💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › joseph-labadie-selected-essays.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:24:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Selected Essays
Author: Joseph Labadie
Date: 1884–1918
Language: en
Topics: socialism, anti-nationalism, trade unions
Source: Retrieved om January 29, 1999 from [[http://members.aol.com/labadiejo/page6.html]]
Notes: Edited by Carlotta Anderson

Joseph Labadie

Selected Essays

Labadie spent much of his childhood living among the Pottawatomi Indians

of Michigan, to whom his father served as interpreter for the Jesuit

missionaries, and had only a few months of formal schooling. With the

help of his schoolteacher wife and on-the-job exposure as a printer,

however, he developed into a lively, lucid and persuasive writer,

tempering his outrage at injustice with witty and sarcastic commentary.

A prolific writer, his columns were widely published in the national

labor and radical press as well as the Detroit News and other

"capitalist" papers. Many were written under the title, "Cranky

Notions." Labadie thought its apologetic name appropriate for his "stray

thoughts…crude and 'jerky' because they come from an unlearned mechanic

[craftsman] who has not had the time from the 'demnition grind' to

polish them up."

What is Socialism?

Labadie defined socialism as a general term which encompasses several

theories of how to create a more just society and bring about a greater

degree of human happiness. These included both the views of state

socialists, who would use government and the ballot as their instrument,

and anarchists, who would supplant the state with voluntary associations

using any system they chose.

He often said, "All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists

are anarchists."

Labadie wrote the following thoughts a year after transferring his

allegiance from state socialism to anarchism. They were part of an

article titled "What is Socialism?" which appeared in the

November/December, 1884 issue of Truth: The Organ of Scientific

Socialism in America.

What is Socialism? There have been so many definitions given of it that

the minds of those who are not persistent in its study become confused,

and they finally cry out in despair: "What in the world do these people

want anyway?--what in the world is Socialism?" One school calling itself

Socialist wants to abolish the State, and contends that government is

tyranny; another school wants the State to assume control of all the

means of producing and distributing wealth and give to each according to

his deeds; and still another wants all property to be common and each to

receive according to his needs. One wants cooperation by the State,

another wants absolute free competition. One wants all taxes raised on

land values, and the taxes so high as to absorb rent; another wants to

abolish taxes entirely, and contends that rent is robbery…

The principal source of difference between the two most conflicting

schools, or in fact the two great sub-divisions of Socialists, is in the

methods of reaching the greatest happiness. The anarchists believe in

absolute personal liberty and that the institutions of society should

conform to the individualities of persons; and the State Socialists

believe in the authority of the majority and that the individual should

conform to the institutions of the State and that the State shall be an

absolute democracy. They all agree that the resources of nature--land,

mines, and so forth--should not be held as private property and subject

to being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of

these things shall be the only valid title, and that each person has an

equal right to the use of all these things. They all agree that the

present social system is one composed of a class of slaves and a class

of masters, and that justice is impossible under such conditions. But

when the questions are asked: "How are these conditions to be changed?"

and 'What will we substitute for the present system?" their answers are

as much at variance as are the forces of cohesion and repulsion…

Anarchism, as I see it, is a beautiful theory, and even if not capable

of complete realization the grandest of human aspirations. But I doubt

whether man will ever be far enough removed from the tadpole to enjoy it

as it is dreamed of. I believe, though, that the Labor movement in its

entirety is moving towards the ultimate of absolute, personal freedom…I

hope to see the day when the right to labor will be recognized and a

much larger share of the products go to the producer than now. It is

possible the powers and functions of the State will increase and methods

be adopted largely influenced by the doctrines of Karl Marx and Henry

George. State authority and State control over industry are taking

strong hold of the popular mind and…will possibly have to spend itself

before any large number of people will seriously consider that there may

be other and better ways to establish equity than by centralized

authority…

Between absolute autonomy and majority rule there is no middle ground.

However much I may sympathize with those who seek to harmonize these two

conflicting elements, yet reason tells me that…one or the other must be

extinguished. Sooner or later this truth will become clear to every

social reformer, and the time will come when he will have to take his

stand either on the one side or on the other…

There is a possibility that, as it is darkest just before dawn, the

nearer we get to anarchy the more completely will the individual become

the child of the State. The State Socialist wants the land nationalized;

the Anarchist wants it individualized. The State Socialist wants money

nationalized ; the Anarchist wants it individualized. The State

Socialist wants governmental co-operation; the Anarchist wants

individual competition, the object in both cases being to make cost the

limit of price, and, as I see it, both methods capable of accomplishing

that result if only carried out consistently. If the people can be

persuaded through the State, or forced by the majority, to do those

things that are best for all, there may come a time when they will do

these things because it is best…may it not be possible that Anarchism

will be the result of State Socialism, or, in other words, is not State

Socialism only another way of reaching Anarchism?…

Uncle Sam, The Real Culprit

Labadie was a lively, incisive and often witty writer, although he had

only a few months of formal education. His columns titled "Cranky

Notions" were widely published in the labor and radical press, and in

Benjamin Tucker's Liberty, the leading journal of individualist

anarchism. "Uncle Sam, the Real Culprit," originally published in the

Detroit Labor Leaf, appeared in the October 3, 1885 issue of Liberty, at

a time when Chinese immigrant workers were widely reviled by labor

leaders because they were willing to work more cheaply than white

workers.

I hope that it is true that the Knights of Labor had nothing to do with

the brutal massacre of the Chinese in Rock Springs, Wyoming…It is my

opinion that this cry against foreigners is redounding more to the

benefit of the capitalist and monopolist classes than it is to the

working class. If our masters can only keep up the race prejudices, and

pit us against the foreigners in the scramble for the dear privilege of

using Nature's bounteous gifts, which, under existing law, are

absolutely under their control, there is little fear that their unjust

privileges will be questioned in such a manner as to endanger them…It is

the right of every human being to live wherever he chooses on this

earth. There is a good deal of nonsense in the idea that this is "our"

country. Who are "we," anyway? Are we not "foreigners," or the direct

descendants of foreigners? No more of this earth rightly belongs to any

individual or set of individuals than is necessary for the maintenance

of their own existence. There is room in America for a hundred times

more people than are now here. But monopolists would make us believe

that these poor wretches--who are brought here by themselves [the

monopolists] for their own ignoble purposes, by the way--are responsible

for our poverty. This is not true. No one who is willing to work and

earn his own living can be the cause of another's poverty. He who stands

between the laborer and the natural means of producing wealth is the

real cause of poverty. We are wont to look upon Uncle Sam as the

protector of the poor, of the laborer. This is a Great Mistake. Uncle

Sam is the aider and abettor of the robbery that is continuous and that

keeps you and me living from hand to mouth. Does not Uncle Sam uphold

landlordism in all its injustice and brutality? Does not Uncle Sam

sustain a law of his own making that no individual or set of individuals

shall exercise the right of issuing notes as money who has less than

fifty thousand dollars? Does not Uncle Sam establish agencies all over

the world that induce laborers to come here who are cheaper than those

at home to work for his privileged class? Does not Uncle Sam put on a

high duty to prevent you and me from buying goods wherever we can do the

best, thereby forcing us to buy of his pet robbers? Uncle Sam is really

at the bottom of nearly all this misery and degradation, and a great

deal of t would be abolished if he would only withdraw the suppose of

his big strong arm from these pickpockets…If we could only get the old

man out of the way, class conflicts, race conflicts, economic injustice,

and social degradation would gradually die out. This kind of talk may be

treason to Uncle Sam, but it is patriotism to the human race.

Cranky Notions, March 24, 1886

Appearing in Labor Leaf just weeks before the Haymarket bombing of May

4, 1886, which unleashed a frenzy of anti-anarchist denunciation, this

impassioned "Cranky Notions" column predicts a violent revolution and

the downfall of capitalism.

Into what a seething, turbulent, roaring condition the industrial world

has suddenly been thrown!

The cry from every capitalistic quarter is now, 'Go slow!'

But the cry comes too late.

For years a few hated and despised agitators have warned the people of

breakers ahead, but they were look upon with scorn and their warnings

were unheeded.

The privileged class are intoxicated with their successes at robbing the

wealth producers, and in their glee they clap their hands and dance with

joy.

Alas, it may prove the dance of death!

These industrial rumblings are only the more distinct thunder-claps that

precede the devastating storm.

No power on earth can now avert a violent revolution!

The Hoxies, the Jake Sharpes, the Goulds, the Vanderbilts, the Muirs;

the Lumber Barons, the Salt Dukes, the Land Lords, the Railroad Kings,

the Money Princes--in short, the privileged class, have invited a

revolution, and it will come upon them with relentless fury.

The downfall of Capitalism is inevitable!

The blind Sampson [sic] of Labor has been groping, lo! These many years;

the memories of the abuses heaped upon him are rankling in his breast;

he is at this moment tugging at the pillars of the Temple of Capitalism,

and its destruction is as sure as that tomorrow will come.

The agitators have sought to avert this calamity, but their warnings

have been as unheeded as the moaning of the wind.

It is useless now to try to escape the revolution.

All we can do is to prepare for it and try to modify its destructive

tendencies, and at the same time reap the full benefits that will

naturally result from the overturning of a vicious social system.

Trades Unionism as I Understand It

Samuel Gompers commissioned an article by Labadie, "Trades Unionism As I

Understand It," for the American Federation of Labor journal, American

Federationist. It appeared in the April, 1894, issue. As an anarchist,

Labadie was insistent that trade unions stay away from political action,

including lobbying and demands for pro-labor legislation. This stance

was philosophically in tune with Gompers, who believed in voluntary

methods and feared government intervention:

Trades unionism as I understand it is a co-operative effort on the part

of wage earners to better their economic conditions in a special way. It

is one of the many ways pointed out by social and political economists

for the betterment of the race. It is not its province to attempt to do

everything that is good, any more than should one person attempt to do

all the things that it is possible for one man to do. We have learned by

experience that it is more economical, more effective, for each person

to do one particular thing than it is for each person to do everything

that is necessary to be done, if that were not possible. There was a

time when almost every person was Jack of all trades and master of none,

but that time has long since gone by. The division of labor has made it

possible for one person to be master of one trade, or at least one

branch of a trade, and the result is that the productivity of labor has

increased to a wonderful degree. This specializing of efforts has taken

place in almost every avenue of life, and so far has been one of the

greatest actors in progress and civilization.

There is a tendency among trades unionists to fly in the face of this

law of progress, and to have the trades unions take upon themselves

multitudinous functions. It seems to me that a trade union should

confine its efforts strictly to those things that are peculiar to the

trade of which the union is formed...The failure of the K. of L.

[Knights of Labor] to succeed on trade lines was largely because the

members of one trade attempted to settle disputes in other trades,

instead of letting each trade settle its own disputes.

Trades unions are so named because they were intended, and rightly so,

to do that for the tradesman which a mixed body could not do so well,

and which is peculiar to the particular trade organized. Those things

which are not peculiar to any particular trades have no right to be

introduced into a trade union. Hence no political or religious problem

has any business in a trade union, because these are questions which

affect the whole body of citizens, whether they be tradesmen or

not....We must separate the trade organization from the political or the

religious organization to be in harmony with the law of progress and to

invite the largest degree of success.

Because this is so does not preclude workingmen from taking political

action, if they so choose, but they must organize for that especial

purpose. And I question the policy of organizing for political action on

class lines. If the lines between the three classes of

society--workingmen, beggarmen, thieves--were clearly drawn and easily

recognized by the mass of the people this doubt would not exist, but it

requires no argument to prove that this is not yet so...

Different Phases of the Labor Question

Labadie expressed the belief that trade unions should confine their

efforts to economic problems more fully in "Different Phases of the

Labor Question," which was published in the Official Souvenir of the

International Typographical Union, 41^(st) Session, Chicago, June 12-17,

1893. In this article, he divided the labor problem into political,

economic, and social aspects and summarized the methods to equalize the

distribution of wealth proposed by the trade unionist, state socialist,

single-taxer, communist, and anarchist. He concluded that it was in the

true interests of both the working and business classes to repeal laws

rather than make new ones.

…Nothing exists without a cause, and the cause of the labor movement is

that labor products have not been justly distributed. This defect in the

present industrial system has brought into existence the trades unions,

the political labor parties, the socialists, communists, anarchists,

single-taxers, etc., the central aim of all being to give to the laborer

the full fruits of his toil…

Liberty of the individual should be the guiding principle of all

reforms…Individual liberty does not, however, destroy the right of

association for the accomplishment of specific objects. The entering

freely, voluntarily, into a contract with others to do something is not

a curtailment of one's liberty. You do not give up any rights when you

join a society. In the case of a trade union, for example, one does not

give up his freedom when he becomes a member, because the object of his

joining is to enlarge his sphere of liberty. It is the exemplification

of gaining freedom by association. Without his union, the workman is

much more the slave of his employer than he is with it.

There is, however, too often an inclination on the part of the ruling

power in the union, as well as in other societies, to disregard the

letter and the spirit of the contract (which is the constitution), and

by superior force or threats compel members to do what they have not

contracted to do. This is what every true, intelligent union man should

enter his most vigorous protest against, because it is the germ which

will in time destroy any society if allowed to grow. The personal

responsibility of a vote in a society is not always, in fact it is very

rarely, fully appreciated, and this leads to grave abuses. Persons are

too prone to cast a vote, especially a secret one, to have the society

do acts which they would not do as individuals. This is the weakness of

all democracies, and one which to avoid requires a high degree of

intelligence, and a fine sense of the rights of others.

It seems to me that those who are desirous of reform should keep these

things in mind, namely, that the movement is international, and any

attempt to confine it within national boundaries simply retards it; that

immigration or the prevention of immigration is no means of reform, and

is of no practical benefit to the movement in general; that occupancy

and use only must be recognized as a valid title to land; that the

monopoly of machinery must be destroyed by the abolition of the patent

right system; that the furnishing of a currency, of a medium of

exchange, must be left to individuals and associations, taking away from

the general governments the monopoly of making the tools of

exchange--that, in fact, general governments have no more right to

monopolize the making of the tools of trade than they have to monopolize

the making of the tools of production; that the true interests of the

working and business classes is in the repeal of laws instead of the

making of new ones, and that the powers and functions of governments

must be reduced as so as to leave the individual a greater degree of

freedom and responsibility for his own acts.

The men who form the trades unions in all countries will probably

continue to lead in this movement. The trades unions themselves will be

powerful factors in accomplishing good results. There is no doubt in my

mind that, contrary to the advice of many well-meaning friends of trades

unions, the unions to enhance their usefulness will have to restrict

their own functions rather than enlarging them, and confine their

efforts to economic problems, leaving the political and the social to

associations especially formed for carrying on the work peculiar to

those two departments of sociology. They must learn the utility of

specializing the work to be done, and they may learn from modern

industry the power that comes from the division of labor.

The Violent Hypocrites

"The Violent Hypocrites," written after World War I, displays Labadie's

often acerbic, sarcastic writing style in his indictment of governments

as the perpetrators of violence and injustice. It exists in manuscript

form.

All of this talk and legislation against the use of force and violence

as means of changing sociological conditions is hypocrisy on the part of

exploiters. Force and violence are at the bottom of exploitation.

Government itself is force and violence. Tell me, some of you

governmentalists who are so averse to the use of force and violence, not

only here in American but the world over, how did you become possessed

of the land on which the native races earned their living? How did

England get to be ruler of India, Egypt, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and

so much of the world elsewhere if not by force and violence? How did the

U.S. become possessed of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines;

indeed, how did these super-Americans--the spoilators, become the owners

of the land and nearly every thing else in this country? How did the

robbers, the pirates, land sharks, brigands, freebooters,

buccaneers--governmentalists, every one--the world over get possession

of the world, if not by force and violence?…

Say, Mr. Burglar, Mr. Exploiter, Mr. Profiteer--all of you capitalistic

buccaneers--get out while the getting is good. It'll soon be daylight,

and you can't put that out. The sun is painting the eastern sky an

illuminating red and flooding the western horizon. They who have been

asleep are yawning. They are about ready to get up out of a long and

troubled sleep. If you don't get out soon you may be put out, and there

is no guarantee that they will be overly gentle in doing the job. Safety

first, you know?

We who don't like to have the place all mussed up want the job done

orderly, gently--all of us gentle anarchists do--as this will save

breaking up the furniture, shooting up the windows, covering the rugs

with smudge and smutch; and, also, we have some regard of our own

composure, dignity, and flesh and bones. We are not insured against

rough-house stuff, and so we want to preserve what we've got and prevent

you from taking any more than you have. If you're a real high-class

bandit you'll recognize the fact that the jig is up, make the best of a

bad situation and smilingly back out and scoot around the corner before

the boys get you…

The war opened the lid and they looked in. This was fatal to governments

and their favorites. What they saw was convincing that war is a

governmental trades; that invasion, conquest, spoilation are inseparable

from government; that peoples rarely ever make war; that the desire for

more rulership is the prime cause of war, and that rulership is not

beneficial to the masses, but the means by which they bcome the tools of

a class as wealth producers for that class…

The World War surely uncovered a great prodigality of wrong in the

world, and may also have gleamed to the world's people that the

rulership of man over man is a false doctrine that leads only to enmity,

discord, and all that is eternally pernicious.

Rulership is inevitably anti-social. To love one's master is sanely

unthinkable. Only brutes do that, and those who have been brutalized.

And even that which appears as love of a master is simply fear. Those

who preach fear of God get further and further away from the carpenter

of Nazareth. No sane person can love a fear-inspiring God…

He who wields physical power over his fellows is sure, sooner or later,

to use it badly. It is given to but few to have the wisdom of not

abusing this power. This is the truth which those who seek the powers of

government fail to realize. They see the disaster that comes from the

possession of this power in the hands of others and mislead themselves

into the belief that they are made of sterner stuff and will resist the

temptation to become despotic. Vain belief. I wouldn't trust Jesus

himself with political power over me. He who believes himself holier

than others is ready for a good awakening.