One of these (Anarchist-Communist) splits again over the question of violence—when, where and how much violence may be sanctioned?
Twenty-five years ago we had the I. W. P. A. (International Working People's Association) and the I. W. A.; the latter claiming that "violence should be held in more restraint."
This same turbulent history will repeat itself in our own I. W. W., as it struggles with the older unionism and with that part of our Socialism which affiliates with political action and reform.[1]
It is this strife between extreme individualism, or small recalcitrant minorities, and political majorities which produce all "reformist" parties that one sees now powerfully at work in France.
Syndicalism of the "reformist" character vetoes every extreme proposal of the revolutionary branch. First and most fundamental, it distrusts the action of small minorities as it rebels against giving the same vote to a small union as to a large one.[2] It insists upon steadying the movement by appeal to entire federated groups. It asks, like the older unions, for more dues, more funds and benefits. It is less "anti-patriotic." It is far wiser about the possibilities of politics. It is
- ↑ In the organ of Industrial Unionism printed in Glasgow (December issue) the question is put: "Why is it that after about seven years of strenuous propaganda, and the sacrifice of time, money, and energy, the Industrial Union movement has failed to influence the working class?" In the January number, this is denied, but with evidence that proves the factional hostilities already at work. See The Socialist (Dec. and Jan.), 1912–13.
- ↑ This exercise of power by small minorities is so insultingly undemocratic that one is not surprised to find frequent bitter attacks on the "fetish of democracy."
