The Industrial Workers of the World in Australia: achievements and limitations

[This talk was presented at the Laborism and the radical alternative: Lessons for today conference, held in Melbourne, Australia, on May 30, 2009. It was organised by Socialist Alliance and sponsored by Green Left Weekly, Australia’s leading socialist newspaper. To read other talks presented at the conference, click HERE.]
* * *
By Verity Burgmann
The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was established in Australia first in Sydney in October 1907, two years after the founding of the IWW in the United States in June 1905 in Chicago. Known as the ``Wobblies’’, the IWW was a revolutionary industrial unionist organisation. It preferred this terminology to ``syndicalist’’: while it acknowledged much in common with European revolutionary syndicalism, it proposed a less decentralised industrial organisation. It maintained that: workers should be organised on the basis of the industries in which they worked rather than on the basis of their particular craft or trade skills; ultimately all workers should come together in One Big Union, which would take over control of production, distribution and exchange from the employers; and this process, while revolutionary could be non-violent, because if all workers were already in One Big Union, its power would be so great that the change to a new socialist society could be achieved peaceably.
The
IWW had developed due to dissatisfaction with craft unionism, which was seen to
pit workers against each other and make it easier for employers to control and
exploit all workers. Its emergence was an intelligent response from within the
labour movement to the increasing centralisation of capital and industry; it aspired
to present a concentration of labour power to meet a concentration of ownership
of capital.
However,
strictly speaking, only waged workers could join, so there was a serious
limitation from the outset: it was a very ``blokey’’ organisation. Female paid
workers were very welcome, but working-class homemakers could not officially
join. Female industrial militants were applauded—but patronised—in the IWW song
``Rebel Girl’’. ``To the working class she’s a precious pearl. She brings
courage, pride and joy, to the fighting Rebel Boy.’’ Far more impressive was the
IWW’s principled hostility to racism as an ideology and practice that divided
workers at the point of production that must be combated at all cost. Within a
labour movement seriously implicated in endorsement of the White Australia
Policy, the Australian Wobblies stood out for their persistent opposition to
racism.
In
1908 the IWW movement in the
The working class and the employing
class have nothing in common. There can be no peace as long as hunger and want
are found among millions of 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 all the toilers come together on the political as well as on the
industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor
through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with
any political party.
The rapid gathering of wealth and
the centering of the management of industry into fewer and fewer hands makes
trades unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class
because the trades unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers
to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby
helping to defeat one another in wage wars. The trade unions aid the employing
class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have
interests in common with their employers.
These sad conditions can be changed
and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in
such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries, if
necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department
thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
The ``non-politicals’’
successfully moved a resolution that deleted from the Preamble the sentence
commencing ``until all the toilers come together on the political as well as on
the industrial field’’ and substituted in its place ``until the workers of the world organise as a class, take possession of
the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system’’. The
minority group still supporting political action, associated with the Socialist
Labor Party under Daniel De Leon, withdrew and established separate
headquarters in
This
split was replicated in
There
were many links between the American and Australian Wobblies, helped
particularly by the movements of workers between these continents, especially
maritime workers. Not just seafarers, but many radicals roamed around the world
quite freely at this stage. Unlike today, there were few restrictions on movement.
There were no passports. It was quite common for agitators and activists to
spend several years working and agitating for better pay and conditions for
workers in one country then to move on to another country. Sometimes these
agitators moved on because their efforts to improve conditions for workers
brought them into trouble with local authorities. Often the radical labour
movement in the country in which they arrived would know about them before they
appeared, because of the newspapers produced by each movement, which reported
on the movements in other countries.
One
example of someone who moved around the Pacific area was John Benjamin King. King,
born in
King
was representative of the many personal links between the radical labour
movements in countries on the
1. Opposition to
political action
In
the
It
was very different situation here, where there was universal manhood suffrage
(including indigenous Australians) from 1856 and payment for politicians from
1871, and then universal adult suffrage by the end of the 1890s in most States
and federally from 1902 (excluding indigenous Australians until 1962). All
adults, except Aboriginal Australians, could vote in elections in every part of
These
democratic features caused the early existence of Labor parties in
The
behaviour of Labor governments seemed to confirm IWW warnings against political
action. Direct Action, the Australian IWW newspaper, had a
running commentary on the futility of political action, sell-outs and betrayals
by Labor MPs, their huge salaries and perks, and so on. For example, on
Come listen, all kind friends of
mine,
I want to move a motion,
To build an
I’ve got a bonzer notion.
Bump me into Parliament,
Bounce me any way,
Bang me into Parliament,
On next election day.
Some very wealthy friends I know
Declare I am most clever,
While some may talk for an hour or
so
Why, I can talk for ever.
I know the Arbitration Act
As a sailor knows his ‘riggins’,
So if you want a small advance,
I’ll talk to Justice Higgins.
Oh yes I am a Labor man,
And believe in revolution;
The quickest way to bring it on
Is talking constitution.
I’ve read my Bible ten times
through,
And Jesus justifies me,
The man who does not vote for me,
By Christ he crucifies me.
So bump them into Parliament,
Bounce them any way,
Bung them into Parliament,
Don’t let the Court decay.
Less
well known is another Australian IWW creation, also to ``Yankee Doodle’’, which
commences:
The politician prowls around,
For workers’ votes entreating;
He claims to know the slickest way
To give the boss a beating.
Polly, we can’t use you, dear,
To lead us into clover;
This fight is ours, and as for you,
Clear out or get run over.
The
advanced nature of the political labour movement in
Although
limited by its own strict rules that only ``wage-slaves’’ could join, the IWW at
its highpoint around 1916 probably had a membership of about 2000. Direct Action sold 15,000 copies weekly
during the highpoint of IWW influence, some authorities claim as many as
26,000. Certainly, it was read possibly by 50,000 each issue as copies were
invariably handed from worker to worker. All in all, its influence far exceeded
its membership base.
What
sort of people became Wobblies? They were workers of all sorts, especially
lesser skilled workers. They lived in cities, towns and country areas. A common
element in the IWW both sides of the Pacific was the unskilled itinerant
worker, especially in the bush and backwoods. A typical Wobbly was a ``hobo’’,
to use the North American terminology. However, the economic, political and
social position of the hobo was significantly different on the two sides of the
Pacific. In North American accounts, the hobo support base of the Wobblies is
presented as a social aberration; the IWW constituency was isolated from
workers organised by the American Federation of Labour (AFL), because it was
predominantly unskilled, unorganised and un-British, itinerants largely ignored
by the official, highly exclusive labour movement.
In
Australian society, by contrast, the hobo was normal and the itinerant bush worker
the backbone of union politics. Itinerant workers were not neglected by
Australian unionism as their equivalents were by the North American labour
movements. Rather, they were amongst its strongest participants and were
especially active in the new unions formed late in the nineteenth century.
The
high standing of itinerant workers in
3. Dual unionism versus
‘boring from within’
This
was a debate that was central to the IWW strategy wherever it appeared around
the world: whether to set up a separate set of unions in competition with the
existing more conservative ones or whether IWW supporters should stay inside
these existing unions and build up support with a view to eventually
encouraging enough workers to join the One Big Union. In the
The
Australian IWW had little choice but to ``bore from within’’ because the union
movement in
This
significant departure from North American IWW practice was an adaptation to
Australian circumstances. New unions of semi-skilled and unskilled workers had
developed from the 1870s onwards, and it was these new unions that became the
backbone of the labour movement, working cooperatively with the older craft
unions but in many ways outflanking them as the locus of power within
Wobblies
criticised craftism and sectionalism, and in particular the emergence of a
trade union bureaucracy, especially when it was better remunerated than the
workers it serviced. But their arguments were mounted from within. Wobblies
were almost always members of established trade unions. Wobbly support
subsisted in networks of militancy within mainstream trade unions. Jimmy
Seamer, a mining industry unionist of the time, told me in 1985 shortly before
he died: ``You met Wobblies wherever you went ... All militants followed the
Wobblies ... They had a foot in everywhere.’’
Military
intelligence files located at the Australian Archives in
In
boring from within, Australian Wobblies secured considerable protection.
Australian employers could not easily isolate and physically intimidate
Wobblies, because they worked under the cover of a strong trade union movement
that in
The
US IWW did not directly interfere with the
WAR!
WHAT FOR? FOR THE WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS: DEATH, STARVATION, POVERTY AND
UNTOLD MISERY. FOR THE CAPITALIST CLASS: GOLD, STAINED WITH THE BLOOD OF
MILLIONS, RIOTOUS LUXURY, BANQUETS OF JUBILATION OVER THE
On
August 22, leading Wobbly Tom Barker urged: ``LET THOSE WHO OWN AUSTRALIA DO
THE FIGHTING. Put the wealthiest in the front ranks; the middle class next;
follow these with politicians, lawyers, sky pilots and judges. Answer the
declaration of war with the call for a GENERAL STRIKE.’’ In 1915 Barker was
charged with publishing a poster prejudicial to recruiting, which exposed the
hypocrisy of the warmongers, by proclaiming: ``To Arms! Capitalists, Parsons,
Politicians, Landlords, Newspaper Editors and Other Stay-At-Home Patriots. Your
country needs YOU in the trenches!! WORKERS, Follow your masters.’’ Barker
argued in court this was a serious attempt to encourage recruitment, but was
found guilty. In 1916 he was sentenced to 12 months jail for publishing an
anti-war cartoon by Direct Action
cartoonist, Syd Nicholls, one of many such superb cartoons published by the
IWW; but the release campaign in Barker’s defence was so strong that the
authorities released Barker after only a few months.
The
Australian IWW was aware of the danger of anti-war activity distracting it from
organisation at the point of production and inviting government repression, the
considerations that had prompted American IWW caution in relation to the war. But
it threw itself wholeheartedly into campaigning against the war and Australian
involvement. In so doing, it increased its opportunities to organise at the
point of production, because its anti-war activity won it many supporters
amongst workers inclined to be critical of the senseless slaughter—and
increasingly so as time went on. By November 1916, Labor Prime Minister Hughes,
a long-time opponent of IWW influence within the labour movement, was
complaining that the IWW was ``largely responsible for the present attitude of
organised labor, industrially and politically, towards the war’’. The threat of
conscription in 1916 and 1917 gave the IWW an even greater opportunity to have
its voice heard. It expanded rapidly in this period. Great crowds used to come
to IWW anti-conscription meetings, up to a sixth of the population of

When
three-quarters of the Labor politicians in federal parliament indicated they
would refuse to pass a Conscription Act,
Prime Minister Hughes blamed the IWW and announced it needed to be attacked ``with
the ferocity of a Bengal tiger’’. The ultimate fate of the IWW in
The
manner of the Australian IWW’s demise was different from that of the North American
IWW. The repression of the Australian IWW was carried out by the right-wing of
the labour movement—the Labor Party in government—because it constituted a
far-left opposition to the right-wing of that movement. So the Australian IWW
did not endure beatings, lynchings and torture by individual loyalists as in
the USA—but Labor government-sponsored suppression, in advance of US criminal
syndicalism legislation, seriously weakened it. The Hughes National Labor
government enacted the Unlawful
Associations Act on
In
the next few months, 103 Wobblies were imprisoned, usually for terms of six
months with hard labour, and many more were sacked from their jobs. Twelve
foreign-born Wobblies were deported; at the same time,
However,
the wider labour movement objected to the treatment of the IWW by the federal
government. The labour movement, the trade unions in particular, staged a huge
campaign to release these men. The release campaign spread outward from the
Wobblies themselves to all manner of labour organisations: trade unions; labour
and trades hall councils and regional industrial councils; left-wing parties;
and even sections of the Labor Party. The state Labor government in
So
the labour movement, whose more right-wing political representatives had
suppressed the IWW, was also responsible for releasing the Twelve. This proved
the degree to which the strategy of ``boring from within’’ had enabled Wobblies
to become accepted as a legitimate part of the wider labour movement. The IWW’s
strength on the ground, the degree of support it had engendered for militant
action at the point of production, enabled it to push the mainstream labour
movement into action in its defence.
What happened to the Wobblies? Part of the mythology
surrounding the early days of the Communist Party is that large numbers of
Wobblies realised the error of their syndicalist ways and joined. In fact, very
few Wobblies joined the Communist Party in the 1920s. The Communist movement
throughout the world was anxious that Wobblies renounce their revolutionary
industrial unionist past and join the Communist parties; it urged them to do
this in January 1920 in The Communist Internationale to the I.W.W.
The
Australian Communist Party made elaborate overtures to Wobbly remnants.
Many
Wobblies reacted with enthusiasm, initially, to the October Revolution, believing
that it heralded not the rule of a party but of the working class. However,
doubters amongst the Wobblies became considerably more numerous as Bolshevism
consolidated itself after victory. Many of the small number of Wobblies who
joined the Communist Party did not stay members for long. They were coming from
an elaborately democratic and open organisation, so they were astounded by
their reception within the Communist Party as it began implementing the
authoritarian and hierarchical forms of organisation for which it became
renowned.
One
Wobbly who became critical of the Communist Party he had joined was John
Benjamin King, with whom we started our story. He was involved in establishing
a Wobbly cell within the Communist Party called the Industrial Union Propaganda
League (IUPL) in 1921. According to a resurrected Direct Action on December 1, 1921, the IUPL urged workers to return
to industrial organisation: ``We must make up for the lost time that the
working class of this country has been cheering the revolutions of other
countries and not putting its own house in order.’’
The
Communist Party expelled King and the others on charges of syndicalism and
forbade any Communist Party member to join the IUPL. The IUPL became the Industrial
Union Propaganda Group (IUPG). The IUPG argued the Communist Party was now like
the Labor Party, the concern for political processes representing an obstacle
in the way of militant direct action and the formation of revolutionary
industrial unions.
Lecturing
for the IUPG, King criticised the Communist tactic of ``capturing the
machinery’’ of the unions. When the Communist president of the Labour Council
asked: ``then how can we expect to capture the more powerful machine of the
capitalist state?’’, King replied: ``One doesn’t want to capture a mad dog
before shooting it.’’ All in all, IWW-type militants remaining within the Communist
Party were discouraged. Those who remained had to stop being Wobblies.
The
IWW kept making organisational reappearances during the 1920s—in
When
J.B. King rejoined the Communist Party in 1930, he was sent immediately to the
Given
the demise of Communism and the acknowledged shortcomings of the social
democratic/Laborist project around the world, the lost cause of the IWW is
worth reconsidering, if only to examine its critique of the labour movement
ideologies and practices, of Communism and social-democratic Laborism, that
triumphed over it.
The distinctive characteristics of the Australian IWW that differentiate it from its North American parent—especially the hostility to parliamentary action to achieve social transformation—make its experience peculiarly relevant to labour movement activists today in countries where politicians increasingly control labour movements. There are many aspects of Wobbly political practice still relevant to modern existence. Particularly in a world characterised by increasing connections of corporate power around the world, the IWW model of much closer forms of organisation of the world’s workers, but in an ultra-democratic way, is a useful model for international labour movement organisations.
Notes
This
talk is based on material I have published in the following works, which
provide full referencing:
Verity
Burgmann, Revolutionary Industrial Unionism. The Industrial Workers of the
World in
Verity
Burgmann, ``The Iron Heel: The Suppression of the IWW during World War I’’, in
Verity
Burgmann, ``Antipodean Peculiarities: Comparing the Australian IWW with the
American’’, Labor History (
Verity
Burgmann, ``The IWW in International Perspective: comparing the North American
and Australasian Wobblies’’, in Julie Kimber, Peter Love and Phillip Deery
(eds), Labour Traditions. Papers from the Tenth National Labour History
Conference, University of Melbourne, 4-6 July 2007, Australian Society for
the Study of Labour History, Melbourne, pp.36-43.