...

The Haywood-Cannon Caucus released a set of proposals along with a revealing preamble. Its release has caused a stir among some wobblies (members of the IWW, if the beloved reader is not hip to the lingo) ranging from support, derision, and mockery. Its blatant yet unmentioned tendency revived sectional arguments and confrontations. While I found plenty that I disagree with, including both the assumptions the caucus makes and their proposals, I also found plenty that I believe are good ideas worth discussing. If I may be so arrogant as to assume a nuanced position regarding the caucus, I believe that there are worthwhile proposals to consider for this or next year’s convention.

Let’s begin with the name of the caucus. William “Big Bill” Haywood was a founding member of the IWW. James P Cannon was a wobbly who had been trained by Haywood, would become a Bolshevik-style American Communist before learning of and following Trotsky’s critique of the Comintern in 1928. Given how closely the caucus adopts Trotskyist tactics and assumptions, I would name the caucus the Cannon-Haywood Caucus (which has the added benefit of alphabetical order, on top of its clarity). Haywood is a complicated figure who had plenty of failure to stain an honest legacy, though his myth is great enough that invocation of his name garners some kind of respect and attention from leftists (and even liberal unionists).

Upholding Cannon and thus Trotskyist thought, along with the Trotskyist positions that lurk within their preamble and proposals reveal a social democratic orientation. Naturally Trotskyism is a style of social democracy which is far more tolerable than that of Stalinism (AKA Marxism-Leninism). Nonetheless, any incarnation of social democracy must be met with critique to reveal its dangerous inadequacies for the purported mission of working class emancipation.

Social Democracy

The caucus has a perspective on the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution (like any leftist who grapples with the history of proletarian revolution). They support the past actions of the Bolshevik party during the revolution and characterize those socialists who had opposed their actions as anticommunists (definitionally nonsensical, since any wobbly who fully subscribed to the preamble qualifies as a communist). Most revealing, in contradistinction to those ‘anti-communist’ wobblies they mention “wobblies won over to the qualitative advance set forth by the Russian proletariat and their party” (emphasis mine).

What constitutes the qualitative advance in the Bolshevik regime is beyond the scope of this post. Their use of the phrase “and their party” casts implications about the relation between party and class. A political party purporting to represent the working class, to be its vanguard, to think and decide and direct the working class for its behalf is the kernel of the social democratic tendencies. The various splinters since WWI show us a variety of different evolutions, from Kautsky-like reformist social democracy to Leninist/Bolshevik revolutionary social democracy. “Stripped of all wrappings, what remains is the old social-democratic conception regarding the path and the goal of socialism, according to which the beginning and end of the struggle for socialism lies in the conquest of political power through the social-democratic party.”¹ The idea that there is a party out there, one socialist political party among the many and various incarnations, each purporting to and appointing itself director and leader of the working class in opposition to each other, is dismal and impoverished thinking and has been since the collapse of the Second International. Most important to note here is that this thinking ultimately implies a subordination of the class to the party and speaks more to party dictatorship than class dictatorship​.

It’s no surprise, then, that the first proposal they advance is repealing the ban on endorsing political parties. They go further suggesting that the union actually actively supports a political party, as other unions (labor brokers) do. Of course, they don’t mean either the Democratic or Republican Parties, but “an independent working class party and candidates rooted in the unions.” Of course it’d be nice to have union support for friendly candidates, but how far those candidates can go and especially how that kind of activity would effect a revolutionary union cannot be left out of consideration. Electoral socialism blunts the fighting spirit of the working class. The political party as it operates in bourgeois politics saps and subordinates the self-activity of the working class. Workers often look to some hero in politics rather than realize that there are no heroes, only each fellow worker with whom we must combine in struggle against all of what this society is.

Given the above implications of the preamble, I wonder what the vague independent working class party would be. What would be its relationship with the IWW and the working class generally, if not that of the old picture of social democracy – a party directing and stupefying the class as a shepherd leads its flock? The wonder, truly, is that we continue to imagine a party that directs the class rather than suggests and wins appeal by its own merits and makes its own actions in the defense of its own class interests (here I’m supposing a worker-only party, which is heterodox, but whatever). Regardless of what anyone may think of socialist political parties, the hazard remains. There should be no need for mention of the importance of working class agency without party intercession. How else does the working class dictate, that is to say, exercise proletarian dictatorship? If workers cannot devise their own strategies and come to their own conclusions by their own merits, by their own involvement in the class struggle and thereby truly learning that it is their own struggle, that they are a part of this struggle and a member of a revolutionary class, then we are doomed to see the twilight of opportunities as we’ve witnessed throughout the centuries by cowed and faithful submission to whatever political party.

The IWW in particular must not become associated with one or another political party. Some wobblies, even officials, have been members of socialist parties (Socialist Party of America is the easiest example to point to, though there are CPUSA, PSL, and DSA (technically not a political party but close enough) members who are also members of the IWW today). This doesn’t only lend the advantage of allowing leftists with theoretical differences to collaborate in the real work of organizing, but also ensures the union’s independence from any political party. Since the IWW aims to become a class union, as discussed below, this also ensures class independence. The emancipation of the working class can only be the task of the working class, not simply because it is important that it not be led astray by whatever party of crackpots but because that is the only way the working class can learn to govern itself and its enemies as it assumes rule over society.

Constructive Elements

Now that I’ve pointed out the problems inherent in its social democratic orientation, I did mention that there were things about this caucus that I appreciated. Several of the critiques that the caucus leverages against the IWW in its current shape ring true and are acknowledged by most wobblies. While many wobblies might disagree with what is proposed, I think several items are admirable and deserve attention. Other items are obvious but constrained by capacity and perhaps betray a naivete. They write that “the marginality of the union is in part due to an inability of the IWW to adapt to our current conjuncture.” While it’s certainly true, the nature of “our current conjuncture” and what adaptation is required remain unanswered. Answering this question is a task of research and study, practice and struggle, and reflection for the next bout – ‘praxis’, to confine it to a single academic buzzword. This nuance in engaging with the Haywood-Cannon Caucus mirrors my thoughts on most of the remaining proposals – having potential for good and ill and desiring refinement.

There are a couple proposals which actually do not require much refinement (and I’d include their fourth proposal here regarding breaking out of our ‘boutique model’ but, as I discuss below, requires some analysis as to the thought behind the proposal). I’ll just mention these briefly, expressing my enthusiastic endorsement of these proposals. The first proposal (actually their third in the list) is to set a standard of two Organizer Trainers per Branch in the IWW so as to allow for a greater capacity in offering training to new members. I think every wobbly would agree with this idea. Indeed, it’s something that the Upstate NY Regional GMB has taken seriously, attempting to get as many FWs into a Training for Trainers as possible. Especially for a regional GMB with a turf as large as (and even exceeding) upstate New York, ensuring that there are as many trainers as possible to guide new members into organizing in their workplaces is very important.

The other proposal calls for a more robust advertising and propaganda campaign, reading as follows: “A mass propaganda campaign must be waged by the union to popularize and familiarize the US working class towards the IWW and its mission. There should be regular paid advertisement across social media platforms to reach especially younger workers who don’t read print newspapers.” I think that this is worthwhile and appropriate. I can see arguments against advertising on certain sites, such as the shitshow of Twitter (now known as the goofy ass name X thanks to the goofy ass cracker Elon Musk) or the diabolical Meta social media properties. While there is certainly merit to the argument of feeding money to fascistic and neoliberal tech titans, it must be remembered that we must propagandize where workers frequent. Educating and engaging with fellow workers must take precedence over our distaste in participating in capitalist frameworks.

The mass propaganda proposal may garner some disagreement among some wobblies, but I endorse it. These two proposals of setting a standard of two trainers per branch and utilizing paid advertising are good on their own terms. They require no further note beyond my expressed support.

Adjacent to good ideas are that of “break[ing] out of [the IWW]’s boutique unionism which targets small shops and look[ing] to unionize large corporate employers.” No wobbly wants something different. We all want to see massive corporations tremble before their workers organized into the IWW. Given the strategy of solidarity unionism and the autonomy of local shops and branches, negotiating and fighting on a national or international stage poses serious challenges. It will present not only the logistical challenge of ensuring that all workers in the company or industry are able to deliberate and collaborate on issues, demands, and strategies, but the organizing challenge of a drive of such magnitude. The desire is present, of course. It need not be stated that we want to see entire Walmart shops, Amazon centers, Borg Warner facilities, etc. organized under the IWW. The question of how to get there lies not in whether we want to see it but whether we can. The IWW as of right now does not have the capacity to organize at that magnitude yet. This is something to build up towards. Finally, as has been said of this item by other wobblies before: we would organize there if a worker came to us. The answer in summary: Obviously, but that requires capacity and for workers to contact us and organize in their shops; in a large workplace like Walmart or Amazon, for example, it may be many years before it could safely be an open shop.

Dual-Carding Committee

The Caucus recommends the establishment of a Dual Card Committee.² I agree that a Dual Card Committee should be established, but on what shape and purpose that committee should take we differ drastically. The Caucus suggests that this committee be built:

to systematically coordinate and further IWW principles within the business unions for those wobblies who are both in the IWW and a business union. As of now our dual card members are disorganized and lack direction in better realizing IWW principles within the business unions, thus allowing liberal hegemony to remain intact within the business unions. We should bore from within wherever wobblies are already present within the business unions.

Are wobblies in shops that are already represented by ‘business unions’ (what I’ll refer to henceforth as labor brokers) simply there to exist as a reform caucus? Is their purpose to fix another union or to help their fellow workers organize regardless of the labor broker’s mandates and direction? Is the dual-carder to reform the labor brokerage firm into a union or to organize rank-and-file workers into a de facto union? The answer is chimeric. A dual-carder in, for instance, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) or the United Auto Workers (UAW) may well be in the reform caucus – Teamsters for a Democratic Union or Uniting All Workers for Democracy, respectively. That is not the task of the IWW, though.

It’s a (good) choice made by those wobblies in that position to build worker power within the business union by joining and helping (or even forming) a reform caucus. Building worker power in the workplace and in society generally is the task of the IWW. Dual-carders are not fixing other union’s problems but organizing the rank-and-file to fight on their own terms and for their own class interests independent of their labor brokers. FW Driedger, writing about his experiences dual-carding and its purpose, shares that he thinks “the ultimate goal is the same as in the [Organizer Training] 101: build a functioning shop committee that can mobilize workers on the floor to take direct action in their own interests.”³

Whatever the Dual Card Committee might become, it’s essential that its focus not be on fixing the problems of other unions, or if it sees fit to do that, not do it to the exclusion of organizing rank-and-filers and actually building the One Big Union. I may comment on this further in another post because I’m a dual-carder and I have many half-formed thoughts outside the bounds of this post.

Amalgamation

The Caucus also calls for an openness to amalgamation. Its proposal invokes the phrase “One Big Union.” Certainly it’s ideal if other unions join with us in forming that One Big Union, but there are serious drawbacks and dangers to consider. Yes, if the opportunity arises we should amalgamate, but only with stiff stipulations that what resulting combination shall be run by the rank and file and revolutionary in its orientation to capitalism. There is a real danger that what results will become a pale union without any real revolutionary orientation or capacity, a labor broker with punchy rhetoric.

The invoked watchword of “One Big Union” on its own refers to the principle of industrial unionism, where all workers in a shop, regardless of their role, expertise, or any other distinction (beyond whether they are included in management) are organized into the same union. One Big Union for the entire shop. Often enough, the phrase is expanded to “One Big Union for All the Workers.” This denotes something beyond mere industrial unionism into a class unionism. The IWW aims to welcome, organize, and encompass the entire working class. Further, the intent of a class union isn’t for its own sake: the intent is class rule—worker dictatorship/democracy. Anything in a possible amalgamation that would betray or turn away from class rule must be avoided and rejected sharply.

Political education

Yes, but we need to be perfectly clear about what constitutes the capitalist mode of production in order to understand an associated, post-capitalist mode of production (communism), although our preamble already explains it satisfactorily. If our preamble gets it right, a different teaching may lead us back to capitalism in a form of social democracy or even cooperative capitalism. Anything but an elaboration of the preamble will obscure ourselves into a different party’s imagination of capitalism.

That’s not to say that elaboration isn’t important. Given the number of mutualists and others who see socialism beginning and ending in a coop in the union, I agree that elaboration is essential. It is a sad fact that already too many socialists do not understand the essential principles of what constitutes capitalism, and therefore have impoverished portraits of what communism is. It’s essential that the core of working class insurgency in the IWW maintain a clear picture of its plight and its emancipation – the destruction of the commodity form, thus the destruction of wage labor (labor-power being a commodity essential for the extraction of value), and so further the final destruction of class society and in its place the creation of a truly human, conscious, and free society.

Paid administrators

I agree that the IWW could hire more paid administrators. The “DIY attitude” can hamper the union’s business, though to say it’s a detriment is to miss its importance in the union and the working class in general. The attitude of doing it ourselves and the policy of direct action is transformative and guides us to self-reliance and self-government, indispensable to the growth of working class insurgency. This spirit should grow and be nurtured so it may prefigure the blossom of worker dictatorship​.

While we should cultivate the “DIY spirit” we should also ensure that the work is completed. The caucus glosses over the aspect of a labor bureaucracy which, given the state of the union, strikes me as very ironic. They write: “This is not to relinquish control of the union to a labor bureaucracy, but to have faith in ourselves to properly hold paid employees of the union to account according to the principles of the IWW.” Kelsey Tanabe-Walker remains the negligent and delinquent GST of the North American Regional Administration—proof for whether the union’s members can, at this moment, hold our paid administrators​ accountable. Perhaps with more paid administrators​ more work would be accomplished but without real mechanisms for accountability and responsive officers it’s certainly not guaranteed.

In Conclusion

Much of the caucus’ social democratic orientation can be dismissed, along with several of its proposed amendments. However, there are proposals that are worth supporting to grow the IWW into the catalyst of open working class insurgency. We should listen to each worker’s voice for their ideas and must consider them in sincerity. Each voice carries flaws and magnificence. We must welcome each fellow worker who understands the crime of our mode of production and, if necessary, correct conceptual imperfections to a real consciousness of not only the emancipation of the working class but humanity universally from all oppression from the material basis of a free society (which is, regardless, the promise of the emancipation of the exploited). We must ensure furthermore that whatever structures we build for our union are structures which empower workers not only in their workplace, but spiritually to the extent that they realize that all of society is theirs and their fellow workers’ to claim and win on their own terms.

References

Driedger, Nick. “On Dual-Carding (Or How Revolutionaries Should Approach Mainstream Unions).” Organizing.Work (blog), October 22, 2018. https://organizing.work/2018/10/on-dual-carding/.

Mattick, Paul. “Workers’ Councils and Communist Organization of Economy.” International Council Correspondence, vol. 1, no. 7, Apr. 1935, pp. 7–18. Marxists Internet Archive and Heavy Pancakes.

The Virginia Worker. “Revitalize the IWW! On Forming the Haywood-Cannon Caucus,” July 22, 2024. https://thevirginiaworker.com/2024/07/21/3618/.

---

1. Paul Mattick, “Workers’ Councils and Communist Organization of Economy,” International Council Correspondence 1, no. 7 (April 1935): 7–18. 17.11 in Heavy Pancakes. ↩︎

2. For those unaware, dual carding refers to when a wobbly is also a member of another union (e.g. the ITB, UFCW, UAW, and so on). ↩︎

3. Nick Driedger, “On Dual-Carding (Or How Revolutionaries Should Approach Mainstream Unions),” Organizing.Work (blog), October 22, 2018, https://organizing.work/2018/10/on-dual-carding/. ↩︎