Vol. 73/No. 28      July 27, 2009

BY FARRELL DOBBS  
By the spring of 1877 the cumulative hardships stemming from prolonged economic depression had generated widespread discontent among the exploited masses. So great was the social unrest, in fact, that the first substantial upsurge of class struggle precipitated a general confrontation between labor and capital.

The conflict opened when new wage cuts were imposed by railroad companies. This was one blow too many for the workers involved, who launched spontaneous walkouts on one railway line after another. A few among them belonged to weak craft unions. But in the main they were unorganized and without ready-made means of conducting a strike. Under those circumstances organizational improvisations, including formation of an ad hoc leadership, had to be devised in the heat of battle.

As the walkout gained momentum some of the Lassalleans momentarily put aside their opposition to trade union activity and joined with the Marxists in calling for all-out support of the railroad workers. Cadres of the Workingmen’s Party extended help to the strikers in solving their organizational problems. In a couple of cities this led to formal inclusion of socialists, who were not necessarily railroad workers, in strike committees. A substantial contribution was thereby made to what rapidly developed into an effective shutdown of virtually the entire railway system.

Capitalist efforts to crush the walkout became increasingly brutal as it grew in scope. This counterattack took place behind a smokescreen of antilabor propaganda laid down by newspaper editors, church dignitaries, and other “civic leaders.” It began with the hiring of strikebreakers at premium pay to run trains. The private railway police assigned to protect the scabs were beefed up and steps were initiated to form antilabor vigilante gangs.

At the same time, all levels of government went into action against the workers. City police and state militias were used to break up picket lines. Strikers were clubbed and jailed. Both official and extralegal armed bodies fired upon workers’ gatherings, killing some and wounding many.

Those vicious assaults provoked a widening of the struggle. Large numbers of workers came to the direct aid of the embattled railroad strikers and the walkout was extended to other industries. The high point of the movement was reached in St. Louis, Missouri, where labor solidarity became manifested through a general strike in which socialists functioned as key leaders.

By then the national government had entered the conflict on the side of the bosses. Federal troops used extensively as the main repressive force tipped the scales against labor. The railroad strikers were finally driven back to their jobs in defeat.

Despite the setback received in the immediate struggle, the labor movement had gained new potential. Many workers had become more aware of their common interests as a class. They had also become more perceptive of the solidarity among the employers as a class in opposing them, as well as the antilabor character of the capitalist government. These advances in consciousness gave rise, in the aftermath of the strike defeat, to the initiation of working-class political action. Labor parties arose spontaneously in many cities to run candidates for government office in the 1877 elections.

For those parties to act effectively, the workers’ demands as a class had to be generalized in political form. Safeguards were required to maintain rank-and-file control over electoral policy. Care had to be taken, as well, to assure that—in seeking political allies—labor continued to function at all times as an independent class force.

To achieve such objectives the workers needed help from the revolutionary vanguard. But the Workingmen’s Party had lost the leadership capacity shown during the brief span when the ranks were somewhat more united than usual in support of the railroad strike. Entirely different courses of action were put forward by the rival formations within the organization, and both failed to meet their obligations to the working class.

As the leaders of the Marxist tendency appraised the new situation, an objective basis did not yet exist for creation of a mass labor party. There was neither a high enough degree of class consciousness among the workers for them to act as a truly independent political force, they contended, nor the trade union strength required to maintain control over a broad electoral formation. Hence, the socialists were confined to two immediate tasks. One of these was through propaganda and education to help the workers acquire political class consciousness from their experiences in industrial conflicts. The other task was to promote the revival of trade union activity in the aftermath of the strike defeat and to press for creation of a labor federation through which the various unions could act in concert. It would be a mistake, they held, for the party to bypass those functions in order to center attention on election campaigns. The socialist movement lacked the broad influence needed to carry weight as an independent political factor on the electoral arena, and activity of that kind would serve to divert its cadres from trade union work.

In adopting such an outlook, the leaders of the Marxist tendency left aside the question of what to do about the labor parties that were developing spontaneously.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home