Instrumentos de Gestión Administrativa

Though only a minority of all unions in NYC supported the new party, for a time the majority of those affiliated to the CFU and Hebrew

Trades did so. Acting in concert they could have made quite a political impact. Proof of this was the fact that the Socialist Party, though a minority organization, made a considerable impact on the mainstream political landscape of New York. It elected a small number of aldermen to the city council, and had a representative in Congress. It played an effective role as a progressive ginger group in New York politics. The key to this strength was not just its electoral support, individual membership, or the fact that it had a daily newspaper; but the support, both financial and organizational, it received from New York trade unions. This created a problem for the new party, for it considered the

Executive Board meeting, 30 September 1920, NYWTUL Minutes and Reports, WTUL Papers, Collection IV, (Tamiment ref 3045); Mary Carmack McDougal to Rose Schneiderman, 7 June 1920, NYWTUL Correspondence, WTUL Papers, Collection IV, (Tamiment ref 3050).

^^Schneiderman to McDougal, 11 June 1920, NYWTUL Correspondence, WTUL Papers, Collection IV, (Tamiment ref 3050).

Socialists incapable of winning majority support due to their

insistence on socialist doctrine. Yet many of those to whom the ALP appealed were either sympathetic to, or members of, the Socialist Party. The new party was not a revolutionary or radical party; it

wanted reform through the existing state structures. It was to the left

of the AFL leadership, but to the right of the Socialists. It was

careful not to be identified with the more radical ideas of the

Socialists or syndicalists. This was not flattering to the Socialists, but many were becoming impatient for success and saw the new party as a step in the right direction. Others saw the party as nothing more than a bourgeois progressive party. The contradiction and ambivalence that

resulted from the attitude of the two organizations to each other

created a barrier to cooperation.

A large delegation of Socialist trade unionists had attended the A L P ’s founding convention, but due to the non-committal attitude of

their party, took no further active part in the new movement. Many of the unions in the clothing and furrier trades were dominated by the Socialists. Indeed, most of the unions affiliated to the Hebrew Trades were loyal to the Socialists. This situation made it very difficult for

the founders of the new party, to turn union affiliations into active

2(1

rank-and-file support.

The attitude of the progressive International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) illustrates this point. Though sympathetic to the

new party, the ILGWU did not commit itself to anything; its attitude was one of wait-and-see. It also believed there was much suspicion of

the CFU by radical unions. It was only the year before, after all, that the CFU had planned annihilation of the United Hebrew Trades. The ILGWU was also disappointed that the new party had failed to attract the Amalgamated Clothing Workers (ACW) into its ranks. The ACW, strong supporters of the Socialist Party, remained completely aloof from the new party, convinced it was not welcome. Though the ILGWU had a ’wait- and-see’ policy, it believed that there were reasons to expect the new party to do well. The last election results had been "an humiliating setback" for the Socialist Party, and some workers were enthusiastic about the new party because of this. Edward Hannah of the CFU had stated that they would work with radicals and Socialists in the new party. That an old Tammany man should issue such a statement was

encouraging. Even James Boyle (of the Brooklyn CLU) had agreed to include every amendment suggested by the Socialist delegates in labour's political programme. The ILGWU believed this was proof that

01

the air was "replete with change and revolution".

The ILGWU’s response was a mixture of ambivalence and optimism. The optimism was not fulfilled. Suspicions often remained, and few workers shifted their voting loyalties to the new party. Even those that normally supported the Socialists failed to vote for the ALP. They remained loyal to their own party, even if they were disappointed by its stagnant electoral performance. The continuing electoral strength of the SP remained a problem for the ALP. Enthusiasm for the converts from Tammany was misplaced; for though many remained loyal, the

defection of the Brooklyn leadership back to Tammany, as we will shall see below, had disastrous consequences. Nor were all Socialists as friendly towards the new party as the ILGWU. The national executive of the Socialist Party had warned against hasty action, either for or against the new party. This was not enough to prevent growing friction between it and ALP supporters. James J. Bagley, president of Franklin union number 23, made it clear that the attitude of the Socialist Party to the ALP was resented by the CFU, CLU and WTUL; if necessary they

op would fight the Socialists in every electoral district.

Some supporters of the Socialists were friendly. J . M. Budish, Editor of the Headgear Worker, the union magazine of the United Cloth Hat and Cap Makers of North America, welcomed the setting up of a

"National Labor Party". He called on the Labor Party and Socialist Party to find ways of cooperating. However, when it came to the

election campaigns of the Falls of 1919 and 1920, the ALP received no support from the Socialist unions; nor was there any joint campaign. Not only did the Call ignore it, but so did the union newspapers. Some even made it clear they would not be supporting the Labor Party; Debs

21