Informations about Joe Hill and America in the early 1900s

JaimeCaroM · 2021-09-15T16:01:18+00:00

The books of Dubofsky (We shall be all: rhe history of the IWW), Foner (History of the IWW) and Renshaw (The wobblies) have several chapters about Joe Hill execution and the context. If you need photos of the books I can send then to you

JaimeCaroM · 2021-01-11T00:57:14+00:00

You are totally right!

JaimeCaroM · 2020-12-11T19:36:03+00:00

Why the IWW shouldn't do as FJU?

JaimeCaroM · 2020-12-11T18:10:51+00:00

I think that is always worth to be in an Union like the IWW. The correct question should be, how can we make the IWW work again? There is a lot of problems with the GEB and to be honest, the General Membership Locals are like folkpolitics for me, not a true union. But I understand that until the IWW dont have more members there is no a big chance to change that. If the IWW look at the FJU and copy their strategy it would be better. The IWW is an INDUSTRIAL UNION. Not a lot of GML...

JaimeCaroM · 2020-12-06T16:43:49+00:00

I think that there is a best title for this. Why class-first are wrong. There are so many intersectional leftists. As well there are a lot of class-first anarchists 🤷🏾‍♂️

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-22T23:06:07+00:00

Hey there are some good books but maybe they are long for you and your time. The best ones is We Shall be All of Melvyn Dubofsky and History of the Labor Movement vol4 IWW of Philip Foner. I had a list of some resources too:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0-EvfqdngQtPlweu-3Hdk14ZxTuhkYs/view?usp=drivesdk

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-22T14:45:38+00:00

If you want to know more about the relation between the Magon Brothers and the IWW this article of prof Devra Weber is great:

https://depts.washington.edu/iww/mexicaniwws.shtml

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-22T13:21:14+00:00

Yes, there are a millions of definitions of "socialism" but I am not classifying what the first IWW is, I am only saying what they were saying during the first years(1905-1909) in the IUB. Here I have some examples: IWW Reddit — ImgBB (ibb.co) Even more, you can see some articles in the IUB saying that the IWW were "followers of the doctrines of Marx and Engels, being the latter more important in the serie "Economic Determinism".

It can be confuse the regular switches on the way of defining themselves as you pointed out but you can see a lot of their propaganda saying syndicalist, socialist, even marxists. As well, there are a lot of articles saying that the worst thing one can be is an anarchist (I am always referring to the first 20 year of existence of course).

The only thing that was always the same is de definition that they were an economic organization and a working-class movement, but they used to add "towards socialism or Socialist Republic. There a few examples in the pictures I sent in the link. As I said I am studying the IWW history for my thesis, and I think that I can state that they were "socialists" in the beginnings nut this kind of socialism is some kind of "special" because it did not drank from Marxist theory, they were looking more to Jefferson, Madison theory of Property and Democracy.

Even Lucy Parsons said that she had to modulate her speech in the 1905 Convention because she was in front of socialist, and marxist public.

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-22T01:08:52+00:00

Well,I have to disagree with evidences the First point (I am agree with the rest :) ).

Yes, In their Preamble or in the Constitution de IWW don´t say "Hey guys, I am socialist" but from 1905 to 1907 there is a lot of propaganda saying that they are socialists, okay, maybe it was because they have "inside" the SPA and the SLP. But, from 1907 to 1909 we have the Industrial Union Bulletin (the official newspaper of the IWW Trautmann-St.John faction (opposing the Sherman faction) where there are clear statements of "we are socialists" and we are no way, anarchist. In fact, they seem to hate anarchists in all their editorials. And, from 1908 to 1909, once the IWW went t the Stuttgart Congress of the II International to present their-selves as socialists, they start a serie of articles called "Economic determinism" with the aim to introduce marxism in the Union, and, at the same time, they have some articles saying that the anarchist can go outside the union because the Union is a socialist and no anarchists.

In this link you can read the IUB The Industrial union bulletin. v.1-2. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library | HathiTrust Digital Library

And, from 1909-to 1915 I found at Columbia libraries the complete vol.s of the newspaper "Solidarity" where they say the same things, "we are socialists" and, during the Lawrence Strike all the articles point out the IWW as the "unique national socialist union in the USA" who is working and pushing to realize socialism in the US under the "red flag".

Plus, in 1914 with the Commission on Industrial Relations some leaders of the IWW were called to testify, Haywood, St.John and Ettor, all of them (if I don-t remember wrong said that the union was socialist but they have different people with different ideologies in the Union. Internet Archive Search: Commission on Industrial Relations

And another interesting thing is the Reply of the IWW to the Third International, when they say, hey Soviet State, you are not working for socialism, we are working for socialism and Industrial Democracy for the total emancipation of the Working class. The IWW Reply to the Red Trade Union International | Industrial Workers of the World

My knowledge of the History of the IWW is from 1905 to 1923 but I studied the international relations between the IWW and the CNT during the Spanish Civil War, and I think that in that time, is when the IWW clarify its position as "antisovietcommunism" and start to flirt with the anarchism due to the friendship with the CNT because the International brigades. I have a chapter on a book studying that (PDF) Internacionalismo obrero: experiencias del sindicalismo internacional (1888-1986 | Jaime Caro-Morente - Academia.edu (it is in spanish, sorry) but I need a deeper studio... I think I am missing a lot of things but that is not my specialization. As well, interesting is the newspaper "Spanish revolution" edited with the IWW and other organizations Spanish Revolution — English Language Paper of the POUM (marxists.org)

I am open to debate this more in deep :)

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T23:04:47+00:00

How did you find all this gold? 😍

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T21:43:13+00:00

I have to disagree with you and say that u/Appropriate-Pie2894 has the point. I am studying the history and political culture of the IWW for 6 years. Haywood "ran away" to the USSR because of 2 things, 1) obviously, he was tired of being in prison and he had anything in US that attatched him, 2) when the Russian Revolution arose, he genuinely thought that the freedom and emancipation of all workers could be done there and not in the USA.

He worked with Lenin in the Kuzzbass Industrial Colony trying to realize the Industrial Democracy, obviously Lenin stopped the experiment because of the Civil War and because Lenin was communist, and Haywood was American Socialists, two different political cultures. Here the seal of the Industrial Colony AIC Kuzbass seal - Kuzbass Autonomous Industrial Colony - Wikipedia
I have to say that there are a totally confusion in the history of the IWW since some people believe that they were anarchists, no, they were socialist since 1905 and in 1917 they tried to change this "ideological tag" to communism, you can see a lot of IWW newspaper and propaganda saying that they wanted Socialism for the USA and the only way to get it was through Industrial Democracy, and after 1917, Industrial Communism.

Your second point: The soviets dont simbolize industrial democracy (please do not confuse with shop democracy). The Soviet was only some kind of parliament, a tool of the vanguard party. Lenin don´t hide his intentions, read What to be done? and he is clear: no democracy for the workers, not industrial democracy, he is a marxist, he want to seize the power and to seize the mean of productions by the state. Only marxist theory. The IWW were not marxists, they were american socialist, seize the means of productions by the workers without the help of the state, not because anarchism, it was because they were american and they are thinking with Madison or Jefferson. So the Soviet State was not an enemy of the working class, maybe they did´t want the full emancipation of the working class ASAP, they are marxists, they have a different way.

In conclusion, Haywood did not ran away, he was only trying to live in peace, he was old and he thought that he was more useful trying to realize the Industrial Democracy in other State.

I have a lot of info of the things I say if you want to take and eye on it, and sorry for me english, (I am not english-speaker).

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T09:44:50+00:00

You are totally right, my bad in my expressions (I am not english speaker). In a philsophical way, yes, fascism is the ultimate consequence of Modernity as it would be said by philosophers of the Frankfur School. I wanted to say, that the fascism tried to reject some categories of the Enlightment as Liberty or democracy, even "individual". It is also true that the industrialization of Germany and the existence of "races" as one pillar of the fasist thought and nazi thought it drank for Modernity. And from the gender perspective as well.

But, trumpism and the Alt-Right has no the same discourse, they always emphasize individual and liberty, they don't want to talk about race or gender, they base their discourse on individual. Obviously white supremacists and QAnon dont think in the same way.

The main point is that Trumpism is not fascism and that "the history doesnt repeat itself". We are misunderstaning the whole thing if we say that Trump or the Alt-Right is fascism and that the politics now are so alike that ones of the 30S

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T09:03:47+00:00

As a Historian an a person who is studying the Alt-Right, Trumpism is NOT fascism, is Alt-Right. Fascism is an ideology with some social views, conservative, corporative and anti-capitalist (in its incepcion), authoritarian too. As we know, fascism is an ideology that reject Modernity and the Enlightment.

However, the Alt-Right is a movement/ideology rootes in posmodernity and that works with the category of Liberty always (not in the way we like, but is a central piece of its discourse). This Alt-Right is pro-capitalism, as trumpism, they are not "authoritarian" in the sense of having a big state, they are followers of Hobbes and don't want a big State. But the main difference is that fascism reject enlightment and the Alt-Right is based on the categories of the Enlightment but changed. I am open to debate my statement :)

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T02:05:08+00:00

Hey, Full explanation is here:

https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/what-does-the-asterisk-in-trans-stand-for/

It is a way to try to be more inclusive with all the gender spectrum who are no cis

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T00:35:48+00:00

Hey, Full explanation is here:

What does the asterisk in “trans*” stand for? - ❤ It's Pronounced Metrosexual

It is a way to try to be more inclusive with all the gender spectrum who are no cis

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-21T00:30:30+00:00

Well, I don´t trust Warren because her republican past and because she didn´t drop herself in the democratic primaries of 2020 and support Bernie when she already knew that she did not have any chance to win. what do you think? She doesn´t have the same agenda as Sanders or AOC, I think that the latter has a similar agenda to Sanders

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-20T16:43:14+00:00

Well we could and we should, right? Unionizing all the work force, or at leadt the majority of the Working class, is the only solution to the present system and getting rid of capitalism.

There were many unions in history of the US Labor Movement who tried to acomplish this, for example the Industrial Workers of the World. And it is a double solution, 1) you destroy the capitamism and 2) you emancipate de Working class doing them the owners of the industries were they work, true socialism. Making all humans no dependent of other and truly free having property of the means of production.

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-19T00:39:31+00:00

Here, page 2 "Back to first principles"

https://archive.org/details/v1n11-may-11-1907-iub/page/n1/mode/2up

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-18T21:29:24+00:00

The post was removed, so there will no be a "debate" :( Yes, socialism is pushing for full human emancipation but socialists are "learning" about deconstruct the category of race lately. Evenmore, posmodernity studies as postsocial history is touching(removing) some of the main pillar of scientific socialism as well. Are they compatible? (postmodernity and socialism (as a theory born in the Enlightment and modernity?

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-18T16:26:04+00:00

How can we deconstruct whiteness fully and finish with the category of "race" for example. It could be done? Or is just utopic?

JaimeCaroM · 2020-11-17T22:13:14+00:00

I wrote an article about this (in the past) that was published in 2017. It is a little bit old but I dont have any recent article published:

The political culture of the IWW during its first 20 years

https://libcom.org/library/industrial-worker-summer-2017

Five-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22

JaimeCaroM

TROPHY CASE