Asked & Answered
MORE QUESTIONS CONCERNING OUR POSITION
E. J. HIGGINS (Philadelphia) asks the following questions arising out of our answers to his questions in our May issue.
(1) — “Wherein is the wideness and advantage for revolutionary purposes of the platform of Parliament ? Are you assuming that the capitalist Press would publish your speeches ?
(Answer.) We know that the Press to-day is carried on for profit and for profit only ; and if anything furthers the sale of their papers they will publish it. We know from past experience how sensational they consider speeches of revolutionists and the prominence they give them, hoping, very often, to frighten the non-Socialist workers by accentuating the “extreme” nature of the speeches published. But if they were to change their tactics and engage in a conspiracy of silence, we should win all the same. The fact that no reference to Socialist members’ speeches appeared would sooner or later raise in the minds of the exploited the question : “Why this silence?” The very silence itself would be eloquent and cause workers to seek for themselves in the proletarian Press the speeches delivered, thus bringing more toilers into our camp. The danger of silence would soon alter our masters’ tactics, though, of course, whichever way they turned they would be but marching toward their graves. In fact, by reporting the speeches delivered in opposition to our members they could not help referring to our point of view.
(2) “Do you hold that the State which so long as the workers are disorganised on the industrial field must fulfil its real function as an engine of repression—do you hold that your ‘advance guard’ will be able to turn an engine of repression into an engine of emancipation ? ‘Will the capitalists let you do this ? ”
(Answer.) The implication that the repressive functions of the State cease with economic organisation is opposed to history and every-day experience. Organise how and to what extent you like and the repression continues. We claim that the political machinery can be used by the toilers to control the armed forces and thereby give the workers power to enter into the ownership of the land, factories, railways, etc. The point as to whether our masters will allow the toilers to do it begs the question of their power to stop it.
The masters depend upon the political power put into their hands by the votes of the workers, and when the flux of time, with its influence upon the toilers’ minds, puts into power the working class through its delegates, then the masters face defeat, for the power over the supplies for and the movements of the armed force passes into the hands of the working class. You may say that the masters ere this will destroy constitutional government, but when they do that they commit suicide. Under the naked despotism and barbaric rule of governments without a Parliament and a Constitution, the smooth working of trade and commerce is impossible. Mexico is a good example of this.
(3) “Is it your opinion that the capitalists are looking for pretexts to make the State fulfil its function as an engine of repression; that they are concerned with our method of expropriating them and will not bother so long as we are doing the expropriating ‘peacefully,’ or as the little pope of the S.L.P. would say, in a ‘civilised manner’ ?”
(Answer.) Socialism can only come by the consent of the working class, that is, at least a majority of them. If we neglect the present institutions and fly off to “violence” we do provide our masters with arguments whereby they can retain the support of our fellows. By showing that we refuse to try the Constitutional means first we are branded as “Terrorists” in the minds of the toilers. Thus the coming of Socialism is retarded. If, on the other hand, we are willing to try political action, then the blame is upon our masters should they attempt to repudiate and destroy their own machinery of government. Not only do they outrage those who sympathise with our aims but all others of our class as well. Hence.—Nemesis !
A. KOHN
TWO FALSE STATEMENTS AND A CONUNDRUM
[To thk editor.]
Nottingham, May 21, 1912.
Sir,—Arising out of your reply to my question in the last issue, there is just one point I should be pleased if you will make clear.
In the article entitled “The Socialist and Trade Unionism” the writer clearly shows that the functions of the political and economic organisations are distinct and separate.
Now according to your Declaration of Principles the S.P.G.B. is a purely political party, since the aim is the expropriation of the capitalist class from political power in order to establish Socialism.
I should like to know how by merely taking economic action it constitutes it an economic organisation ?
L. SHEARSTONE.
The writer of the article you refer to tried to make clear that the functions of the present economic organisations—the trade unions—and the political organisation of the workers—the Socialist Party—are different. That he failed to make this clear is probably due to the fact that he developed what he calls his “style” by studying a burr-walnut piano case in foggy weather. But try and get the sentence with which we explain his intention well soaked in and fast dyed.
What you say about our Declaration of Principles seems to indicate that you have been studying it in foggy weather, so there’s a pair of you. The aim of the S.P.G.B. is its Object, and its Object is clearly stated above the principles. Do you mind reading it, Mr. Shearstone ? Thank you. Now if, as you seem to think, the character of an organisation is determined by its aim or object, have you still the “neck” to say that a party with such an essentially economic object is a “purely” political party ?
With regard to the question with which you close your communication, you must explain yourself more fully. Since we buried our tame thought-reader we have been rather at a loss in dealing with whydiddles.
Ed. Com.