Source: The New York Daily Call, May 25th, 1910. Vol. 3, No. 145.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, February, 2023.
Note: This article was typed out by sight rather than the typical method of OCR software.
The convention of the National Manufacturers’ Association, which just closed, was a very interesting one, and instructive in more ways than one. It would take more than one brief newspaper article to point out all the lessons it teaches. But there is one that stands but so prominently and that is of such tremendous importance to the working class that it deserves the most careful attention of every Socialist, trade unionist and true friend of progressive social legislation.
The undisguised enmity of the Manufacturers’ Association and its open hostility to all forms of labor organization is well known. The tirades against labor delivered at its last convention had, therefore, a familiar ring. The frank recognition of the industrial war of the classes may have come as a surprise to those who still prate about the brotherhood of capital and labor, but there was nothing new in it, not even its frankness, to those who have their eyes an ears open to what is going on about them. But there was a genuine surprise to most people in the attack upon the Civic Federation. Particularly in view of the association’s hostility toward the trusts.
There are still some innocent souls who consider every manifestation of opposition to the trusts a sure sign of “radicalism,” and every “radicalism” as the cause, result, or accompaniment of friendliness to labor. That these innocent souls consider the Civic Federation “friendly” to labor goes without saying. For did not Gompers himself say so? How is it, then, [that] these innocent souls wonder that an organization which is so “radical” as to condemn the trusts should at the same time be so “reactionary” as to condemn the Civic Federation and be so bitterly opposed to the labor movement?
The wonderment of these innocent souls turns into bewilderment when they reflect upon the subject a little longer. And, certainly, there is cause enough for bewilderment.
The Civic Federation is backed by the representatives of the highest finance, the most rapacious “interests,” the most vicious trusts: the Carnegies, the Fricks, the Morgans, the Belmonts. The very representatives of the Steel Trust, “the greatest enemy of labor in this country,” according to the petition presented by Gompers to the President of the United States, are the financial backers and moral leaders of the Civic Federation. Their moral influence dictates, and their money pays for, the beautiful preachments on the “brotherhood of capital and labor,” and on the duty of conciliation and mutual concessions between these “brothers,” which are put forth by “Mr. Gompers’ Civic Federation.” While the much smaller men of the Manufacturers’ Association, the representatives of individual untrustified capital, the suffering victims of the rapacious trusts and other great “interests,” declare war to the knife upon the labor movement and all its manifestations. Open, bitter and unrelenting war. War against the labor movement and at the same time against everything that tends to hide the existence of an undying hostility between capital and labor.
The explanation is not far to seek, provided we can rid ourselves of a lot of meaningless phrases and preconceived notions. We must start out by forgetting that every opposition to trusts or so-called “interests” is necessarily “radicalism,” and remember that some opponents of the trusts and concentrated capital, if not most of them, are a good deal more reactionary than the representatives of the highest forms of capitalistic development. And that the working class has little to choose between the individual and the trustified capitalists. In fact, when we look the facts squarely in the face, with unbiased minds, we shall find that whenever a choice must be made, concentrated or trustified capital is preferable to individual untrustified capital.
Not that the trust magnates are less greedy or more humane than their inferiors in the scale of capitalism. The Belmonts, the Carnegies, and the Fricks do not give their money to the Civic Federation because they have more regard for labor than the Kirbys, the Parrys, and the Van Cleaves, who fight it. And the Butlers do not stand sponsor for an emasculated form of trade unionism because they love the labor movement more than the Posts to whom every form of trade unionism is equally hateful. Not at all.
But the position and powers of concentrated and individual capital in our society are sufficiently different to make their methods of warfare against the working class different. Their self-interests dictate to each of these capitalistic sub-classes different methods of combating the efforts of the working class to secure a large share of the social product and a less unbearable social position.
Without going into the details and the circumstances which may modify individual cases, this difference may be summarized thus:
The trusts are sufficiently strong economically not to be afraid of the trade union. Indeed, their economic power alone is sufficient to prevent the organization of trade unions in their industries without resort to the political powers which are theirs. They laugh at the boycott. And they are not afraid of the strike, unless it ceases to be the ordinary pure-and-simple trade union strike, and assumes the more dangerous character of a revolutionary manifestation. They have reached that dangerous pinnacle of capitalistic development where revolution is sure to set in some day. They know it, and their chief energies are bent on diverting the revolutionary current. They have nothing to lose by, and nothing to fear from, the old-fashioned moderate, nay, conservative, trade union. But they are in mortal fear of the specter of revolution which they see rising in the distance. Their dreaded enemy is the Socialist propaganda. Therefore they exert their best efforts to combat that. And the cheapest weapon at their command is the Civic Federation: their least expensive servitor, the conservative trade union leader. For the “brotherhood of capital and labor” which they preach from the Civic Federation platforms cannot be enforced in the trustified industries. The conservative trade unions which the steel magnates eulogize at the Civic Federation banquets cannot thrive in the steel mills. At the same time this verbal concession keeps down the spirit of revolt which is otherwise sure to grow in the working class. Nay, it turns the natural leaders of this revolt into deserters and traitors to the cause of revolution.
Not so with the representatives of individual capital. Socialism is a faraway vision to them. The backwardness of their industrial conditions produces a narrow and limited mental horizon. Socialism is to them still a utopian vision of dreamers which can never be realized because it is “against human nature.” Only fools would waste their good time and good money in seriously fighting it. An occasional denunciation of Socialism as impossible and immoral they consider sufficient.
On the other hand the trade union is a real, serious, everyday enemy. It is the immediate enemy. And wherever its power is felt, the loss can be counted in dollars and cents. For the economic power of individual capital is not strong enough to make victory over trade unionism sure. Besides, these victories, when gained, are extremely expensive. Trade unionism is a menace. Its weapons, the strike and the boycott, must be destroyed, if individual capital is to thrive, particularly if it should ever be able to hold its own against trustified capital. Individual capital must, therefore, carry on a war of extermination against all forms of the labor movement, and against its lower forms first of all. But this it can do only by using its political power; by using that great mainstay of capitalism in general, and individual capitalism in particular, the judiciary. Hence the Bucks Stove injunctions and Danburry Hatters triple damages.
The steel trust does not need any injunction to protect its products from being boycotted by the working class. Nor will it ever be in a position to recover triple damages for loss of business through any boycott by the working class. Trustified capital can, therefore, afford to view with comparative calm and indifference the fight of individual capital to destroy the rights of labor. If individual capital joins, the trustified capital will know how to utilize the victory for itself when occasion presents itself. If labor wins it cannot be hurt much. Its only interest is in trying to figure out whether the small gain to itself if capital wins will not be outweighed by the discontent which it will breed in the working class. Hence the interminable “impartial” discussions of the respective “rights” of capital and labor at Civic Federation meetings and similar functions.
But the Manufacturers’ Association cannot afford to be “impartial.” The present loss, the real and serious loss, if labor wins, is sure to fall upon its shoulders. On the other hand the possible gain from keeping down the spirit of revolt will be reaped primarily by the rapacious trusts. It is, therefore, in the position to appreciate the hollowness and hypocritical pretense of the Civic Federation at their true worth. And its resentment is natural.
Last updated on 12 February 2023