Criminal syndicalism

Last updated

Criminal syndicalism has been defined as a doctrine of criminal acts for political, industrial, and social change. These criminal acts include advocation of crime, sabotage, violence, and other unlawful methods of terrorism. [1] Criminal syndicalism laws were enacted to oppose economic radicalism. [2]

Contents

Background

Idaho legislation defines it as "the doctrine which advocates crime, sabotage, violence, or other unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform". [3] Key terms in criminal syndicalism statutes had vague definitions. [4] Criminal syndicalism became a matter of public attention during and after the World War I period, and has been used to stymie the efforts of radical labor movements. [5]

During the 1910s, the public was hostile towards leftist ideologies and deemed social radicalism un-American. Government officials on the state and federal level ordered arrests, imprisonments and killings of people who challenged industrial capitalism or made militant demands under the pre-existing economic structure. [6] By the year 1933, over 700 convictions of criminal syndicalism were made. [3] Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union believe laws on criminal syndicalism were aimed to punish doctrines or memberships in unions. [3]

Industrial Workers of the World

Criminal syndicalism laws were enacted to combat the efforts of radical labor unions. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is one such union in particular. [5] [6] Defining the labor efforts as criminal allowed for the government to stop the Wobblies' activities and the labor problem of World War I and post World War I altogether. Senator W.G. Walker of Idaho, the nation's first state to enact a criminal syndicalism law, introduced the criminal syndicalism legislation to the Senate with an anti-IWW speech. [5]

The IWW's confrontational rhetoric factored into public concerns. [7] The organization used “sabotages” and military tactics in its invocation of social change. [7] The public assumed the IWW promoted violence and destruction of properties even though the IWW did not share these intentions. [7] The IWW's later attempts at reducing enforcement efforts through distancing itself from this doctrine were unsuccessful. [8]

The IWW's opposition to United States’ involvement in World War I was in contrast of public sentiment, leading to an unfavorable public opinion towards the organization. [8] [9]

Patriotic societies alleged that German gold financed IWW operations, and that the organization received support from hostile nations. [10]

The red scare exacerbated public distrust and fear against all radical leftist organizations, including the IWW. [11] Strikes (involving over 4 million workers) across the nation increased negative sentiments against these organizations. [12] Various bombings and bombing plots attributed to radical leftists caused the public to view radical leftist organizations as threats to state security. [13] [14]

While repressions against the IWW through government actions and vigilantism were rampant, the public continued to perceive efforts to suppress the organization as insufficient. [15]

The defense by the IWW's General Defense Committee in the case of Fiske v. Kansas resulted in a critically important 1924 Supreme Court ruling which led to the decline of criminal syndicalism laws as a factor in legislative anti-union initiatives. [16]

Legislation

History

US state government legislation has been made to address criminal syndicalism according to their own definitions. [17] States enacted criminal laws, the first of which was enacted in Idaho in 1917, or sedition law (operating basically in the same way as criminal syndicalism laws). [3]

During World War I and post-World War I, more than half the states passed these anti-radical statutes, most of which still remain in effect today. [3]

By 1935, there were a number of 33 states with remaining criminal syndicalism laws or sedition laws. [3] Between the years 1918 and 1919 Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and fourteen other states passed criminal syndicalism laws and between 1917 and 1923 thirteen states enacted sedition laws. [3] Those states without Criminal Syndicalism laws or sedition laws during this period are noted to have had some similar already existing statutes against incitement and rebellion.

The degree of the consequences range from state to state. Criminal Syndicalism laws called for maximum fines of $10,000 and a maximum 25-year prison sentence. [3] Prosecutions under Criminal syndicalism laws ensued. The California Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919 alone, only five years after its enactment, was responsible for over 500 arrests and 164 convictions. [18]

This act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court on May 16, 1927, in the Whitney v. California case. [18] The power of law against criminal syndicalism began to falter by the 1930s as the courts began to overturn convictions as either being no true threat to the US or by declaring the laws to be too vague or broad. [19] One such example was the court's overturning of the conviction of Dirk DeJonge due to protesting the police brutality in the longshoreman's strike, as violating Oregon's criminal syndicalism law. [20]

Idaho

On February 19, 1917, the criminal syndicalism bill was introduced into the Idaho state legislature. [21]

Businesses which stood to lose the most at the hands of the IWW, including lumber and mining interests, lobbied for the statute's enactment. [21] In March 1917, the Idaho state government enacted the statute. [22] The Idaho criminal syndicalism bill served as a prototype for many other similar bills passed in various state legislatures in the following four years. [14] [23]

Initially, the rhetoric behind criminal syndicalism laws appealed strictly to business interests. After the United States entered the World War I, then Governor of Idaho Moses Alexander instilled nationalist rhetoric into the public discourse of the law while referring to the IWW's opposition against United States’ participation in the war. [24]

In 1925, the Idaho legislature enacted a bill which outlawed non-violent attempts of sabotage; "work done in an improper manner, slack work, waste of property, and loitering at work" became illegal acts. [25] Organized labor opposed the amendment because the expanded definition of sabotage might be applied against recognized trade union practices. [26]

Several Supreme Court rulings later limited the applicability of criminal syndicalism laws in Idaho, and criminal syndicalism laws in Idaho became a dead issue. [27]

California

Criminal syndicalism in California was defined as "any doctrine or precept advocating . . . the commission of crime, sabotage . . . or unlawful acts of force and violence . . . as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change.” Knowingly associating oneself with a group which advocates, teaches, or aids and abed criminal syndicalism could also lead to criminal liability under the California statute. [28]

Violators could be punished by up to fourteen years in jail. [28]

The bill's enactment came after a series of events undermining IWW's public image. [29]

On July 22, 1916, a bomb exploded in the Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco. It led to the arrests of Warren K Billings and Thomas Mooney – both of whom were associated with militant labor movement – and two others. The San Francisco public responded with an uproar. [14]

Fresno and Riverside agricultural strikes took place in 1917, months preceding the California criminal syndicalism bill's first introduction. [30]

The first attempt of inducting the criminal syndicalism bill into the California law took place in 1917. The bill was a copy of the Idaho statute. Legislators found the term “sabotage” in the bill ambiguous and did not pass the bill. [31]

In the same year, the federal government increased crackdowns against IWW on suspicion of the organization's financial ties with foreign hostiles. The Department of Justice conducted raids on IWW headquarters across the country, including bases in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Fresno. [32]

In addition to the protests, IWW was accused of sabotaging Fresno farmers by burning hay stacks and covering raisins with dirt. The Department of Justice opened its Fresno branch in response. California State Federation of Labor also issued a condemnation of IWW. These events coincided with the bombing of the governor's residence at Sacramento, which led to arrests of IWW members. The press began to pose a negative attitude towards IWW. [33]

From 1917 to 1919, tension between capital and labor grew. Strikes and IWW activities in key wartime industries increased. The California public invoked a patriotic sentiment and saw IWW as an enemy. [34]

In January 1919, Senator William Kehoe made the second introduction of the criminal syndicalism bill in California. The introduction came five days after the trial of the Governor's residence bombing, possibly to drown out opposition to the bill. [35]

Governor William Stephens recommended measures to check IWW propaganda in the bill. [36] Legislators included his proposed amendment in the final bill. [37]

The proposed bill would outlaw labor organization which conduct strikes or boycotts with the intent of changing industrial ownership and control or causing any political change. [37]

Representatives of organized labor, while supportive of the bill's intent to reduce IWW influences, [37] believed the bill could be used to imprison labor leaders should strikes or boycotts be used in industrial disputes. [36] Labor leaders proposed an amendment which defined the punishable offense more definitely. The amendment failed to pass. [37]

Governor Stephens signed the bill containing his proposed clause into law on April 30, 1919. [37]

Kansas

The defense by the IWW's General Defense Committee in the case of Fiske v. Kansas resulted in a critically important 1924 Supreme Court ruling which led to the decline of criminal syndicalism laws as a factor in legislative anti-union initiatives. [16]

In 1924, Kansas' state criminal syndicalism law was challenged by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Fiske v. Kansas, which would become critically important in the future of legal battles over freedom of speech, and which was an early case supported by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling overturned the conviction of Harold B. Fiske, an organizer affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World's Agricultural Workers Industrial Union.

Ohio

During the 1960s, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan named Clarence Brandenburg gave a speech at a Klan rally. He was later prosecuted under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law and was found guilty. [38] The State relied on film from the rally which showed abhorrent messages denigrating black people and Jews as well as several articles including firearms and ammunition to make their case against Brandenburg. [39] Brandenburg's prosecution and conviction demonstrated willingness by the state of Ohio to use the criminal syndicalism law to target any movement they perceived as radical or violent and not just socialist movements. The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that Ohio's criminal syndicalism law used to prosecute Brandenburg was unconstitutional.

In 2013

The states who still have criminal syndicalism statutes in 2013 are:

Moreover:

Constitutionality

Some argued that criminal syndicalism laws violated the United States Constitution.

In Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), the Supreme Court held that California's law suppressing speech advocating criminal acts against the state did not violate the right to freedom of speech as enumerated in the First Amendment, since it encouraged a bad tendency in listeners.

However, that holding Whitney was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), where the Court replaced the "bad tendency" test with "imminent lawless action" test. Since the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism law criminalized speech that did not incite imminent lawless action, the Ohio law violated the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment.

See also

Notes and references

Notes

  1. ↑ "O.S. 21-1327". Archived from the original on 2013-09-27. only applies in the schools.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syndicalism</span> Form of revolutionary organisation

Syndicalism is a revolutionary current within the labour movement that, through industrial unionism, seeks to unionize workers according to industry and advance their demands through strikes, with the eventual goal of gaining control over the means of production and the economy at large through social ownership. Developed in French labor unions during the late 19th century, syndicalist movements were most predominant amongst the socialist movement during the interwar period that preceded the outbreak of World War II.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

Industrial unionism is a trade union organising method through which all workers in the same industry are organized into the same union, regardless of skill or trade, thus giving workers in one industry, or in all industries, more leverage in bargaining and in strike situations. De Leon believed that militarized Industrial unions would be the vehicle of class struggle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill Haywood</span> Labor organizer (1869–1928)

William Dudley Haywood, nicknamed "Big Bill", was an American labor organizer and founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party of America. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and/or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954. The court reversed a lower court ruling that the loyalty oath provision did not violate the appellants' First Amendment rights.

"Imminent lawless action" is one of several legal standards American courts use to determine whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standard was first established in 1969 in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly to the individual U.S. states. The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party, even though the party generally advocated an industrial or political change in revolution. However, in the 1950s with the fear of communism on the rise, the Court ruled in Dennis v. United States (1951) that Eugene Dennis, who was the leader of the Communist Party, violated the Smith Act by advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elizabeth Gurley Flynn</span> American labor leader and feminist (1890–1964)

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was an American labor leader, activist, and feminist who played a leading role in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Flynn was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a visible proponent of women's rights, birth control, and women's suffrage. She joined the Communist Party USA in 1936 and late in life, in 1961, became its chairwoman. She died during a visit to the Soviet Union, where she was accorded a state funeral with processions in Red Square attended by over 25,000 people.

Free speech fights are struggles over free speech, and especially those struggles which involved the Industrial Workers of the World and their attempts to gain awareness for labor issues by organizing workers and urging them to use their collective voice. During the World War I period in the United States, the IWW members, engaged in free speech fights over labor issues which were closely connected to the developing industrial world as well as the Socialist Party. The Wobblies, along with other radical groups, were often met with opposition from local governments and especially business leaders, in their free speech fights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics</span>

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is a union of wage workers which was formed in Chicago in 1905 by militant unionists and their supporters due to anger over the conservatism, philosophy, and craft-based structure of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Throughout the early part of the 20th century, the philosophy and tactics of the IWW were frequently in direct conflict with those of the AFL concerning the best ways to organize workers, and how to best improve the society in which they toiled. The AFL had one guiding principle—"pure and simple trade unionism", often summarized with the slogan "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." The IWW embraced two guiding principles, fighting like the AFL for better wages, hours, and conditions, but also promoting an eventual, permanent solution to the problems of strikes, injunctions, bull pens, and union scabbing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anita Whitney</span> American political activist (1867–1955)

Charlotte Anita Whitney, best known as "Anita Whitney", was an American women's rights activist, political activist, suffragist, and early Communist Labor Party of America and Communist Party USA organizer in California.

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is a union of wage workers which was formed in Chicago in 1905. The IWW experienced a number of divisions and splits during its early history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Criminal Syndicalism Act</span> 1919 law prohibiting certain leftist politics

The California Criminal Syndicalism Act was a law of California in 1919 under Governor William Stephens criminalizing syndicalism. It was enacted on April 30, 1919, and repealed in 1991. The law stated that "any person who was a member of any organization that advocated criminal syndicalism was guilty of a felony and punishable by up to 14 years in the state prison. The law is significant, and controversial, because it made certain beliefs illegal. A person did not have to commit any overt act. Simple advocacy of a certain belief or membership in a group that advocated syndicalism was enough to secure a conviction".

Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court Case that was first argued May 3, 1926 and finally decided May 16, 1927.

Nicolaas Steelink was a Dutch American labor activist who was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), an international industrial union, and an important figure in the creation of the California Soccer League, which resulted in his induction into the United States Soccer Hall of Fame. During his time as a member of the IWW, due to his involvement with the union and radical ideals, he was convicted of criminal syndicalism and sentenced to prison in 1920.

The 1923 San Pedro maritime strike was, at the time, the biggest challenge to the dominance of the open shop culture of Los Angeles, California until the rise of the Congress of Industrial Organizations in the 1930s.

The Goldfield, Nevada labor troubles of 1906–1907 were a series of strikes and a lockout which pitted gold miners and other laborers, represented by the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), against mine owners and businessmen.

References

  1. ↑ "Criminal Syndicalism Law & Legal Definition". US Legal, Inc.
  2. ↑ White, Ahmed A. "The Crime of Economic Radicalism: Criminal Syndicalism Laws and the Industrial Workers of the World, 1917–1927." Oregon Law Review 85, no. 3 (2006): 652. Accessed November 24, 2014. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/5046/853white.pdf?sequence=1.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Anti-Radical Agitation". CQ Press. Retrieved June 5, 2013.
  4. ↑ White, p. 652.
  5. 1 2 3 Sims, Robert, C (1974). "Idaho's Criminal Syndicalism Act: One States Response to Radical Labor". Labor History. 15 (4): 511–527. doi:10.1080/00236567408584310.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. 1 2 White, p. 650.
  7. 1 2 3 White, p. 687.
  8. 1 2 White, p. 688.
  9. ↑ Whitten, Woodrow C. "Criminal Syndicalism and the Law in California: 1919-1927."Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 59, no. 2 (1969): 15. Accessed November 25, 2014. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1006021.
  10. ↑ Blasi, Vincent. "The First Amendment and the Ideal of Civic Courage: The Brandeis Opinion in Whitney v. California." William and Mary Law Review 29, no. 4 (1988): 655. Accessed November 24, 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=3S3V-3SV0-00CW-G2NH&csi=7413,270077&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true.
  11. ↑ White, p. 696.
  12. ↑ White, p. 697.
  13. ↑ White, p. 698.
  14. 1 2 3 Whitten, p. 13.
  15. ↑ White, p. 700.
  16. 1 2 Cortner, Richard C. (Spring 1981). "The Wobblies and Fiske v. Kansas: Victory Amidst Disintegration" (PDF). Kansas History . 4 (1). Kansas Historical Society: 30–38. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  17. ↑ Franklin, F. G. (1920). "Anti-Syndicalist Legislation". American Political Science Review. 14 (2): 291–298. doi:10.2307/1943826. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   1943826.
  18. 1 2 Urofsky, Melvin, I. "Charlotte Anita Whitney, Whitney v. California: Free Speech for Radicals". SAGE Publications. Retrieved June 5, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ↑ Savage, David, G. "Freedom of Political Association". SAGE Publications. Retrieved June 5, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ↑ Savage, David G. "Freedom of Speech". SAGE Publications. Retrieved June 5, 2013.
  21. 1 2 Sims, p. 512.
  22. ↑ White, p. 658.
  23. ↑ Goldstein, Robert Justin. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. Urbana: University of Illinois Press (2001): 128.
  24. ↑ Sims, p. 514.
  25. ↑ Sims, p. 525.
  26. ↑ Sims, p. 526.
  27. ↑ Sims, p. 527.
  28. 1 2 Blasi, p. 655.
  29. ↑ Whitten, p. 20.
  30. ↑ Whitten, p. 14.
  31. ↑ Whitten, pp. 14-15.
  32. ↑ Whitten, p. 18.
  33. ↑ Whitten, p. 19.
  34. ↑ Whitten, p. 15.
  35. ↑ Whitten, p. 22.
  36. 1 2 Whitten, p. 24.
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 Whitten, p. 25.
  38. ↑ "Brandenburg v. Ohio".
  39. ↑ Russel-Brown, Katheryn (February 3, 2015). Criminal Law. SAGE Publications. p. 29. ISBN   9781412977890.
  40. ↑ "California Education Code § 44932(a)(2)". California Office of Legislative Counsel. Archived from the original on 2014-03-31. Retrieved 2021-06-14.
  41. ↑ "K.S.A. 22-3101". Archived from the original on 2014-04-22. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
  42. ↑ "M.C. 185.06". Archived from the original on 2014-04-22. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.