Channels, Spring 2017

Channels • 2017 • Volume 1 • Number 2 Page 61 in cities and state legislatures. Thus, political organization should have taken precedent over economic organization. But Debs romantically believed that “With the workers efficiently organized industrially…they will just as naturally and inevitably express their economic solidarity in political terms and cast a united vote for the party of their class as the forces of nature express obedience to the laws of gravitation.” 51 Unfortunately, American workers had repeatedly shown their willingness to remain in the craft union system because of the practical benefits it brought. If Debs was concerned about ideological purity, he should have recognized that he could not win presidential campaigns and taken a more active role in establishing Party doctrine to guide the organizers like Berger and influence the new Party members who joined after they observed Socialism’s political legitimacy. Nevertheless, in the midst of the internal party battles over the IWW and industrial unionism, Debs lost sight of the political realities of his time and failed to lead the Socialist Party toward long-term success. With the disappointments of the 1908 election, dissatisfaction in the Socialist Party was high; both the reform and revolutionary wing felt that the other side’s methods and ideas were responsible for holding back Party success. With the success in 1910, both sides felt energized to take up the ideological struggle in order to produce the best results in 1912. The fundamental issue was very simple: “who was to control the party?” 52 The IWW was expanding its influence, moving outside its traditional western base to organize workers in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other labor strongholds in the east. They were initially successful, winning their demands in several key strikes. 53 Nevertheless, it was this success that sparked the destructive conflict. The IWW’s boisterous leader, former miner Bill Haywood, made ever-more radical comments, claiming “coercion” as a proper method, calling Berger’s trade union reformers “useless,” and arguing for direct revolution by saying “no Socialist can be a law-abiding citizen.” 54 As the IWW increasingly accepted violent tactics and opposed the Socialist Party itself, Debs was forced to dissociate from his earlier support of it, arguing that workers should be “law-abiding” and should seek “solidarity” instead of creating division. 55 Berger’s reformers still held the strength of the Socialist Party and amended the Party constitution to expel anyone who advocates violent direct action instead of political action. As a result, Haywood was removed from the national committee. 56 Debs failed to keep the disparate elements of the Socialist Party together. First, he alienated Berger and encouraged Haywood through threatening and harmful rhetoric against the 1910 electoral success of reformers. Then, in the ensuing struggle over party control, Debs backed up Berger and criticized Haywood, resulting in the 51 Eugene V. Debs, “Danger Ahead” in Eugene V. Debs Speaks , ed. Jean Tussey (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), 182. 52 Salvatore, Nick. 1982. Eugene V. Debs : citizen and socialist . n.p.: Urbana : University of Illinois Press, ©1982., 244. 53 Ibid, 247, 251-252. 54 Salvatore, Nick. 1982. Eugene V. Debs : citizen and socialist . n.p.: Urbana : University of Illinois Press, ©1982., 253. 55 Ibid, p. 254. 56 Ibid, p. 255.