ivided between George and Hewitt, the majority of the
German element had gone over to Henry George. The outcome was hailed as
a victory by George and his supporters and this view was also taken by
the general press.

In spite of this propitious beginning the political labor movement soon
suffered the fate of all reform political movements. The strength of the
new party was frittered away in doctrinaire factional strife between the
single taxers and the socialists. The trade union element became
discouraged and lost interest. So that at the next State election, in
which George ran for Secretary of State, presumably because that office
came nearest to meeting the requirement for a single taxer seeking a
practical scope of action, the vote in the city fell to 37,000 and in
the whole State amounted only to 72,000. This ended the political labor
movement in New York.

Outside of New York the political labor movement was not associated
either with the single tax or any other "ism." As in New York it was a
spontaneous expression of dissatisfaction brought on by failure in
strikes. The movement scored a victory in Milwaukee, where it elected a
mayor, and in Chicago where it polled 25,000 out of a total of 92,000.
But, as in New York, it fell to pieces without leaving a permanent
trace.

FOOTNOTES:

[18] See the next chapter for the scheme of organization followed by the
Order.

[19] See above, 79-80.

CHAPTER 5

THE VICTORY OF CRAFT UNIONISM AND THE FINAL FAILURE OF PRODUCERS'
COOPERATION

We now come to the most significant aspect of the Great Upheaval: the
life and death struggle between two opposed principles of labor
organization and between two opposed labor programs. The Upheaval
offered the practical test which the labor movement required for an
intelligent decision between the rival claims of Knights and trade
unionists. The test as well as the conflict turned principally on
"structure," that is on the difference between "craft autonomists" and
those who would have labor organized "under one head," or what we would
now call the "one big union" advocates.

As the issue of "structure" proved in the crucial eighties, and has
remained ever since, the outstanding factional issue in the labor
movement, it might be well at this point to pass in brief review the
structural developments in labor organization from the beginning and try
to correlate them with other important developments.

The early[20] soci