Samuel Gompers commissioned an article by Labadie, "Trades Unionism As I Understand It," for the American Federation of Labor journal, American Federationist. It appeared in the April, 1894, issue. As an anarchist, Labadie was insistent that trade unions stay away from political action, including lobbying and demands for pro-labor legislation. This stance was philosophically in tune with Gompers, who believed in voluntary methods and feared government intervention:
Trades unionism as I understand it is a co-operative effort on the part of wage earners to better their economic conditions in a special way. It is one of the many ways pointed out by social and political economists for the betterment of the race. It is not its province to attempt to do everything that is good, any more than should one person attempt to do all the things that it is possible for one man to do. We have learned by experience that it is more economical, more effective, for each person to do one particular thing than it is for each person to do everything that is necessary to be done, if that were not possible. There was a time when almost every person was Jack of all trades and master of none, but that time has long since gone by. The division of labor has made it possible for one person to be master of one trade, or at least one branch of a trade, and the result is that the productivity of labor has increased to a wonderful degree. This specializing of efforts has taken place in almost every avenue of life, and so far has been one of the greatest actors in progress and civilization.
There is a tendency among trades unionists to fly in the face of this law of progress, and to have the trades unions take upon themselves multitudinous functions. It seems to me that a trade union should confine its efforts strictly to those things that are peculiar to the trade of which the union is formed...The failure of the K. of L. {Knights of Labor] to succeed on trade lines was largely because the members of one trade attempted to settle disputes in other trades, instead of letting each trade settle its own disputes.
Trades unions are so named because they were intended, and rightly so, to do that for the tradesman which a mixed body could not do so well, and which is peculiar to the particular trade organized. Those things which are not peculiar to any particular trades have no right to be introduced into a trade union. Hence no political or religious problem has any business in a trade union, because these are questions which affect the whole body of citizens, whether they be tradesmen or not....We must separate the trade organization from the political or the religious organization to be in harmony with the law of progress and to invite the largest degree of success.
Because this is so does not preclude workingmen from taking political action, if they so choose, but they must organize for that especial purpose. And I question the policy of organizing for political action on class lines. If the lines between the three classes of society--workingmen, beggarmen, thieves--were clearly drawn and easily recognized by the mass of the people this doubt would not exist, but it requires no argument to prove that this is not yet so...
JOSEPH A. LABADIE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
In 1878, Labadie, who called himself "Jo", was chosen by Knights of Labor official Charles Litchman to organize Detroit's first assembly, L.A. 901. It was camouflaged as the Washington Literary Society in line with the organization's secrecy. Labadie also joined the Greenback financial reform movement, ran an unsuccessful campaign for mayor on the Greenback-Labor ticket, and served as delegate to the divisive 1880 Greenback-Labor convention in Chicago.
That year he also was instrumental in organizing the Detroit Trades Council, a city-wide assembly of trades unions, and served as its president while continuing as an official of the Knights of Labor and Socialist Labor Party. With Grenell, Labadie continued issuing a succession of labor papers, including the nationally influential Advance and Labor Leaf, and was a widely-published columnist for the labor press, recognized for his forthright style and originality of thought.
In 1883, Labadie abandoned socialism and embraced individualist anarchism. He became a close associate of Benjamin Tucker and a frequent contributor to the latter's Liberty. Despite Labadie's outspoken opposition to government, he was appointed clerk at Michigan's new Bureau of Labor in Lansing, and served there a year.
After the 1886 Haymarket bombing in Chicago triggered an anti-anarchist hysteria, which was echoed by Knights of Labor leader Terence Powderly, Labadie became Powderly's enemy. He condemned the Knights' leaders for a series of blunders and accused them of corruption. He visited the imprisoned Haymarket anarchists in Chicago on his way to the 1887 Knights of Labor convention in Minneapolis as delegate from Detroit. After Powderly opposed a clemency resolution for the Haymarket defendants, Labadie delivered a scathing indictment of Powderly and his ring.
Disillusioned with the Knights of Labor, Labadie in 1888 organized with Sam Goldwater the Michigan Federation of Labor, became its first president, and forged an alliance with Samuel Gompers.
Joseph A. Labadie
from Men Against the State
Joseph A. Labadie was among the contributors to Benjamin Tucker's publication Liberty who "brought to Tucker's paper a quality of radical writing unsurpassed in its own time, and rarely approached since...A Detroit printer and writer for a number of socialist labor papers, including [B.G.] Haskell's Truth, and the Detroit papers Today and the Advance and Labor Leaf, among others, his relations with other portions of the radical and reform movement remained partially intact during his participation in Tucker's literary experiment. A contributor as early as June, 1883, he still remained as secretary of the national board of supervision of the Socialist Labor Party a year later. During this period he gradually lost faith in reconciliation between the various fragments of the socialist movement but retained a strong interest in the fortunes of the labor movement. In this however he gradually became the exponent of anarchist measures, and argued the anti-statist case with their leaders and before their conventions when he attended.
"Most of Labadie's ideas in Liberty were presented through the medium of a column, "Cranky Notions." In agreement with Tucker on most points, he still clung to the belief that the labor movement could produce benefits, primarily in obtaining reductions in the hours worked, with neither raises nor reductions in pay. Admitting his loss of faith in socialism during the fall of 1888, he still considered it expedient for the government to control "natural monopolies" such as water works, streets and railroads; but he thought that schools, banks, post offices, and like institutions should best be left to operation by individuals. Like Tucker, he backed the assertion that the best way to prevent monopolies would be to withhold the grant of franchises."Politically, Labadie inclined to a policy of compromise also, in the hope of extracting some gain from a situation which was bound to remain deadlocked as the result of insistence upon total realization of ideals. Unimpressed with voting as utilized under universal suffrage, which he described as 'a process by which truth is established by numbers,' he considered that anarchists might use it to advance the 'principles of liberty.' 'All political questions mean either more or less government,' said Labadie, in defending the participation of anarchists in voting in order to forestall more positive legislation. Nationally, he was shocked by the Republican program, which he said was that of 'establishing a nation with a big N and crushing out local autonomies.' Under their sponsorship he saw the realization of Hamiltonian authoritarianism in its greatest severity, and for this reason inclined to favor the Democrats, whom he saw as still opposed to the centralizing of power. Throughout his gradual swing to anarchism, Labadie retained friendly relations with the Knights of Labor and other workingmen's organizations. It was his belief that his persistence was responsible for weakening the faith of some of Detroit's most active and intelligent labor leaders in the principle of government control. It was not necessary to 'desert one's area of agitation' on becoming an anarchist, Labadie held, and under this impression remained one of Tucker's closest associates, a relationship which even the end of Liberty did not terminate..."
Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not
by Joseph A. Labadie
So you want me to tell you what Anarchism is, do you? I can do no less than make the attempt, and in my own simple way try to make you understand at least that it is not what the uninformed and the capitalistic newspapers, liars, fools and villains generally say it is.
In the first place, let me urge upon all who desire to learn the truth about Anarchism not to go to its enemies for information, but to talk with Anarchists and read anarchistic literature. And it is not always safe to take what one, two or even a dozen persons may say about it, either, though they call themselves Anarchists. Take what a goodly number of them say and then cancel those statements in which they are not in accord. What remains in all probability is true. For example, what is Christianity? Ask a dozen or more people and it is likely their answers will not agree in every particular. They may, however, agree upon some fundamental propositions. This more likely to be the correct position of Christianity than the statements made by any one of them. This process of cancellation is the best way of finding out what any philosophy is. This I have done in determining what Anarchism is, and it is a fair presumption that I have arrived tolerably near the truth.
Anarchism, in the language of Benjamin R. Tucker, may be described as the doctrine that "all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished."
The state is "the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."
Government is "the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will."
Now, keep these definitions in mind, and don't use the word "state" or "government" or "Anarchy" in any other sense than that in which the Anarchist himself uses it. Mr. Tucker's definitions are generally accepted by Anarchists everywhere.
The state, according to Herbert Spencer and others, originated in war, aggressive war, violence, and has always been maintained by violence. The function of the state has always been to govern - to make the non-ruling classes do what the ruling classes want done. The state is the king in a monarchy, the king and parliament in a limited monarchy, elected representatives in such a republic as exists in the United States, and the majority of the voters in a democracy as in Switzerland. History shows that the masses are always improved in mental, moral, and material conditions as the powers of the state over the individuals are reduced. As man becomes more enlightened regarding his interests, individual and collective, he insists that forcible authority over him and his conduct shall be abolished. He points to the fact that the church has improved in its material affairs, to say nothing of the spiritual, since the individual is not compelled to support it and accept its doctrines or be declared a heretic and burned at the stake or otherwise maltreated; to the fact that people are better dressed since the state has annulled the laws regulating dress; to the fact that people are happier married since each person can choose his own mate; to the fact that people are better in every way since the laws were abolished regulating the individual's hair-cut, his traveling, his trade, the number of window panes in his house, chewing tobacco or kissing on Sundays, and so on without number. In Russia and some other countries even now you would not be allowed to go into the country or come out of it without legal permission, to print or read books or papers except those permitted by law, to keep anyone in your house over night without notifying the police, and in a thousand ways the individual is hampered in his movements. Even in the freest countries the individual is robbed by the tax-collector, is beaten by the police, is fined and jailed by courts - is browbeated by the authority in many ways when his conduct is not aggressive or in violation of equal freedom.
It is a mistake often made, even by some Anarchists, to say that Anarchism aims to establish absolute freedom. Anarchism is a practical philosophy, and is not striving to do the impossible. What Anarchism aims to do, however, is to make equal freedom applicable to every human creature. The majority under this rule has no more rights than the minority, the millions no greater rights than one. It assumes that every human being should have equal rights to all the products of nature without money and without price; that what one produces would belong to himself, and that not individual or collection of persons, be they outlaw or state, should take any portion of it without his knowledge or consent; that every person should be allowed to exchange his own products wherever he wills; that he should be allowed to co-operate with his fellows if he chooses, or to compete against them in whatever field he elects; that no restrictions whatsoever should be put upon him in what he prints or reads or drinks or eats or does, so long as he does not invade the equal rights of his fellows.
It is often remarked that Anarchism is an impractical theory imported into the United States by a lot of ignorant foreigners. Of course, those who make this statement are as much mistaken as though they made it while conscious of its falsity. The doctrine of personal freedom is an American doctrine, in so far as the attempt to put it into practice is concerned, as Paine, Franklin, Jefferson and others understood it quite well. Even the Puritans had a faint idea of it, as they came here to exercise the right of private judgement in religious matters. The right to exercise private judgement in religion is Anarchy in religion. The first to formulate the doctrine of individual sovereignty was a blue-bellied Yankee, as Josiah Warren was a descendant of the Revolutionary General Warren. We have Anarchy in trade between the states in this country, as free trade is simply commercial Anarchy.
No one who commits crime can be an Anarchist, because crime is the doing of injury to another by aggression - the opposite of Anarchism.
No one can kill another, except in self-defense, and be an Anarchist, because that would be invading another's equal right to live - the antithesis of Anarchism.
Hence assassins and criminals generally are called Anarchists only by the ignorant and malicious.
You can't be an Anarchist and do the things which Anarchism condemns.
Anarchism would make occupancy and use the sole title to land, thereby abolishing rent for land.
It would guarantee to each individual or association the right to issue money as a medium of exchange, thereby abolishing interest on money in so far as co-operation and competition can do it.
It denies the justice of patent and copyrights, and would abolish monopoly by abolishing patent rights.
It denies the right of any body of people to tax the individual for anything he does not want, but that taxation should be voluntary, such as is now done by churches, trade unions, insurance societies and all other voluntary associations.
It believes that freedom in every walk of life is the greatest possible means of elevating the human race to happier conditions.
It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic.
Anarchy is a synonym for liberty, freedom, independence, free play, self-government, non-interference, mind your own business and let your neighbor's alone, laissez faire, ungoverned, autonomy, and so on.
Now that I am done, I find that you have been given only a faint outline of what Anarchism is and is not. Those who desire to pursue the subject further will find food for intellectual adults in Tucker's Instead of a Book; Proudhon's What is Property? and Economical Contradictions; Tandy's Voluntary Socialism; Mackay's The Anarchists; Auberon Herbert's Free Life; The Demonstrator; Lucifer, and a lot of other books, papers and pamphlets which may be had by addressing Henry Bool, Ithaca, NY, E.C. Walker, 244 West 143rd Street, NYC, "Liberty," Box 1312, New York, or "Mother Earth," P.O. Box 217, Madison Square Station, New York City.
No comments:
Post a Comment