Typogrify

src/epub/text/chapter-2.xhtml

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 			</hgroup>
 			<p>In the popular mind, an Anarchist is a person who throws bombs and commits other outrages, either because he is more or less insane, or because he uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as a cloak for criminal proclivities. This view is, of course, in every way inadequate. Some Anarchists believe in throwing bombs; many do not. Men of almost every other shade of opinion believe in throwing bombs in suitable circumstances: for example, the men who threw the bomb at Sarajevo which started the present war were not Anarchists, but Nationalists. And those Anarchists who are in favor of bomb-throwing do not in this respect differ on any vital principle from the rest of the community, with the exception of that infinitesimal portion who adopt the Tolstoyan attitude of nonresistance. Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of the class war, and if they use bombs, it is as Governments use bombs, for purposes of war: but for every bomb manufactured by an Anarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments, and for every man killed by Anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence of States. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it is neither essential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist position.</p>
 			<p>Anarchism, as its derivation indicates, is the theory which is opposed to every kind of forcible government. It is opposed to the State as the embodiment of the force employed in the government of the community. Such government as Anarchism can tolerate must be free government, not merely in the sense that it is that of a majority, but in the sense that it is that assented to by all. Anarchists object to such institutions as the police and the criminal law, by means of which the will of one part of the community is forced upon another part. In their view, the democratic form of government is not very enormously preferable to other forms so long as minorities are compelled by force or its potentiality to submit to the will of majorities. Liberty is the supreme good in the Anarchist creed, and liberty is sought by the direct road of abolishing all forcible control over the individual by the community.</p>
-			<p>Anarchism, in this sense, is no new doctrine. It is set forth admirably by Chuang Tzu, a Chinese philosopher, who lived about the year 300 <abbr epub:type="se:era">BC</abbr>:⁠—</p>
+			<p>Anarchism, in this sense, is no new doctrine. It is set forth admirably by Chuang Tzu, a Chinese philosopher, who lived about the year 300 <abbr epub:type="se:era">BC</abbr>:⁠—</p>
 			<blockquote>
 				<p>Horses have hoofs to carry them over frost and snow; hair, to protect them from wind and cold. They eat grass and drink water, and fling up their heels over the champaign. Such is the real nature of horses. Palatial dwellings are of no use to them.</p>
 				<p>One day Po Lo appeared, saying: “I understand the management of horses.”</p>

src/epub/text/chapter-3.xhtml

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
 			<p>Syndicalists might retort that when the movement is strong enough to win by armed insurrection it will be abundantly strong enough to win by the General Strike. In Labor movements generally, success through violence can hardly be expected except in circumstances where success without violence is attainable. This argument alone, even if there were no other, would be a very powerful reason against the methods advocated by the Anarchist Congress.</p>
 			<p>Syndicalism stands for what is known as industrial unionism as opposed to craft unionism. In this respect, as also in the preference of industrial to political methods, it is part of a movement which has spread far beyond France. The distinction between industrial and craft unionism is much dwelt on by <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Cole. Craft unionism “unites in a single association those workers who are engaged on a single industrial process, or on processes so nearly akin that anyone can do another’s work.” But “organization may follow the lines, not of the work done, but of the actual structure of industry. All workers working at producing a particular kind of commodity may be organized in a single Union.⁠ ⁠… The basis of organization would be neither the craft to which a man belonged nor the employer under whom he worked, but the service on which he was engaged. This is <em>Industrial Unionism</em> properly so called.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-29" id="noteref-29" epub:type="noteref">29</a></p>
 			<p>Industrial unionism is a product of America, and from America it has to some extent spread to Great Britain. It is the natural form of fighting organization when the union is regarded as the means of carrying on the class war with a view, not to obtaining this or that minor amelioration, but to a radical revolution in the economic system. This is the point of view adopted by the “Industrial Workers of the World,” commonly known as the <abbr class="eoc" epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> This organization more or less corresponds in America to what the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr> was in France before the war. The differences between the two are those due to the different economic circumstances of the two countries, but their spirit is closely analogous. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> is not united as to the ultimate form which it wishes society to take. There are Socialists, Anarchists and Syndicalists among its members. But it is clear on the immediate practical issue, that the class war is the fundamental reality in the present relations of labor and capital, and that it is by industrial action, especially by the strike, that emancipation must be sought. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr>, like the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr>, is not nearly so strong numerically as it is supposed to be by those who fear it. Its influence is based, not upon its numbers, but upon its power of enlisting the sympathies of the workers in moments of crisis.</p>
-			<p>The labor movement in America has been characterized on both sides by very great violence. Indeed, the Secretary of the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr>, Monsieur Jouhaux, recognizes that the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr> is mild in comparison with the <abbr class="eoc" epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> “The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr>,” he says, “preach a policy of militant action, very necessary in parts of America, which would not do in France.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-30" id="noteref-30" epub:type="noteref">30</a> A very interesting account of it, from the point of view of an author who is neither wholly on the side of labor nor wholly on the side of the capitalist, but disinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the social question short of violence and revolution, is the work of <abbr>Mr.</abbr> John Graham Brooks, called <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">American Syndicalism: the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr></i> (Macmillan, 1913). American labor conditions are very different from those of Europe. In the first place, the power of the trusts is enormous; the concentration of capital has in this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian lines in America than anywhere else. In the second place, the great influx of foreign labor makes the whole problem quite different from any that arises in Europe. The older skilled workers, largely American born, have long been organized in the American Federation of Labor under <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Gompers. These represent an aristocracy of labor. They tend to work with the employers against the great mass of unskilled immigrants, and they cannot be regarded as forming part of anything that could be truly called a labor movement. “There are,” says <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Cole, “now in America two working classes, with different standards of life, and both are at present almost impotent in the face of the employers. Nor is it possible for these two classes to unite or to put forward any demands.⁠ ⁠… The American Federation of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World represent two different principles of combination; but they also represent two different classes of labor.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-31" id="noteref-31" epub:type="noteref">31</a> The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> stands for industrial unionism, whereas the American Federation of Labor stands for craft unionism. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> were formed in 1905 by a union of organizations, chief among which was the Western Federation of Miners, which dated from 1892. They suffered a split by the loss of the followers of Deleon, who was the leader of the “Socialist Labor Party” and advocated a “Don’t vote” policy, while reprobating violent methods. The headquarters of the party which he formed are at Detroit, and those of the main body are at Chicago. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr>, though it has a less definite philosophy than French Syndicalism, is quite equally determined to destroy the capitalist system. As its secretary has said: “There is but one bargain the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> will make with the employing class⁠—<em>complete surrender of all control of industry to the organized workers</em>.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-32" id="noteref-32" epub:type="noteref">32</a> <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Haywood, of the Western Federation of Miners, is an out-and-out follower of Marx so far as concerns the class war and the doctrine of surplus value. But, like all who are in this movement, he attaches more importance to industrial as against political action than do the European followers of Marx. This is no doubt partly explicable by the special circumstances of America, where the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless. The fourth convention of the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> revised a preamble giving the general principles underlying its action. “The working class and the employing class,” they say, “have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes, a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.⁠ ⁠… Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,’ we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ ”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-33" id="noteref-33" epub:type="noteref">33</a></p>
+			<p>The labor movement in America has been characterized on both sides by very great violence. Indeed, the Secretary of the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr>, Monsieur Jouhaux, recognizes that the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr> is mild in comparison with the <abbr class="eoc" epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> “The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr>,” he says, “preach a policy of militant action, very necessary in parts of America, which would not do in France.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-30" id="noteref-30" epub:type="noteref">30</a> A very interesting account of it, from the point of view of an author who is neither wholly on the side of labor nor wholly on the side of the capitalist, but disinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the social question short of violence and revolution, is the work of <abbr>Mr.</abbr> John Graham Brooks, called <i epub:type="se:name.publication.book">American Syndicalism: the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr></i> (Macmillan, 1913). American labor conditions are very different from those of Europe. In the first place, the power of the trusts is enormous; the concentration of capital has in this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian lines in America than anywhere else. In the second place, the great influx of foreign labor makes the whole problem quite different from any that arises in Europe. The older skilled workers, largely American born, have long been organized in the American Federation of Labor under <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Gompers. These represent an aristocracy of labor. They tend to work with the employers against the great mass of unskilled immigrants, and they cannot be regarded as forming part of anything that could be truly called a labor movement. “There are,” says <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Cole, “now in America two working classes, with different standards of life, and both are at present almost impotent in the face of the employers. Nor is it possible for these two classes to unite or to put forward any demands.⁠ ⁠… The American Federation of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World represent two different principles of combination; but they also represent two different classes of labor.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-31" id="noteref-31" epub:type="noteref">31</a> The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> stands for industrial unionism, whereas the American Federation of Labor stands for craft unionism. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> were formed in 1905 by a union of organizations, chief among which was the Western Federation of Miners, which dated from 1892. They suffered a split by the loss of the followers of Deleon, who was the leader of the “Socialist Labor Party” and advocated a “Don’t vote” policy, while reprobating violent methods. The headquarters of the party which he formed are at Detroit, and those of the main body are at Chicago. The <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr>, though it has a less definite philosophy than French Syndicalism, is quite equally determined to destroy the capitalist system. As its secretary has said: “There is but one bargain the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> will make with the employing class⁠—<em>complete surrender of all control of industry to the organized workers</em>.”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-32" id="noteref-32" epub:type="noteref">32</a> <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Haywood, of the Western Federation of Miners, is an out-and-out follower of Marx so far as concerns the class war and the doctrine of surplus value. But, like all who are in this movement, he attaches more importance to industrial as against political action than do the European followers of Marx. This is no doubt partly explicable by the special circumstances of America, where the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless. The fourth convention of the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> revised a preamble giving the general principles underlying its action. “The working class and the employing class,” they say, “have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes, a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.⁠ ⁠… Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,’ we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ ”<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-33" id="noteref-33" epub:type="noteref">33</a></p>
 			<p>Numerous strikes have been conducted or encouraged by the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> and the Western Federation of Miners. These strikes illustrate the class-war in a more bitter and extreme form than is to be found in any other part of the world. Both sides are always ready to resort to violence. The employers have armies of their own and are able to call upon the Militia and even, in a crisis, upon the United States Army. What French Syndicalists say about the State as a capitalist institution is peculiarly true in America. In consequence of the scandals thus arising, the Federal Government appointed a Commission on Industrial Relations, whose Report, issued in 1915, reveals a state of affairs such as it would be difficult to imagine in Great Britain. The report states that “the greatest disorders and most of the outbreaks of violence in connection with industrial disputes arise from the violation of what are considered to be fundamental rights, and from the perversion or subversion of governmental institutions” (<abbr>p.</abbr> 146). It mentions, among such perversions, the subservience of the judiciary to the military authorities,<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-34" id="noteref-34" epub:type="noteref">34</a> the fact that during a labor dispute the life and liberty of every man within the State would seem to be at the mercy of the Governor (<abbr>p.</abbr> 72), and the use of State troops in policing strikes (<abbr>p.</abbr> 298). At Ludlow (Colorado) in 1914 (April 20) a battle of the militia and the miners took place, in which, as the result of the fire of the militia, a number of women and children were burned to death.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-35" id="noteref-35" epub:type="noteref">35</a> Many other instances of pitched battles could be given, but enough has been said to show the peculiar character of labor disputes in the United States. It may, I fear, be presumed that this character will remain so long as a very large proportion of labor consists of recent immigrants. When these difficulties pass away, as they must sooner or later, labor will more and more find its place in the community, and will tend to feel and inspire less of the bitter hostility which renders the more extreme forms of class war possible. When that time comes, the labor movement in America will probably begin to take on forms similar to those of Europe.</p>
 			<p>Meanwhile, though the forms are different, the aims are very similar, and industrial unionism, spreading from America, has had a considerable influence in Great Britain⁠—an influence naturally reinforced by that of French Syndicalism. It is clear, I think, that the adoption of industrial rather than craft unionism is absolutely necessary if Trade Unionism is to succeed in playing that part in altering the economic structure of society which its advocates claim for it rather than for the political parties. Industrial unionism organizes men, as craft unionism does not, in accordance with the enemy whom they have to fight. English unionism is still very far removed from the industrial form, though certain industries, especially the railway men, have gone very far in this direction, and it is notable that the railway men are peculiarly sympathetic to Syndicalism and industrial unionism.</p>
 			<p>Pure Syndicalism, however, is not very likely to achieve wide popularity in Great Britain. Its spirit is too revolutionary and anarchistic for our temperament. It is in the modified form of Guild Socialism that the ideas derived from the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">C.G.T.</abbr> and the <abbr epub:type="z3998:initialism">I.W.W.</abbr> are tending to bear fruit.<a href="endnotes.xhtml#note-36" id="noteref-36" epub:type="noteref">36</a> This movement is as yet in its infancy and has no great hold upon the rank and file, but it is being ably advocated by a group of young men, and is rapidly gaining ground among those who will form Labor opinion in years to come. The power of the State has been so much increased during the war that those who naturally dislike things as they are, find it more and more difficult to believe that State omnipotence can be the road to the millennium. Guild Socialists aim at autonomy in industry, with consequent curtailment, but not abolition, of the power of the State. The system which they advocate is, I believe, the best hitherto proposed, and the one most likely to secure liberty without the constant appeals to violence which are to be feared under a purely Anarchist regime.</p>