Answers to Correspondents: Industrial Unionism

L. (Hackney) AND OTHERS.—The article appearing in our January issue under “Peace and Poverty,” was somewhat confusing. Owing to late arrival of the copy, no time could be allowed for author’s corrections, and reducing matter to its many essential features. If the article is re-read with the following explanation much of the confusion will, we think, be avoided.

The figures quoted in pars. 6, 7 and 8 refer to Birmingham; the book referred to being based upon certain investigations made into the conditions of the working-class in that city. The sentence Mr. Rountree allows,” etc. should read ” H. B. Wilson allows,” etc.

F. A. COTTRELL (Manor Park).—Industrial Unionists would take and hold the means of production by an industrial organisation of Socialists and non-Socialist. Non-Socialist, however, can be illogical enough to recognise the class struggle on the industrial field, and yet support their bosses politically, as recent experience has shown. It is easy to talk of leaders who would be the servants of all, but a majority of non-Socialists in any organisation is the condition for misleading. Get a Socialist working class, and industrial organisation will follow; but “Industrial Unionism” (divorced from Socialism) is another of those “short cuts” which lead the working class to box the compass.

F. SUTHERLAND (Queensland).—Regret we cannot find room for your letter, but note your appreciation of our pamphlet ” Socialism and Religion.” We hope you will make it widely known in Australia.