2.25 clothbound; 75 cents paper covers; postpaid

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS COMPANY 61 Cliff St., New York 38, N.Y.

OJ'i'ICIAL ORGAN 02' THE SOCIALI$T LABOR PARTY Read the WEEKLY PEOPLE, official organ of the Socialist Labor Party, a paper of revolutionary Socialism and In­ dustrial Unionism. Rates: $2 a year; $1 for six months. WEEKLY PEOPLE 61 Cliff St., New York 38, N.Y.

SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY, 61 CLIFF ST., NEW YORK 38, N.Y. I am interested in Socialism. Please send me information and free literature published by the Socialist Labor Party, including sample copy of the WEEKLY PEOPLE, official organ of the Socialist Labor Party.

Name

Address (U: FG-58)