—————
Hellraisers Journal – Saturday January 13, 1912
New York City – Haywood and Hillquit Debate Labor Question at Cooper Union
From The New York Call of January 12, 1912:
The first of a series of meetings for the discussion of the various problems confronting the Socialist party of America was held in Cooper Union last night with Julius Gerber, organizer of Local New York, which has arranged these meetings, presiding.
The big hall was jammed to the doors and the audience followed every word of the protagonists with breathless interest.
The meeting was a sort of family affair, only holders of red cards being allowed in the hall. A few Socialist Labor party men smuggled themselves into the crowd on borrowed S. P. cards. They were promptly recognized and Chairman Gerber asked that they leave the hall, which they did.
The subject of the discussion last night was “What shall the attitude of the Socialist party be toward the economic organization of the workers?”
William D. Haywood and Morris Hillquit were the debaters. Each of them was given an hour, the time being divided as follows: half an hour for the outline of the debate by each speaker, then each one got twenty minutes for rebuttal and finally ten minutes for closing the discussion.
Haywood opened the discussion. The burden of his arguments in the main was that the Socialist party should go among the workers and begin a propaganda for industrial unionism, for one big union. He assailed the American Federation of Labor and said that the Socialist party is acquiescing in the policy of the American Federation, which was a distinctly anti-Socialist and capitalist policy.
Industrial Form Superior, But-
Hillquit in his reply to Haywood said that there can be no question in the mind of any Socialist that the industrial form of organization is superior to the craft organization. But he did not believe that the Socialist should begin preaching industrialism outside of organized labor. The Socialist party, he said, should keep up its policy of trying to reach the workers in their present unions. The policy has been successful, Hillquit said, as is shown by the fact that every union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor has Socialists in important positions, as well as in the rank and file. These men have been elected to these positions by the rank and file, he said, because they were Socialists.
[…..]
Haywood’s Final Reply.
Haywood took the floor to reply in his final ten minutes.
He declared there is nothing in common between the policies of the American Federation of Labor and the Socialist party. The former, he said, is craft conscious as opposed to the class consciousness of the latter. He went on to show that by high initiation fees, curtailment of apprentices and even closing of books, membership is kept down and would-be members excluded…..
He went on to say that he had never advocated anything else but the organization of the workers as one man, and that he had believed and still believes the craft form of organization to be “ethically unjustifiable and tactically suicidal.”
At the same time he urged the necessity for political action, the political power to be used, not after the social revolution, but under present conditions, citing as an instance of its use the turning of the police against strikebreakers instead of against strikers.
Haywood explained that in criticizing the American Federation of Labor he criticized its leaders, who were members of the Knights of Columbus and of the Civic Federation executive.
Hillquit Finds Mystery Deep.
In taking the floor to close the debating. Hillquit declared that the mystery had deepened, seeing that Haywood did not oppose the rank and file of the A. F. of L. but the members of the Executive Committee of the Civic Federation…..
The difference between the speaker’s policy and Haywood’s, Hillquit declared, was that the former, while condemning the policies of Samuel Gompers, made efforts to educate the rank and file, while Haywood was ready to kick over and destroy the whole A. F. of L.
[…..]
[Emphasis added.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOURCES & IMAGES
Quote BBH re IU and Socialism, NYC Cooper Union
Debate w Hillquit, Jan 11, 1912
From:
The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912
-by Ira Kipnis
Pickle Partners Publishing, 2018
https://books.google.com/books?id=A75sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT591&lpg=PT591&dq=%22cooper+union%22+hillquit+haywood#v=onepage&q=%22cooper%20union%22%20hillquit%20haywood&f=false
The New York Call
(New York, New York)
-Jan 12, 1912, pages 1 & 2
https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/the-new-york-call/1912/120112-newyorkcall-v05n012.pdf
See also:
The Trial of a New Society
Being a Review of the Celebrated Ettor-Giovannitti-Caruso Case, Beginning with the Lawrence Textile Strike that caused it and including the general strike that grew out of it.
-by Justus Ebert
IWW Publishing Bureau, (1913)
-page 33 (#39)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucw.ark:/13960/t2w37vs93&view=page&seq=39
Chapter II
THE INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY GETS INTO ACTION.On the evening of January 11th, 1912, Joseph J. Ettor sat on the platform of historic Cooper Union, New York. From this rostrum, made famous by Lincoln, Henry George, and other notable Americans, the subject of Industrial Unionism was being debated. Morris Hillquit, lawyer and acknowledged intellectual leader of the Socialist party, was trying to prove it an impossibility and a dream. William D. Haywood was attempting the contrary. To all appearance, Haywood had failed; skillful dialectics had prevailed against a great tendency imperfectly defended.
Joseph J. Ettor, as he sat there listening to that debate, had in his pocket a telegram requesting him to come to Lawrence. It was sent by Angelo Rocco, the Italian chairman of the Ford Hall meeting, already referred to in the previous chapter. Neither Ettor nor Rocco realized the significance of that telegram in deciding the respective merits of the Cooper Union debate — not in theory, but in fact.
[Emphasis added.](opens in a new tab)
Bill Haywood’ Book
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood
International Publishers, 1929
-page 245 (#249)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015041365316&view=page&seq=249
Chapter XV
THE LAWRENCE STRIKE[…..]
A short time after I arrived in New York [following a coast to coast speaking tour], I took part in a debate in Cooper Union arranged between Morris Hillquit and myself, on the Socialist Party and the Industrial Workers of the World. The Socialist Party had then veered away from the industrial program of 1908, and had definitely adopted a platform of opportunism.. The election of a congressman was then, to the mind of the leading Socialists, one of the greatest achievements of the party. During this debate I read the amended preamble of the I. W. W. The words that referred to political action had been eliminated and other changes introduced, and the I. W. W. now stood as a revolutionary economic organization. As amended the preamble now read:
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so 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 the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever–growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs 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. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the workers have interests in common with their employers.
These 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.
Instead of the conservative motto, “A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,” we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword “Abolition of the wage system.” It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the every-day struggle with capitalists, but to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
Knowing therefore that such an organization is absolutely necessary for our emancipation, we unite under the following constitution.
I pointed out that although the I. W. W. would not affiliate with any political party, this action did not make them anti–political; that I was as much a Socialist as any other member of the Socialist Party. I remember that after the meeting, Hubert Harrison, a colored man, said to me that while Douglas had won the debate, Lincoln had carried the country. I took this to mean that Hillquit had won the debate, but the workers of the nation were with me.
This meeting was attended by many leading members of the I. W. W. Ettor, Giovanitti, Gurley Flynn, and Jim Thompson were there. Ettor had just received a telegram from the Italians of Lawrence, Massachusetts, asking him to come there, as there was going to be a strike of the textile workers. Ettor left for Lawrence at once and in a few days I got a telegram from him asking me to come and help him with the strike.
[…..]
[Emphasis added.]
Hubert Harrison, 1883–1927
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Harrison
Lincoln–Douglas Debates, Great Debates of 1858
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates
Tag: James P Thompson
https://weneverforget.org/tag/james-p-thompson/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There Is Power in a Union – John McCutcheon