[Anarcho-Syndicalism and the IWW](https://syndicalism.org/texts/491/anarcho-syndicalism-and-the-iww)
====================================================================================================

By [Maxim Raevsky](https://syndicalism.org/authors/251/maxim-raevsky)

Serialized in Golos Truda, Nos. 119 - 124 (January 5, 1917 - February 9,
1917)

Topics: [France](https://syndicalism.org/topics/France), [craft and
industrial
unionism](https://syndicalism.org/topics/craft%20and%20industrial%20unionism),
[USA](https://syndicalism.org/topics/USA),
[IWW](https://syndicalism.org/topics/IWW),
[AFL](https://syndicalism.org/topics/AFL), [boring from within and dual
unionism](https://syndicalism.org/topics/boring%20from%20within%20and%20dual%20unionism)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

### I.

Revolutionary syndicalism, as a socio-economic system, provides a
theoretical basis for the direct action of the organized mass movement
of the working class. At the present time revolutionary syndicalism has
been embraced by the proletariat only in some of the Romance countries.
A similar situation obtained when this system had its origins during the
epoch of [the First
International](https://syndicalism.org/topics/The%20First%20International),
and partly also in the period of regeneration of the revolutionary
labour movement at the beginning of the 20^th^ century. In the form of
"industrialism,"^[1](#1)^ this tendency has also become a significant
factor in recent years for the labour movements of the United States,
England, and Australia.

But the "industrial" movement in the Anglo-Saxon countries (the IWW) is
essentially different from the revolutionary syndicalism of the Romance
countries. This difference is explained by the significantly higher
stage of development of capitalism in the Anglo-Saxon countries, as well
as the influence of a completely different ideological environment.

In France and the other Romance countries of Europe, revolutionary
syndicalism was, as is well known, a legacy of the ideas of the left,
Bakuninist wing of the International Workingmen\'s Association,
advocating direct, revolutionary action by the working class organized
in trade unions; the annihilation of the state; and the replacement of
the contemporary economic system by federations of unions of producers
organized from below. Contemporary revolutionary syndicalism represents
the practical application of the tactical and organizational goals of
the left wing of the International and their subsequent development
based on the experience accumulated by the proletariat during the
half-century since the time of the collapse of the International.

In France, as in other countries, the bearers of the ideas of the left
wing of the International were anarchists, some of whom, however, during
the epoch of long-lasting reaction, deviated from the broad path of the
organized class movement and locked themselves up in their own circles
and groups. But a significant number of the anarchists remained true to
the precepts of the Bakuninist current, and it is they who were the
organized ideological element that laid the foundations of contemporary
revolutionary syndicalism in the 1890s. And just as the trade union in
France was getting back on its feet after a long period of reaction,
resulting from the destruction of the Paris Commune, these anarchists,
advocates of organized mass action, took a vigorous part in it. They
were not put off by the peace-loving, reformist, petty character of the
French trade union movement of the day. They joined these reformist
unions, and, acting on the inside, they gradually transformed the whole
character of the movement. Their achievement was that for a
comparatively brief period of time, revolutionary syndicalism became the
dominant tendency in the labour movement of France.

In that struggle waged by the pioneers of the French
revolutionary-syndicalist movement who joined the trade unions, of
foremost importance was defining the **final goal** for the proletariat,
organized on an economic basis, and, in connection with this, the
inculcation of the method of direct action as the fundamental principle
of class struggle. The [general
strike](https://syndicalism.org/topics/general%20strike), transitioning
to [an armed
revolt](https://syndicalism.org/topics/armed%20insurrection) --- this is
the maximum manifestation of mass direct action, by means of which the
proletariat should carry out a social revolution. The general strike
became the leading tactic of revolutionary syndicalism. The social
revolution was envisaged by revolutionary syndicalism as the result of
the seizure --- following a successful general strike that transitions
to an uprising --- of plants, factories, mines, etc., by unionized
workers who would then organize production and consumption on new
foundations. This is the origin of the view of union locals as the
"cells of the future society."

Proceeding in this manner, revolutionary syndicalists from the very
beginning were inevitably opponents of parliamentary socialists, who
proselytized the seizure of power by means of political organizations
supported by the working class. Thus revolutionary syndicalism adopted
more or less the same position in relation to parliamentary socialism as
the position taken by the Bakuninist wing of the International with
respect to the Marxist wing.

The socio-economic and ideological context in which American "industrial
unionism" arose was completely different.

### II.

Revolutionary syndicalism was created in France, as we have seen, owing
to the revolutionizing of conciliatory, reformist **trade** unions.
During the epoch of the birth of French revolutionary syndicalism, trade
unions were the best form of labour organization, completely compatible
with that stage of development in which French capitalism found itself.
When the industry of a country is based on skilled labour, the natural
form of labour organization is the trade union, composed of trained
workers of a single trade.

It's not surprising, then, that the pioneers of revolutionary
syndicalism recognized as natural the craft-based type of labour union
already existing at that time. But in due course, in connection with the
significant growth of French capitalism, a section of the revolutionary
syndicalists began to advocate for the industrial principle of
organization. The rise of "machinism" in industry severely curtailed the
role of skilled labour: workers trained in a specialized trade more and
more began to give way to "industrial workers." All this indicated the
need for a gradual transition to an industrial form of organization. For
various reasons, some of the activists of the syndicalist movement
continued to defend the former organizational principles. But this
question, which in the future will undoubtedly become one of the most
important questions of the **French** labour movement, played no role at
all in the period when revolutionary syndicalism was first born in
France.

Meanwhile, in the United States, this same question --- about the
necessity of replacing the trade principle of organizing with the
industrial principle --- gave an initial impetus to the creation of an
organized revolutionary-economic movement.

In the second half of the 19th century, American capitalism was still
based mainly on the labour of skilled workers. The interests of the
everyday economic struggles of individual workplaces at that time
demanded the organization of labour unions according to craft.  Only
then did there begin to emerge the contemporary form of industrial
enterprise that embraces a whole variety of branches of labour. For that
time the natural form of labour organization, having as its goal the
improvement of the situation of its own members, was the trade union.
Lacking any broad, class-based goals and concerned only with the defense
of its own narrow, shop-based interests, the trade unions, united mainly
in the American Federation of Labour (AFL), developed the principles of
its moderate tactics, which in essence it still preserves to this day.

But already in the 1880s it was clear that in some branches of industry,
the principle of craft-based, trade union organizations was virtually
inapplicable. This was especially obvious in the mining and brewing
industries, where the artificial division of workers into unions
according to craft was already completely irrational due to practical
considerations.

For the mass of workers of these branches of industry, the new
industrial form of organization was a logical result of the demands of
the practical struggle. The bosses were united in a single association,
so therefore the workers had to do the same. But among the
class-conscious activists of the labour movement there were those who
understood the enormous significance of this new form of labour
organization for the subsequent fate of the American proletarian
movement. The organized part of the labour movement of the United States
was bogged down in the slime of petty, shop-based squabbles, without any
evident way of emerging into the broad arena of the proletarian class
movement. And those activists of the labour movement who were trying to
encourage the American proletariat to engage in conscious class
struggle, saw in the industrial form of organization a more powerful
means for breaching the barriers between crafts and bringing about a
more cohesive unification of the proletariat. The industrial form of
organization became the goal of the more revolutionary elements of the
proletariat. In the United States "industrialism" soon became a synonym
for class unity and action.

### III.

The new, industrial type of labour organization initially emerged in a
more or less large-scale form in the 1890s, mainly in the West. During
this period in the Western states a whole series of industrial labour
organizations were formed; the most significant of them was the Western
Federation of Miners. Towards the end of the 19th century, this
federation included miners in Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, and
other Western states with mining industries.

The industrial type of labour organization was favoured by a significant
number of the workers of the West, mainly because, as already mentioned,
the industrial enterprises in which they worked had already outgrown the
framework of specialized branches of industry and had adopted the
character of industrial enterprises, embracing a variety of branches of
production. A change in the principle of organization was the inevitable
result of the demands of the daily struggle for the improvement of the
conditions of labour.

But with these new forms of production, it became much clearer than
previously that there was a close connection between economic
exploitation and political power. The frequently repeated bitter
conflicts with state and municipal authorities, invariably openly
supporting the powerful capitalist corporations in all labour disputes,
gradually opened the eyes of the workers. These episodes of bitter
socio-economic struggle not only strengthened the desire for the
industrial form of organization among the Western workers, but was also
strongly conducive to deepening their class consciousness, by
graphically showing them how superficial and short-sighted were the
tactics of the AFL and other, similar, labour organizations, that were
trying to improve the situation of workers exclusively within the
framework of the existing system. Advanced elements of the Western
proletariat recognized, finally, the necessity of class struggle for the
complete liberation of the proletariat.

It would seem that the revolutionary-economic movement of the Western
proletariat should have already at this stage of its development raised
the question about the forms of class struggle from the point of view of
revolutionary syndicalism. This, however, happened only a few years
later. At that time, the ideas of French syndicalism were not yet well
known outside France; in North America, they were completely unknown.
It's not surprising, therefore, that the aspirations of the emerging
organized working class movement of that time were initially made use of
by parliamentary socialists. The latter succeeded to the extent that the
"American Labour Union," formed in the West in 1902, adopted a socialist
platform at its first congress. This revolutionary labour organization
believed that socialism would come about as the result of the activity
of socialist parties; in the process of social upheaval, labour unions
would play a secondary role.

This deviation of the organized revolutionary-economic movement towards
parliamentary socialism --- towards acknowledging Marxist formulas
according to which "class struggle is political struggle" --- could be
only temporary. Naturally inclined to **direct** economic struggle
against capitalism and political power, as soon as the advanced elements
of this movement became acquainted with the ideas of revolutionary
syndicalism, they inevitably adopted its basic features.  

The fundamental idea of revolutionary syndicalism is, as is well known,
the doctrine that labour unions, constructed on an economic basis, in
the event of a social upheaval should be not only destructive but
creative factors. This doctrine, according to which labour unions,
whether industrial or craft, are cells of the future society, is in
fundamental contradiction with the teaching of the social-democrats
about the **political** dictatorship of the proletariat, which seizes
control of the apparatus of the state by means of "its own" political
party.

The assimilation of this doctrine about "cells" by the advance elements
of the revolutionary-economic movement in the United States started the
conscious evolution of this movement from the acceptance of
parliamentary socialism to embracing the ideas of revolutionary
syndicalism.

### IV.

The view of labour unions as cells of the future society --- the basic
idea of French revolutionary syndicalism --- was first formulated in the
American revolutionary-economic movement in 1903 by one of its most
prominent activists --- [William
Trautmann](https://syndicalism.org/authors/248/william-trautmann),
editor of the organ of the brewery workers' union. In his own
theoretical opinions, Trautmann was generally inclined to Marxism, but
he was also well acquainted with French syndicalism, which had a strong
influence on him. The doctrine about "cells" he borrowed directly from
the French syndicalists and transferred it completely to American soil,
changing only some of the syndicalist formulas to correspond with the
specific conditions of the American revolutionary-economic movement,
and, in particular, assigning enormous significance to the
**industrial** principle of labour organization. According to
Trautmann's formulation: "Industrial organizations are the precursors of
a society based on socialist foundations: within these organizations are
found elements being prepared for a more scientific management of
production and distribution."

This syndicalist idea arose in a natural way as a result of the everyday
economic struggles of labour organizations in France, arriving in the
course of time at the point of view of direct class struggle ---
struggle for the all-sided liberation of the proletariat. It's
completely natural, therefore, that in being transferred to American
revolutionary labour organizations, this idea should encounter a very
favourable reception. The huge role of this doctrine about "cells,"
rapidly absorbed by industrial organizations in America, was made clear
in 1905 in Chicago, at the convention of industrial unionists at which
was founded the Industrial Workers of the World.

Before absorbing the doctrine about cells, according to which the labour
union is an all-round instrument for the economic and political
liberation of the proletariat, the industrial organizations of America
inevitably experienced a temporary predilection for parliamentary
socialism, heralded as necessary for the annihilation of the capitalist
system, rather than trade unionism. But the influence of the
parliamentary socialists quickly waned once the industrial organizations
adopted the view of the labour union as an instrument that was quite
sufficient in itself for the liberation of the proletariat.

Relying on this doctrine, the opponents of the parliamentary method were
able to conduct a successful struggle against the attempts of both
socialist parties of the country^[2](#2)^ to dominate the new
revolutionary labour movement. When the members of the industrial
organizations became more familiar with the views of the leaders of both
socialist parties, they were convinced that these people were
essentially trying to use the industrial unions only to advance the
interests of their own parties. The parliamentary socialists, upon
entering the new movement, as usual promoted the view that their parties
must play the main role in bringing about the socialist revolution; the
industrial unions were destined to play a secondary role in preparing
and carrying out the social revolution. Meanwhile, the workers, joining
industrial organizations, were becoming more and more convinced that the
revolutionary industrial union is an incomparably more powerful weapon
of social struggle than socialist organizations that are in practice
completely impotent and suitable only for the requirements of election
campaigns. The continual strife between members of the SLP and the SP,
fighting between themselves for influence inside the industrial
organizations, was even more conducive to strengthening the influence of
the anarcho-syndicalist elements.

Deliverance from the influence of both socialist parties and a more
decisive turn towards revolutionary syndicalism became increasingly
inevitable. And, finally, this step took place in 1908 at a congress of
the IWW in Chicago.

### V.

The ideological influence of French revolutionary syndicalism on the
most class-conscious elements of the IWW became even stronger after
1908, when this organization completely divested itself from the
**direct** influence of parliamentary socialists. The convergence of
ideologies between French syndicalism and the IWW was hastened by the
circumstance that some of the activists of the American revolutionary
labour movement spent time in France and formed close relations with the
leaders of the [Confederation of
Labour](https://syndicalism.org/topics/CGT).

With the course of time, however, among the official leaders of the IWW
there emerged a desire, which became increasingly acute, to
differentiate themselves more distinctly from anarcho-syndicalism.  In
the journal *Solidarity*, an official organ of the IWW, there regularly
appeared articles in which it was strongly emphasized that the IWW
movement was developing completely independently, without any influence
on the part of any other movement or ideology.

The authors of these articles tried to play down the significance of
anarcho-syndicalist elements that have long been a part of the program
of the IWW. They always characterized communist anarchism as a
philosophical doctrine having nothing in common with the labour
movement; by doing so, they consciously closed their eyes to the fact
that the theoreticians of communist anarchism (Bakunin,
[Kropotkin](https://syndicalism.org/authors/234/peter-kropotkin), etc.)
based their theories on the experience of the labour movement and
believed that their theories had value only to the extent that the
masses, organizing themselves in the process of class struggle,
recognized in these theories the systematization of their own hopes and
dreams.

As regards revolutionary syndicalism as a social-revolutionary system
combining the practical needs of the organized labour movement with the
basic positions of the anarcho-communist worldview --- well, many of the
leaders of the IWW have dissociated themselves from any ideological
dependence on this system, trying to convince everyone in the total
"independence" of their revolutionary views.

It's necessary, of course, to acknowledge --- seeing as many of the
socialist writers have identified the IWW with anarchists or
anarcho-syndicalists "pure and simple" --- that these protests on the
part of the leaders of the IWW have a serious basis. We have already
pointed out above that the original, ideologically still not completely
formed, "industrial" movement in America arose independently out of the
special conditions of economic and social struggle prevailing in several
of the Western states. This "industrial" movement was not a conscious
anarcho-syndicalist movement, and, to a significant degree, is not so
now, **since it is still at the stage of being formed**. (The
ideological immaturity of the IWW is acknowledged by the most
"anti-anarchist" leaders of the movement. See, for example, the article
by Carroll: "The Tactics of the IWW and the Political Question" in
*Solidarity* of November 25, 1916.)

But while the practical revolutionary-economic movement, which
subsequently provided the foundation of the IWW, emerged completely
independently, it's nevertheless absurd to deny the well known fact that
the current program of the IWW and the social views of that organization
regarding the tasks of the revolutionary proletarian movement have taken
shape to a very significant degree under the influence of the
anarcho-syndicalist elements which, over the course of time, have joined
the "industrial" movement in increasing numbers. It's absurd to deny
that it's only thanks to its assimilation of some of the basic positions
of anarcho-syndicalist ideology (theory of "cells," general strike,
method of direct action, opposition to parliamentarism) that the IWW has
been able to liberate itself --- so far, not entirely, however --- from
an obsession with the theories of state socialism.

It stands to reason that the terrain for embracing these ideas existed
beforehand. The proletarian organizations were imbued with revolutionary
spirit, owing to the special conditions of those industries in which
their members were employed. The members of these organizations put into
practice, without outside influence,
[sabotage](https://syndicalism.org/topics/sabotage); and these
organizations often experienced serious clashes with local political
authorities. So they were psychologically prepared by objective
conditions to be receptive to anarcho-syndicalist ideas. But there's no
doubt that while anarcho-syndicalist ideas had emerged by that time in
Europe, the American "industrial" organizations wandered for a long time
in the dark, falling under the spell of one or other of the
"revolutionary" political parties, until they finally, independently,
developed that ideology which they are following at the present time.

### VI.

We shall now dwell on the points of difference between the IWW and
French revolutionary syndicalism. Above, we indicated which basic
principles of revolutionary syndicalism have been **assimilated** by the
IWW. These principles are the following: the doctrine about the social
role of labour unions (cells of the future society); the general strike,
as the main weapon of social revolution; the method of direct action, in
contradistinction to parliamentarism; and, finally, the nurturing in the
proletariat of a rebellious spirit and a yearning for an
all-encompassing liberation as the main goal of everyday economic and
social struggle. The assimilation by the IWW of these principles
provides the justification for calling the "industrial" movement the
American, or, more correctly, the Anglo-Saxon, form of revolutionary
syndicalism.

But, nevertheless, there exist a whole series of points of difference
between French revolutionary syndicalism and the IWW, that compels us to
draw a sharp, although, in our view, by no means insurmountable,
boundary between these two tendencies.

From our point of view, the most essential point of difference is the
following: French revolutionary syndicalism, emerging and growing up
under the direct influence of communist anarchism, is well aware of the
final goal of its efforts. This movement is committed to realizing a
completely well-defined social ideal, and its tactics constitute a
clearly and thoroughly developed system, in correspondence with the
requirements of its defined tasks. While being avowedly
anti-parliamentary, revolutionary syndicalism (anarcho-syndicalism) at
the same time does not limit itself to revolutionary-economic struggle,
but in its everyday battles never forgets its **social**-revolutionary
tasks. Anarcho-syndicalists categorically deny the usefulness of the
parliamentary method of struggle, but at the same time they believe that
direct action against the state is just as important a part of
social-revolutionary struggle as the struggle with capitalism.

For the Wobblies, whose movement has up to now lacked a solid
theoretical foundation and a clearly defined final goal, the question of
political participation is extremely unclear. On the one hand, they
haven't adopted a position of clear-cut rejection of parliamentarism
(approaching in this regard the more moderate, "pure" current in French
revolutionary syndicalism); on the other hand, they have a tendency to
sink into narrow revolutionary economism, like our Makhaevists.^[3](#3)^
They are interested almost exclusively in the struggle with capitalism;
they struggle with political power only to the extent that they are
exposed to its repressive measures in the course of economic strife.

Only by this narrow understanding of the liberatory tactics of the
proletarian movement is it possible, for example, to explain the
"neutral" position occupied by the IWW up until recently regarding
anti-militarism. As is well known, the Wobblies at their last convention
in Chicago adopted a resolution about the necessity of anti-militarist
propaganda in peacetime and a general strike in case of war. One must
note that from the anarcho-syndicalist point of view, there wasn't a
word in this resolution about anti-patriotic propaganda, which was
insisted upon by the congress of the French Confederation of Labour and
which was actually put into practice quite energetically before the war
by the French revolutionary syndicalists.

There is, however, a sufficiently serious basis for hoping that the
"industrial" movement, in its subsequent development, will differentiate
itself sooner or later from narrow economism. In spite of its
incompleteness, the anti-militarist resolution of the Chicago convention
of the IWW provides evidence for the advance of this organization beyond
the narrowly economic point of view. Even more significant in this
respect is the anti-militarist and antipatriotic position taken by the
Australian IWW since the very beginning of the War.

\* \* \*

Of the other points of divergence between French revolutionary
syndicalism and the IWW, the most important is the different
relationship to the question of the "split" in the organized labour
movement of the country.

As is well known, the French syndicalists emphatically pronounced
themselves against revolutionary syndicates withdrawing from the regular
labour organizations of the country. They recognize as appropriate only
revolutionary work within the regular labour organizations. By pursuing
this tactic, the achievement of the French syndicalists was that the
Confederation of Labour, composed of a variety of components, adopted a
revolutionary program.

Some individual American syndicalists take the point of view that this
tactic, i.e. revolutionary activity inside regular labour organizations,
if applied to the AFL, will sooner or later lead to the same results in
America as in France.

The Wobblies believe that such a plan is utopian, and one must recognize
that the conditions of work in the depths of the AFL are really not
conducive to successful syndicalist activity. Anarcho-syndicalists must
willy-nilly come to the conclusion that there remains little hope for
the reorganization of the AFL from within by way of a gradual and
relentless struggle in the unions against the conservative predilections
of their leaders. But this still doesn't mean that any struggle inside
the AFL is futile, as the Wobblies seem to think.

There's no doubt that the IWW played a major role in pushing the AFL to
the left, by demonstrating to the broad proletarian masses that
revolutionary tactics can be more effective in the everyday struggle
than the conciliatory tactics of the union leaders. But along with this
there are deep rumblings inside the AFL, caused by the recent
heightening of class contradictions --- rumblings that create the soil
for revolutionary work even inside the AFL, or at least inside some of
its constituent organizations. It's hard to believe that such activity
could lead by itself to fundamental changes in the program and tactics
of the AFL, but the results of this work will undoubtedly have an impact
that will be shown when that moment arrives that the AFL, as a result of
objective conditions, enters a period of profound organizational and
tactical crises.

As a result of these considerations, anarcho-syndicalists can not adopt
wholesale, even under the conditions of American reality, the
organizational views of the IWW. Influencing the AFL and other large
conservative labour organizations from outside has been the more
effective tactic up till now. But it's impossible, proceeding from
doctrinal considerations, to deny the fact that at a certain historical
moment, new conditions can arise which will allow internal work inside
these organizations to play its own, productive role.

\* \* \*

In talking about the views of the Wobblies, we always have in mind the
views of the official leaders of this movement. But, as is well known,
within the ranks of the IWW there are many revolutionary syndicalists
close to our point of view, and their participation in this movement is
undoubtedly rendering a strong influence on its direction. We, of
course, consider it extremely desirable that anarcho-syndicalists
participate in this movement, \[and we encourage\] anarcho-syndicalist
comrades to join "industrial" organizations. A greater number of
anarcho-syndicalists in the IWW means we have stronger hopes that this
movement will eventually acknowledge as its own the principles of
anarcho-syndicalism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Endnotes**

1\. The term "industrialism" is used here to refer to the principle of
organizing workers according to industry, rather than craft. Since this
meaning of the word is now archaic, we have replaced "industrialist"
throughout with "Wobbly," a term not used by the author. ---Archibald

2\. The Socialist Labor Party of America and the Socialist Party of
America. ---Syndicalism.org eds.

3\. Makhaevism is the ideology of followers of Jan Waclaw Machajski
(1866-1926), who encouraged workers to concentrate on economic demands
and oppose the domination of intellectuals in the revolutionary
movement. ---Archibald

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Additional Information**

Translated from the Russian by Malcolm Archibald and published by Black
Cat Press in 2019.

Support Black Cat Press --- go buy [a copy of
this](http://www.blackcatpress.ca/Anarcho-Syndicalism%20and%20the%20IWW.html)
or something else from them.