Vol. 6 (1980)
Articles

The International Woodworkers of America in British Columbia, 1942-1951

Published 1980-06-06

How to Cite

Lembcke, J. (1980). The International Woodworkers of America in British Columbia, 1942-1951. Labour Le Travail, 6, 113–148. Retrieved from https://lltjournal.ca/index.php/llt/article/view/2534

Abstract

From 1942 to 1951, the British Columbia District Council of the International Woodworkers of America (IWA) was embroiled in a battle for political control. The lines of conflict were drawn between a left-wing "Red Bloc" and an anti-communist "White Bloc." By the early 1950s the left wing had been defeated. Irving Abella has explained the demise of the Left through reference to errors made by communist leaders and reference to the native B.C. lumber workers' disdain for communist trade unionism. This article challenges Abella on both counts. The article situates the anti-communist movement in the political currents extant in Canada at the time and concludes that the secession of the left-led B.C. District from the International in 1948 was less a failure of leadership than it was a last-ditch attempt to preserve the District's autonomy. The article argues that the rank-and-file did not abandon its communist leaders but was forcefully separated from its leaders by the anti-communist movement within the CCL-CIO and by the repressive power of the State. De 1942 à 1951, le conseil de district de l'Union internationale des Travailleurs du bois d'Amérique fut témoin d'une lutte de pouvoir entre une aile gauche ["Red Bloc"] et une aile droite ["White Bloc"]. La gauche ayant subi la défaite en 1950, l'historien I. Abella explique son échec en revelant les erreurs commisses par les chefs communistes et en soulignant la réprobation des travailleurs du bois originaires de Colombie pour le syndicalisme communiste. L'article qui prend à partie cette interprétation situe l'anti-communiste parmi les courants politiques existants à l'époque et conclue que la scission du conseil de district de Colombie de l'Union internationale en 1948 s'explique moins pas des faiblesses de leadership que par une dernière tentative pour préserver l'autonomie du district. L'auteur soutient que la base n'a pas abandonné ses chefs communistes, mais fut plutôt forcée de la faire à cause de l'anticommuniste de la CCT-COI et du pouvoir répressif de l'État.