Published on The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb)
Myth of Industrial Unionism
The Socialist Party attitude towards any specific political or economic organisation is determined by
its basic position that there can be no social change as great, as far reaching and as demanding as
the creation of Socialist society, without the conscious co-operation of the majority of the workingclass. Until we reach that stage, until the wage-labour and capital relationships are abolished, there
remains the vital need to safeguard working class living standards and conditions of work, and this
safeguarding is rightly the task of Trade Unions. As long as a union remains a defence organisation
the Socialists supports its sound actions and hits out at actions which conflict with the general
interests of the workers, and as long as Socialists are few in number this is the only sound action
possible. But the moment that any union claims that it is a revolutionary organisation then it must be
judged from a revolutionary standpoint and the allowance made for the actions taken by nonSocialist unions are clearly out of the question.
Holding to this logical approach to the problem the Socialist Party very carefully examined the claims
made for Industrial Unionism when American workers set on foot the Industrial Workers of the World
in 1905. The claims were that here was an organisation placed upon a class basis, free from conflict
between skilled and unskilled workers, free from craft divisions, with such a resultant unity that the
antagonism between boss and wage-slave could be seen clearly and met in the most effective
manner. These “new style’’ unions, it was said, organised the workers “economic power" in such a
way that it fitted them to take and hold the means of living when the time arose. These unions would
then form the framework of socialist society and become its permanent administration. The Socialist
Party was able to counter these claims by showing that no structural changes in union organisation
could turn non-socialists into their opposites.
The Industrial Unions were open to all who took out membership cards; as a result their
organisations housed Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, etc., men of every brand of political
persuasion. “It is useless for us here to attempt to disguise the fact that we have every shade of
political opinion”, declared Delegate Murtaugh at the I.W.W. first Annual Conference. Yet the
advocates of Industrial Unionism insisted that the I.W.W. was a "Socialist" organisation, one
composed of "38,000 class-conscious workers" (Socialist Jan. 1908).
The I.W.W. was presented as an uncompromising force for unity, but in truth it was held together by
shabby compromises and as a result it split, split and split again into warring factions. The split
between the De Leonist elements and the “Bummery" section led to the existence of two rival
I.W.W.’s (Detroit and Chicago) and during the active life of these rivals each side claimed that the
other had blacklegged in industrial disputes. The De Leonist I.W.W. (later W.I.I.U.), though backed by
the Socialist Labor Party of America, was organised on the same lines as the original I.W.W. and was
thus open to all; as S.L.P. speaker, W. W. Cox confessed in the Weekly People (30 Dec. 1916) “The
Workers International Industrial Union recognises no political party and it has a Republican,
Democratic, Progressive Prohibitionist and Socialist Party as well as S.L.P. membership”.
The S.L.P. of A. while continually calling for clarity in political thinking at the same time approved and
organised political confusion on the industrial field. As long as the politically confused were
organised into the W.I.I.U. the S.L.P. was happy. In some magical way it was imagined that when the
industrial unions grew strong enough they would themselves generate political clarity. The S.L.P.
continued to urge the workers to “Organise industrially on the principles of the W.I.I.U.” until 1924
when, since the so-called “Socialist W.I.l.U.” had become an embarrassment, it was allowed to die.
In rejecting the fallacies of the Industrial Unionists the Socialist Party never asserted that Socialist
Society would result from the actions of parliamentary delegates alone. It is completely illogical to
imagine that Socialist understanding could grow to the point of political victory without
simultaneously resulting in a growth of understanding and hence organisation to prepare for the
Page 1 of 2
Published on The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb)
taking over of industry. The Socialist Party in fact knows well that organisation is necessary for the
running of industry in the new-born Socialist society. It holds also that a sizeable spread of political
clear-sightedness will lead to the growth of such organisations, for when many workers want
Socialism they will begin to organise and plan for the rebuilding of society prior to the capture of
political power. We in fact stand for the principled, democratic organisation of class-conscious
workers in contrast to the Industrial Unionist concept of industrial bodies built up upon the “openhouse” principle.
For the present, however, Socialists have to act and co-operate with a majority of non-socialist fellow
unionists. Socialist unionists will certainly oppose unsound actions and theories wherever these are
found in the unions but we do not support the view that if the present unions were smashed then
“genuine working class unions would arise in their place”—yet another industrial myth. The faults of
the present-day unions result from the lack of understanding of their members and until their
experiences lead them to realise the limitations of the day-to-day struggle, until they realise that
within the framework of capitalism they cannot rise above their basic status as victims of the
caprices of the world market these faults remain.
Melvin Harris
Sunday, 1 May 1966
Source URL: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialiststandard/1960s/1966/no-741-may-1966/myth-industrial-unionism
Page 2 of 2