Talk:Ralph Chaplin

Religion
Okay, there seems to be some confusion about his denominational affiliation, over at Solidarity Forever. Can anyone find sources directly attesting this? Jacob Haller 00:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally found one: "converted to Roman Catholicism," in John R. Salter, Jr., "Chaplin, Ralph H. (1887-1961)," Encyclopedia of the American Left (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), p. 127. Dwalls (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin's political views in the 1930's-clarification needed
these sentences "Although he continued to work for labor rights after his release from prison, Chaplin was very disillusioned by the aftermath of the Russian Revolution However, he was also not pleased by the course of New Deal liberalism", need elaboration and clarification. Did Chaplin feel the Russian Revolution was too radical, or too repressive?(the second seems more likely, since as a Wobbly, Chaplin would have been an anarcho-syndicalist and a man of the anti-authoritarian Left.) And did he see "New Deal liberalism" as being too far left or too far right? As presently written, the passage doesn't give us enough information of Chaplin's views at this time. Clarification here would also help the reader understand Chaplin's precise motivation for opposing "Communist infiltration" in the labor movement during the 1930's and 1940's. A modern reader would naturally interpret this as Chaplin having moved to the Right, when it could just as easily have meant that Chaplin was simply staying true to the anti-authoritarian radical leftism of his earlier years. Ken Burch 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In his General Strike (1933 version) he dismisses political action - discussing both reformism and armed insurrection - as ineffective. "The advocacy of armed insurrection is misleading also because most of its protagonists, being politically minded and politically-trained, are more determined to capture State power than to capture the industries. The politician is utterly incapable of thinking in terms of industry. He is incompetent either to control or direct industrial processes. In a country like the U.S.A. with 48 state and hundreds of municipal and county capitals in addition to the federal capital in Washington-- all adequately guarded-- the problem is almost hopelessly complicated. At the worst an attempt at armed uprising would result in a series of unprecedented massacres, at best in an overtowering and very stupid bureaucracy or an equally stupid and far more cruel dictatorship of politicians." He distinguishes "industrial unionism" from narrowly-defined "anarcho-syndicalism" (does he mean Platformist conceptions of syndicalism, as with the CNT-FAI? I'm not sure). He also states "And, unless they wish to give up the principle of democracy for the principle of dictatorship, they should refuse to give over the control of their organization to politicians or non-proletarian leaders of any stripe or color."
 * Don't confuse the 1933 and 1946 versions of the work. I got these mixed up in an earlier post on Talk:List of anarchist poets. Both versions are strongly - even startlingly - collectivist by today's standards.
 * I find that kinda ironic given the IWW's dual unionism. Jacob Haller 07:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist cat
Not sure you guys should use in this role, as I point out at c:File talk:Anarchist black cat.svg Jeblad (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)