On the One Big Union 1919

“One Big Union” was the topic which drew a full house at the Theatre Royal on Sunday evening, the principal speaker being introduced by Chairman W. R. Trotter, as “The Old War Horse, E. T. Kingsley.”

Comrade Kingsley dryly remarked that it really looked like “one big union” at the present moment, the whole world being in a state of turmoil “never duplicated in history before.” The mechanism of class control had suddenly been thrown out of joint by a spasm of fury—the outcome of a civilization based on slavery. Following the ravages of war, famine and plague, a peace conference was up against revolution and a stoppage of industrial life more widespread than ever before. The sudden conversion of the means of production to purposes of slaughter was the last act of this civilization. No means had been even suggested whereby the rulers could cope with its collapse; the revolution threatened in the near future to sweep every part of the civilized world.

By state mechanism alone had government been maintained all through the ages. It was that which kept the workers subjected to exploitation. No individual capitalist or capitalist concern could rise above, or defy, the power of the state, which was devised to further the interests of the ruling class as a whole. And the workers, being property themselves, could not infringe on the rights of their masters to that property, except by one course—the conquest of that institution known as “The State.”

The State was no easy proposition to conquer; every man, woman and child was within the reach of its tentacles. They could not declare open rebellion without the state knowing it. The fight must be made in the open, along lines acknowledged as legitimate by the state itself; by the franchise, so long as that road was open, however restricted.

The difficulty of the conquest was “not because the workers don’t outnumber it again and again, but because of the deep-seated superstition in the heads of our own class as to the reverence we owe to the state.” The state consisted of nothing but the power of repression; it issued the edict, “Thou shalt not,” and backed it with force.

The speaker’s view was that concessions won by such a method as the strike always had a string to them by which they could be “yanked back,” or else they were in some other way nullified. He declared that “the wage has not been altered one five-cent piece since the first union was formed,” by any such means. Otherwise the Marxian theory itself would stand reputed.

The Standard Oil Co. never tried to fix the price of its oil; if it did, trade fell off through recourse to substitutes. Similarly the price of labor-power could not be maintained against a falling market. Concessions were only a temporary loss to the ruling class, and were recouped in other ways; were in fact taken back several times over. Thus an advance in wages, on the United States railways, to the amount of 300 millions was accompanied by an advance in freight charges to the extent of 900 millions, “paid by every man, woman and child all over the country.” The speaker insisted “That is an epitome of the whole struggle for wages. You can force no concessions from those masters except what they see fit to give you.”

It was true that the Russian revolution was not accompanied by dropping pieces of paper into a ballot box; but that revolution never had a moment’s certainty till they had smashed the power of the state. They had to rise up and seize that state; and they did it. For the Bolsheviki, no other means was available but open uprising; and the result of their sudden smashing of the machine was general confusion. In such a collapse, the workers would be the first to feel the consequences. Only by the same process by which it grew up will the machine be demolished, without great distress. “If the revolution sweeps England and France by the same methods (as in Russia), the suffering will be beyond measure; but if the industries can be one by one dissolved or rearranged to suit the new order, then the suffering may be avoided.”

“I stand,” declared the speaker, amid applause, “for one big union—for that specific purpose of conquering the reins of power.” This, of course, by peaceable means if possible; “and if not, by some other means.” (Renewed applause.) He added pointedly, “It’s always up to the other fellow to say how peaceably that shall be. But,” he insisted, that “what has taken generations to build up cannot be suddenly turned over to some other purpose, without distressing results.”

It was owing to ignorance that the workers were not represented at Washington and Ottawa. Such ignorance was, apparently, generously shared by the public press, judging by something the speaker had been reading in the Sun, by John P. McConnell—“one of that type that will write anything on God’s earth for $3 a column.” (Laughter.) Though the speaker confessed to having read this particular sample of ignorance, he stoutly protested, “I didn’t buy it; I’ve got too much sense for that.” There was more laughter when he again mentioned the $3 rate, shook his head, and decided, “Too much!”

The idea of cutting across a corner, “by one big union that the masters know nothing about,” had already been tried. The I. W. W. was now in jail or being chased in the bush, through following a line of action that the ruling class declares unlawful, “and which in common sense ought to be unlawful, too; for it can land them nowhere except when they are—behind the bars.” The United States was now adding a standing army of over 500,000 to the other tentacles of the ruling class, which could only be unhorsed by the workers seizing the reins of power at Washington. The only way was to go out into the open for revolutionary political action in which all the workers, skilled or unskilled, could unite. “By no camouflage or sleight-of-hand performance is your class going to oust the ruling class from control of your life.”

Economic organization—“to back up our edict at the polls,” etc., was all “bosh.” If all Labor was organized—“every man inside”—competition would be exactly the same as if there were no union at all. The workers had no control over anything—not even themselves. “A bunch of mules might as well do it.” (Laughter.) All organization was under the power of the ruling class—under the guns of the state. No revolution in Europe had been backed up by economic organization; the only economic organization they had, followed the revolution. Lenin allowed ten or fifteen years for things to work out and settle down; the speaker looked meanwhile for continual turmoil—uprisings and repressions and uprisings again.

“I believe in mass action,” declared Kingsley, such as a general strike if necessary—“with a purpose that can appeal to all.” The Goodwin strike, that caused such a squeal, was purely a political strike—a protest against the persecution of draft evaders, guilty of political offences. In Europe, such offenders had already been released. “Not over here, though; we’ve got Democracy here—and it stays with us,” he added.

Concluding, the speaker again referred to the fact that the essential sustenance of the United States was all produced by about one-third of the people. “More than two-thirds of production today is ruling class production; and when the ruling class goes, it will go with them’”—whether to a hot place or a cool one! The one section of the community that had means for economic organisation was the country population, who could strike and eat all the time. Yet the Calgary conference had practically ignored their communication, whereas they should have resolved the first consideration. The only true aim of one big union was “the mastery of the earth, and everything on top of it or underneath.”

Immediately after the address, a member of the audience said, “I’d like the platform;” and was backed by cries of “Platform! Platform!” from various parts of the house. Chairman Trotter interposed: “I want to say very clearly and very emphatically that if any person in the audience will not obey the chair, his place is out on Hastings street.” Later, he added, that it would be better to allow the meeting to be run from the platform; there was no reason for any one to got “hot under the collar.” They could have questions, but no one would come on the platform. This course was accordingly followed, and order was maintained till the close.