The Daily Worker Newspaper, October 11, 1924, Page 6

By ANDREW OVERGAARD. In order to understané correctly the machinists’ convention held-in De- troit Sept. 15, it is necessary to ex- amine the different groupings in the convention and what role they played. There were three distinct groups. Only one of thein had a real program, namely the left wing led’ by the Com- munists. The “centrist” group was led by the insurgent faction in the old executive board and by the Fry-Kep- pler group, and its policy was simply to smash the machine and establish a few election reforms. It was not in favor of any fundamental changes in the organization. The third group was, of course, the old Johnston ma- chine that stood for things as they are and fought against the proposals of both the other groups, The policy of the lef wing was, first, to establish itself as a definite inde- pendent group, around its own poli- cies, and then in relation to the other groups, to make what use was pos- sible of their differences by support- ing whatever good measures were submitted by either one and bringing pressure to bear on each., - The pro- gram that the left wing fought for in the convention was one that every progressive could unite upon, Amalgamation of the metal trades unions into one industrial organiza- tion in order to effectively fight against the steel and electrical trusts, was one of the first questions dealt with in the convention, the issue bo- ing raised by many left wing resolu- tions. The Johnston forces proposed only to reaffirm the union’s former stand of endorsing it in principle and allowing the officials to ignore it as they have done hitherto. Against this the proposal of the militants was to elect a rank and file committee in the convention for the purpose of carrying on negotiations with the other unions and among their mem- bership to bring it into effect. The center group was not interested, how- ever, and the result was that real amalgamation was voted down, the left wing only casting 70 vates, or less than one-third. The center group learned a lesson when this question was taken to a vote. and disposed of, and they began to organize their forces and also be- gan to look for support somewhere. Of course the only group possible to Automatism In Education Confession has never been my hob- by. The success of an examiner de- pends upon the pose of inscrutability. But for once, under these extra- ordinary auspices, I shall consent to reveal the whole truth about my un- eviable position, If an examiner were omniscient (you'll pardon me for suggesting any- thing so extravagant), he could not possibly accomplish the work set him by our top-heavy educational system. English, French, German, Music, Bio- logy, History, Bookkeeping, Drawing, Chemistry Physics, Stenography, Lat- in, Greek, Spanish, common branches, uncommon branches, physical sci- ences, the arts—not Comte, Spencer and Darwin rolled into one Great Being could adequately or intelligent- ly stand sponsor for so many depart- ments of knowledge. But I, a mere humble examiner, with no startling originality, no famous books to my credit, no conspicuous scholarship, I am expected to be a Pan-Sophistist. If vanity were not deeper than intellectual honesty, no fair-minded person would volunteer to do (!) the impossible, But preten- ce, repeated and _ familiarized, be- come one’s second nature, and a mo- dest man will gradually adopt the pose of omniscience because it pays to appear all-wise. Hence the ex- aminer’s habituation to the pose of inscrutability, approach was the left wing which had decided about the various “center” proposals it would support, such as bi-annual conventions, election of of- ficers every two years instead of four- years terms, an election board to count ballots, etc. The left wing was also in favor of cutting the salaries of the officers; the centrist group, how- ever, was for high salaries, but con- ceded that point to the left wing. The left wing demanded also that the cen- ter group fight on two more funda- mental issues, namely, the reinstate- ment of the suspended members in Toledo, and opposition against the B. & O. plan. When these issues were finally tak- en up, the “center” adopted a typical- ly indecisive attitude; some of them voted with the lefts, but none of them fought very hard for these issues. As a matter of fact, the centrists did not like to be mixed up in any affairs which would identify them with the reds. Most of them, of course, fought against the left wing as a matter of principle, and would be as bad as the present administration if they cap- ture the official positions in the or- ganization. ; The compulsory insurance feature submitted by the General Executive Board was voted down by the conven- tion, This was a left wing victory. The fight against the administration was led by the left elements in the convention. One of the weaknesses of the John- ston machine in this convention was its lack of floor leaders. The former administration forces, like Keppler and Fry, and the so-called insurgents on the board, as well as the vice-presi- dents who were about to lose their jobs, had deserted and formed a group of their own. Due to the relation of these forces and the antagonisms be- tween the “center” group and the Johnston forces, the administration had to retreat on many issues. Es- pecially did some of the red baiting schemes fall fiat. Devidson and John- ston had to resort to fake letters and telegegms in order to diseredit the writer, but even these childish tactics failed to bring about the desired pre- judice. The majority of the delegates were intelligent enough to understand that the I. A. of M. cannot afford to imi- tate the capitalist class in red hunt- ing, that there must be room for the militants to ensure the healthy growth of the organization. Of course, the usual “arguments” were resorted to by the right wing charging the Com- munists with breaking up the labor movement all over the world. Such renegades as Haberman, who was brought from’ Mexico, was used to spill the usual tirade against the revo- lutionists. This of course, was very easy for Roberto, who admits he is out to make money, and is quite un- scrupulous as to methods. But the “anti-red” legislation was withdrawn because the sentiments of the conven- tion was against it overwhelmingly. The resolution on international sol- idarity was killed in the course of these developments. The resolution om the labor party was shoved aside by the argument that LaFollette will form a party in the next convention of the C. P. P. A, altho the delegates listened quite attentively when the Communists pointed out the illusion and the political class collaboration of the LaFollette movement and about 50 votes were cast against the LaFol- lette movement. ; The question of the B. & O. plan was undobtedly the most important issue that came before the convention. The administration kept it off the floor until the last minute in order to rush it thru without having to go into a thoro discussion of the plan. Even then, however, the plan was not given a 100 per cent endorsement. The left-wing attack had seriously shaken the B. & O. plan and the delegates were very critical. The resolution that was adopted on this question states that where the membership de- sires to have the plan it may be put into effect. The administration had to compro- mise on this issue and modify their intentions of introducing it in the or- ganization as a whole. It was quite sig- nificant to note that the Canadian dele- gation voted almost unanimously against the plan, except for one dele- gate from Winnipeg, who voted con- sistently with the old administration. The railroads where the machinists are 100 per cent organized were against the plan. The whole convention took note that the local union at Glenwood shops, where the plan was first tried out, was not represented in the con- vention. According to the story brot upon the floor of the convention by delegates from Pittsburgh, the men working in the Glenwood shops are opposed to the plan, while the unions Machinists’ Union Marks Time have dwindled in membership rather than grown, under its operation. The minority report condemning the B. & QO. plan was, however, voted down and the officers allowed to ex- periment some more with class col- laboration. The question of admission of the colored machinists into the organiza- tion was bitterly opposed by the southern delegates who went before the ritual committee and had the com- mittee recommend that the colored brothers be not admitted. This ques- tion was also put thru in special hurry by the president, supposedly due to the fact it would probably create a long debate, as in the Rochester con- vention. One. bright spot in the convention was when the recognition of Soviet Russia was endorsed by a practically unanimous vote. This is one of the is- sues on which the Machinists’ Union is completely opposed to the blackly reactionary policy of Samuel Gompers, and the convention in Detroit held its ground on this issue. The machin- ists are friends of Soviet RuSsia, even tho they do not yet realize the neces- sity of unification of the labor move- ment of the world including the Rus- sian unions. To sum up the total results of the convention it can be said that a few necessary internal reforms were adopted, but no plans were laid to or- ganize the great masses of unorgan- ized machinists in this country. No changes of a fundamental nature were made by this convention and all basic issues of the class struggle were ig- nored.. Eyen so, however, this con- vention did not go to the lengths of reaction that have marked other con- ventions this year. The left wing went into the convention with a con- structive program and established it- self asa force to be reckoned with in the I. A. of M. They left the convention with more prestige and respect than before, in spite of all attempts to dis- credit them. All of the proposed law changes such as the two year election, establishment of election board, bi-an- nual convention, decrease in salary, etc., will go to referendum and it is up to the militants to carry on a cam- paign in the local unions for the adop- tion of these measures, and at all times point out the needs for funda- mental changes in the structure and policies of the organization, and fight for further progress, (Being the Full Confession of an Examiner) « The world of mediocrity is awe-in- spired by the silence majestical. In @ commonplace world, looking wise is almost as convincing as being wise. A fallible examiner, conscious of a thousand defects, must support a devout aspect of perfection and take his chances of not being found out. Precarious existence! To be more specific: Not only must an examiner pretend to omniscience (that merry masquerading pleaseth one’s vanity); he is supposed to be endowed with the powers of white magic and of clairvoyance. The days of the palm-readers, astrologers, phrenologists-by-intuition, clairvoyants, “telepathists, are not numbered in the land of the godly. Far from it. Intuition is the short- cut to wisdom. Intuition is intellect- ual laziness erected into a philosophy of faith. Mental laziness is necessar- ily prevalent in a world too busy to stop to think, and to reflect. When we don’t know, we apprehend by in- tuition. An examiner is a transcend- ental intuitionalist! He knows with- out analyzing, he apperceives without observing, he understands without reasoning, he judges without. reflect- ing. If this revelation of the truth shocks you, please listen to this bit of By a Teacher sonality” test. Now, frankly, areyzed that mystic entity! And yet we there three unacquainted persons in the whole wide world who can agree upon a “rating” for personality? Why, what is personality? Is it something static or dynamic? If dynamic, at what particular stage of its unfold- ment shall personality be appraised? Does personality shine in .clothes ‘or in character? If in character, how can the unfamiliar observér detect its presence or absence? What relation has personality to the observer’s own conventional pre- judices and provincialism? Is the personality test to gain validity, for example, from an appraisal of any one or more of the following attri- butes? a ‘ (a) An indefinable something. (b) Good breeding. (c) Self-poise. : e (d) Gentlemanly carriage (“House of Lords” test). (e) Charm (womanly woman’s test), (f) Magnetic power. ‘ (g) Polish of culture, (h) Pleasing first impressions, (i) Dignified address, (j) A man who knows his place. (k) Feeling of reserve force. (1) Quiet and unassuming manner, .(m) Record of achievements ... ? ‘What is this mysterious and misty telltale evidence. The most important | something called personality? To my part of any examination (from our in-| knowledge as examiner, no scholar or tuitionalist standpoint) is the “‘per-'educator or publicist has ever anal- examiners (for, whatever you think us, don’t think us fools) ‘continue to mar or mold the destinies of thousands of men and women, about whose inner lives we know absolutely nothing. 'On the inprovable assumption that we can estimate, judge and accurately mark personality, we commit an un- forgivable sin against the dictates of conscience. Why do we proceed on so unreasonable a presupposition? The explanation will give some sim- ple-minded folk pain, but the truth will out; at least if there be people clever or honest enough to state it. Since this is to be an unmitigated ex- pose of “inside facts,” let nothing relevant or iiluminating be concealed. As an examiner, fond of introspection, I may be relied upon to speak the un- varnished truth. We employ the personality test as a Weeder-out of non-conformists, Ef- ficiency—that is, unquestioning obe- dience to official superiors—depends upon a smooth routine. Smooth rout- ine depends upon willing routineers, Willing routineers are the conscript army of the faithful, The faithful are recruited from among the meek The ideal we consciously have in mind is the meek conformist, for upon him we depend for the smooth systematization of pet policies. How (Continued on page 7.)