Cannon's "The I.W.W.," 1955
I've had several socialists, whom I respect to varying degrees, link me to this essay as "proof" that the "duality" of the IWW dooms it to failure as a revolutionary organization. OK, I've read your proof, and I still don't agree. Let's see if I can be civil about this.
At one point, Cannon says that the IWW is "neither a union nor a party in the full meaning of these terms, but something of both, with some parts missing." I think that this is a misunderstanding stemming from socialist theorists' tendency to see parties and unions as the (only) two types of worker organizations. It's like if I said that this device here is something like a bicycle and something like a sailboat, with some parts missing. Guys. It's an airplane. And if it doesn't fly that doesn't (necessarily) mean it needs to be a bicycle. That's the central disagreement between me and my Trotskyist fellow workers. They look at the IWW and see a failed revolutionary party, because they can't understand that the IWW isn't TRYING to be a revolutionary party.
What's it trying to be? Well... depends who you ask. Sometimes, yes, a revolutionary party, but along anarchist rather than socialist lines. Sometimes a union. Sometimes a secular religion for the homeless and dispossessed. It's a coalition. One thing that makes it different from a party is that it doesn't have a party line. So here's what I'll tell you the IWW is trying to be if you ask ME. I speak for myself only; I've only been a part of this thing for a couple years and my closest revolutionary comrade is a Trotskyist, and I define my organization in comparison with his.
The IWW is an organization designed to survive in BOTH capitalist AND post-revolutionary society. It is like a union in that, under capitalism, it promotes worker empowerment, in theory and in practice, but unlike a union in that it doesn't depend on the employer for money, legitimacy, or power; it is like a party in that it encourages its most devout members to spread its message, but unlike a party in that it has no formal guidelines for how or what to say; it is like a religion in that you don't have to believe in its utopia to live out its values. If Marx is right and capitalism implodes, the IWW is supposed to continue empowering workers--preventing them from disempowering each other (cf. Stalin), and providing a framework for cooperation. The Preamble says we build a new world in the ashes of the old, but what it means is really that we build a new world in the furnace of the old. The IWW supports violent revolution when necessary, but bringing about revolution isn't really its immediate mission. Building a better world is its mission. Its motto is "organize the worker, not the job," and that's really important--it sees workers as parts of society not tied to any particular employment. Once again, employer-dependent "unions" are not and never have been the end goal of the IWW. One Big Union is a rather different concept.
So... politics. Cannon's actual point is that the collapse of the IWW is due to one of its central principles being its apolitical stance. Socialists in general see the IWW's claims to be apolitical as disingenuous since we do, ya know, talk about this revolution stuff. But the problem with being a political organization is that you have to have a line--something you want those in power to do, or some type of person you want to put in power. The strength of the IWW as an organization being apolitical is like the strength of the separation of church and state in the US--it frees up members to act on their own political convictions. You can be socialist and be in the IWW. You can be Republican and be in the IWW, although that's a little harder just because of how experience as an organizer goes. Many Wobblies discourage voting as participation in a sham system controlled by capitalists, and some vote lesser-evil or socialist or whatever, but that's individual choice.
Those two words. Individual choice. I think they're central to why the IWW, as Cannon points out, can have such fantastic strike victories and leave no lasting organization. The IWW distrusts formal leadership, because we're so completely focused on empowering the people on the bottom. As my mother repeatedly points out, of course, if you ignore leadership entirely you end up with no way to control the naturally-emerging dominance of some members of your group, but the IWW uses things like Robert's Rules and voting and decision-making processes to protect minority opinions. The one thing that is completely unconstitutional in the IWW is dues checkoff. No matter what you win, you MAY NOT EVER force anyone to pay dues, ESPECIALLY through a boss's hands. The Jimmy John's Workers Union didn't charge dues at all for that exact reason: you could hold a red card or not, join the IWW or not, and still have your opinion count in the union made up of you and your fellow workers. Because worker empowerment is primary, above any specific form of that power.
Here's the thing: true worker empowerment means listening to workers about their jobs and their aspirations, and not telling them that they haven't achieved class consciousness yet or that their vision falls short of the One True Bolshevik State. (I know just as many dogmatic Wobblies as Socialists. But just because narrow-mindedness exists both places doesn't mean that I can't roll my eyes at it, or even that both types of organizations structurally encourage it to the same extent.) So when I say I speak for myself and everything I've said up there is a reflection of what being in the IWW means to me, that's actually a fundamental trait of the organization: every member changes it. You don't join up and shove your beliefs into line with what everyone who was there before you thinks. You join up because it seems cool or they're unionizing your workplace and you want to help or because your friends are doing it and you stay yourself, as long as you respect that everyone else stays themselves too, and we are trying to build an organization where that's possible--and we need to work together, especially at our capitalist-controlled jobs, to make it happen. You argue a lot in the IWW.
It almost flies. On these shaky wings, it almost takes off, again and again, with people pedaling that thing only when they feel like, even though the wind is cold and your lungs start to burn and everyone thinks you look ridiculous. Take a turn; help me tweak the wings. Your heart gets stronger with every push, even when you think it's going to stop.
Liberte Locke quoted someone else on Facebook a while ago, and I wish I could find the attribution. She said, "You don't make friends with your coworkers to make them Wobblies. You make friends with your coworkers because that's what makes YOU a Wobbly."
At one point, Cannon says that the IWW is "neither a union nor a party in the full meaning of these terms, but something of both, with some parts missing." I think that this is a misunderstanding stemming from socialist theorists' tendency to see parties and unions as the (only) two types of worker organizations. It's like if I said that this device here is something like a bicycle and something like a sailboat, with some parts missing. Guys. It's an airplane. And if it doesn't fly that doesn't (necessarily) mean it needs to be a bicycle. That's the central disagreement between me and my Trotskyist fellow workers. They look at the IWW and see a failed revolutionary party, because they can't understand that the IWW isn't TRYING to be a revolutionary party.
What's it trying to be? Well... depends who you ask. Sometimes, yes, a revolutionary party, but along anarchist rather than socialist lines. Sometimes a union. Sometimes a secular religion for the homeless and dispossessed. It's a coalition. One thing that makes it different from a party is that it doesn't have a party line. So here's what I'll tell you the IWW is trying to be if you ask ME. I speak for myself only; I've only been a part of this thing for a couple years and my closest revolutionary comrade is a Trotskyist, and I define my organization in comparison with his.
The IWW is an organization designed to survive in BOTH capitalist AND post-revolutionary society. It is like a union in that, under capitalism, it promotes worker empowerment, in theory and in practice, but unlike a union in that it doesn't depend on the employer for money, legitimacy, or power; it is like a party in that it encourages its most devout members to spread its message, but unlike a party in that it has no formal guidelines for how or what to say; it is like a religion in that you don't have to believe in its utopia to live out its values. If Marx is right and capitalism implodes, the IWW is supposed to continue empowering workers--preventing them from disempowering each other (cf. Stalin), and providing a framework for cooperation. The Preamble says we build a new world in the ashes of the old, but what it means is really that we build a new world in the furnace of the old. The IWW supports violent revolution when necessary, but bringing about revolution isn't really its immediate mission. Building a better world is its mission. Its motto is "organize the worker, not the job," and that's really important--it sees workers as parts of society not tied to any particular employment. Once again, employer-dependent "unions" are not and never have been the end goal of the IWW. One Big Union is a rather different concept.
So... politics. Cannon's actual point is that the collapse of the IWW is due to one of its central principles being its apolitical stance. Socialists in general see the IWW's claims to be apolitical as disingenuous since we do, ya know, talk about this revolution stuff. But the problem with being a political organization is that you have to have a line--something you want those in power to do, or some type of person you want to put in power. The strength of the IWW as an organization being apolitical is like the strength of the separation of church and state in the US--it frees up members to act on their own political convictions. You can be socialist and be in the IWW. You can be Republican and be in the IWW, although that's a little harder just because of how experience as an organizer goes. Many Wobblies discourage voting as participation in a sham system controlled by capitalists, and some vote lesser-evil or socialist or whatever, but that's individual choice.
Those two words. Individual choice. I think they're central to why the IWW, as Cannon points out, can have such fantastic strike victories and leave no lasting organization. The IWW distrusts formal leadership, because we're so completely focused on empowering the people on the bottom. As my mother repeatedly points out, of course, if you ignore leadership entirely you end up with no way to control the naturally-emerging dominance of some members of your group, but the IWW uses things like Robert's Rules and voting and decision-making processes to protect minority opinions. The one thing that is completely unconstitutional in the IWW is dues checkoff. No matter what you win, you MAY NOT EVER force anyone to pay dues, ESPECIALLY through a boss's hands. The Jimmy John's Workers Union didn't charge dues at all for that exact reason: you could hold a red card or not, join the IWW or not, and still have your opinion count in the union made up of you and your fellow workers. Because worker empowerment is primary, above any specific form of that power.
Here's the thing: true worker empowerment means listening to workers about their jobs and their aspirations, and not telling them that they haven't achieved class consciousness yet or that their vision falls short of the One True Bolshevik State. (I know just as many dogmatic Wobblies as Socialists. But just because narrow-mindedness exists both places doesn't mean that I can't roll my eyes at it, or even that both types of organizations structurally encourage it to the same extent.) So when I say I speak for myself and everything I've said up there is a reflection of what being in the IWW means to me, that's actually a fundamental trait of the organization: every member changes it. You don't join up and shove your beliefs into line with what everyone who was there before you thinks. You join up because it seems cool or they're unionizing your workplace and you want to help or because your friends are doing it and you stay yourself, as long as you respect that everyone else stays themselves too, and we are trying to build an organization where that's possible--and we need to work together, especially at our capitalist-controlled jobs, to make it happen. You argue a lot in the IWW.
It almost flies. On these shaky wings, it almost takes off, again and again, with people pedaling that thing only when they feel like, even though the wind is cold and your lungs start to burn and everyone thinks you look ridiculous. Take a turn; help me tweak the wings. Your heart gets stronger with every push, even when you think it's going to stop.
Liberte Locke quoted someone else on Facebook a while ago, and I wish I could find the attribution. She said, "You don't make friends with your coworkers to make them Wobblies. You make friends with your coworkers because that's what makes YOU a Wobbly."