terests of the working class upheld only by an organisation 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.”
All kinds and shades of theories and programs were represented among the delegates and individuals present at the first convention. The principal ones in evidence, however, were four: Parliamentary socialists—two types—impossibilist and opportunist, Marxian and reformist; anarchist; industrial unionist; and the labor union fakir. The task of combining these conflicting elements was attempted by the convention. A knowledge of this task makes it easier to understand the seeming contradictions in the original Preamble.
The first year of the organization was one of internal struggle for control by these different elements. The two camps of socialist politicians looked upon the I. W. W. only as a battle ground upon which to settle their respective merits and demerits. The labor fakirs strove to fasten themselves upon the organization that they might continue to exist if the new union was a success. The anarchist element did not interfere to any great extent in the internal affairs. Only one instance is known to the writer: that of New York City where they were in alliance with one set of politicians, for the purpose of controlling the district council.
In spite of these and other obstacles the new organization made some progress fought a few successful battles with the employing class, and started publishing a monthly organ, “The Industrial Worker.” The I. W. W. also issued the first call for the defense of Moyer, Haywood, and Pettibone under the title, “Shall our Brothers be Murdered?”; formed the defense league; and it is due to the interest awakened by the I. W. W. that other organizations were enlisted in the fight to save the lives of the officials of the W. F. M. which finally
