>The IWW was influenced by anarcho-syndicalism, a strong current in
>the European labour movement before World War I. The
>anarcho-syndicalists did not believe in political action nor in the
>possibility of a workers' state, in this sense sharing the anarchist
>view that the state was an inherently oppressive institution which
>could not be transformed in the interest of the masses. The IWW was
>instead committed to the overthrow of capitalism by means of a
>massive and sustained general strike which would produce a new
>society organized from the bottom up through a confederation of
>self-governing industrial unions. Debs, Haywood, and other workers,
>however, were typically attracted to the organization because of its
>militancy and aim to unite the entire working class - notably
>including women, blacks, immigrants, and the unemployed - by
>industry rather than craft. Daniel de Leon eventually led a split
>from the organization on the question of political action to form
>the Socialist L!
> abor Party.
The SLP existed before the IWW I believe, I think the DeLeon split instead led to the attempt to create a rival IWW.
But the split was over the question of politics. The anarchists of course were opposed to a part of the IWW preamble which called for the working class to unite on the industrial field through the one big union, and separately on the political field. Something to that effect anyhow.
There was quite a debate, struggle, for the heart and soul of the IWW, which the Anarchists eventually won. DeLeon could not live with the result (which rejected any political action by the working class).
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
PS: I would highly recommend reading "As To Politics", which is a series of letters in the socialist press from DeLeon and the other side. http://www.deleonism.org/atp.htm Here is a taste, an excerpt from one of DeLeon's letters:
Not everything that capitalism has brought about is to be rejected. Such a vandal view would have to smash the giant machine of modern production as well. Among the valuable things that capitalism has introduced is the idea of peaceful methods for settling disputes. In feudal days, when lords fell out, production stopped; war had the floor. The courts of law have become the main fields of capitalist, at least internal capitalist battle, and production continues uninterfered with. It matters not how corrupt the courts have become, or one-sided against the working class. The jewel of civilized or peaceful methods for settling disputes is there, however incrusted with slime. Capitalism, being a step forward, as all Socialists recognize, can not help but be a handmaid, however clumsy, to civilized methods. Of a piece with the court method for the peaceful settlement of disputes is the political method. The organization that rejects this method and organizes for force only, reads itself out of the pale of civilization, with the practical result that, instead of seizing a weapon furnished by capitalism, it gives capitalism a weapon against itself.