Cincinnati, O.
The SLP members of the Industrial Workers of the World always claimed, that political (parliamentary) action is an absolute fluke: except, if it is backed up by economic organization on the lines of the Industrial Workers of the World. They also tell us in word and print, that people, believing in the economic organization to be the sole factor, by using the general strike tactics are just as wrong in their theory as the Socialists from the Socialist party who are of the opinion that the ballot only will bring them economic and political liberty. Another argument we hear at present quite often and that is: How could we (non-parliamentary Socialists) organize the workers on general strike tactics without being jailed or hanged at present? Indeed very easy to answer. We tell the working class that the Industrial Workers of the World (and that is the reason we belong to it) is a revolutionary economic organization, whose ultimate object will be to free the workers, who are robbed under the capitalist system of exploitation in the production of wealth by not owning the necessary tools to produce commodities for themselves. For this reason the Industrial Workers of the World was organized and not like pure and simple unions a la American Federation of Labor to get for the workers an increase in wages and possibly a shortening of hours.—If the capitalist class fears this proposition so much, that it would not tolerate such an organization, because it trains its members for the Social Revolution, how is it, that it allows a political party such as the SLP or even SP to make propaganda for Socialism? In my opinion this looks very funny indeed, or is it perhaps that the capitalist attorneys and the leaders of the different parliamentary Socialist parties have some kind of an agreement to blind the workers if you please, when the day of the social revolution arrives and is declared by the working class themselves by refusing to work any longer for the capitalist parasites? In fact Mr. Iglesias of Spain and also Mr. Vandervelde of Belgium, two of the prominent members of the international political Socialist parties blinded the workers of their respective countries, when they were in conflict several years ago, while the social general strike was tested there. (This information I received by reading a leaflet on the general strike by Walter Arnold about a year ago.) As far as the preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World in regards to organizing the workers on the political as well as on the economic field is at least said confusing and should be changed at our next convention to read: The workers should be organized on the economic field to overthrow the economic and the political state of capitalism.
Upon a more careful reading of the above the impression that it asked some questions was found to be false. Had a first glance at the communication conveyed the correct impression, it would have been excluded by last week’s decision to close the discussion. Kiefe’s contribution not only evades the question repeatedly put by The People to the total opposers of political action, but it is cast in an unhappy controversial mold, unhappy because in not a single instance are its premises correct, the whole thing reveals a woeful confusion of facts and rashness in arriving at a conclusion. The promise of an answer having been made last week, the promise will be kept.
When ten years hence—’tis to be hoped sooner—Kiefe, a member of last year’s Industrial Workers of the World convention may happen to read his above argument, he will feel quite charitable toward those workers, who, notwithstanding they have frequently heard his arguments against the American Federation of Labor and the capitalist class in general, still keep coming back with retorts that prove they still are muddled, still remain tangled in previous misconceptions, still continue stuffed with prejudices, and still have failed to learn the lesson that reckless accusation can only work against the unification of the working class.
If Kiefe can still use the term “parliamentary” action as identical with “political” action in this discussion; if he can still venture to insist that, without political action so as to recognize the civilized method of peaceful trial of strength, the working class (not a handful of men behind closed and barred doors) can organize itself for the revolution, and to insist by simply insisting; if he still does not see the difference between the power that a political body, (a body recognizing the peaceful method of trial of strength) enjoys, by the mere fact of its civilized posture, to force the capitalist class to draw in its horns against it, and the contrary power which a body, that preaches physical force only, does, by the mere fact of its own uncivilized posture, suicidally exert to furnish that same capitalist class a welcome excuse to draw out and sharpen its horns against it; if he still does not see that, and can only consider “funny” the arguments of those who do see, explain, and declare the difference; if he still is so confused on the subject at issue that he perceives not the radical difference between a “strike” and a “general strike;” if he still is so reckless as to repeat, wholly without verification of the charge, such slander against the integrity of Iglesias and Vandervelde, as he hurls at them and insinuates indiscriminately against all other Socialist political parties, is satisfied with merely stating the source from which he borrows his slanderous conclusion, is ready to appear as a swallower of the untested charge of somebody else, and ventures to make such a sequence the basis of his stand;—if notwithstanding his contribution is dated as late as February 7, months after the discussion started, and enjoying better opportunities than the average worker, whom he addresses in behalf of the Industrial Workers of the World, Kiefe himself is found guilty of their foibles, himself comes back with retorts that prove he still is muddled, still remains tangled in previous misconceptions, still continues stuffed with prejudices, and still has failed to learn the lesson that reckless accusation unaccompanied with even a vestige of evidence, can only work against the unification of the working class—if this is thus, Kiefe should not despair of the “dullards.”
Taking up Kiefe’s statements seriatim we shall rapidly run through them.
“Parliamentary” action is not “political” action. Without “political action,” true enough, there could be no “parliamentary” action. But the latter need not follow the former. For instance. There was a campaigning and election for delegates to last year’s convention of the Industrial Workers of the World. Some of the delegates tried to parliamentarize at the convention. Those were the ones who favored compromise with treason and corruption. The revolutionists refused to “parliamentarize.” They stood to their guns. They neither compromised nor bolted, and they triumphed.
Superfluous to heap up further proof that a body that organizes for war only can expect to remain unbattered by the capitalist, from above, or unscuttled by the MacParland “agents provocateurs,” or their kindred the Dumases and Petriellas, from below. The style of argument adopted by the woman who insisted against her husband that a knife was a pair of scissors, and who, when finally ducked under water, stuck out her arm, and with her fingers made the motion of scissors, will not stead in the discussions of the labor movement—least of all by folks who evade a direct answer to a pointed, legitimate and fair question.
If the ballot, an acquisition of civilization for peaceful trial of strength, is a concession from the capitalist class, then all other conquests of civilization are concessions, the right to organize economically, included. If it is “funny” to utilize the concession of political action; it must be side-splitting for any inflexible non-accepter of concessions to start Unions. Consequently, if “funny” is the claim that the capitalist class should “allow a political party such as the SLP” but will not tolerate an organization that repudiates the civilized method of trial of strength, if that claim is “funny, 1 ‘ then roars-provoking must be the hint that the SLP and all Socialist political bodies indiscriminately are in the pay of the capitalist class.
The organizing for the ordinary strike is no social act; the organizing for the general uprising of the working class is an act of high social significance. The latter is a political act in that its purpose is the remodeling of society. Consequently, though “physical force,” after a fashion, rather than the “ballot,” is the means
for the trial of strength in ordinary strikes, civilization does not condemn the Union that organizes for such “physical” demonstration. In the instance of the so-called “general strike” (a most infelicitous and contradictory term in the mouths of those who mean the dispossession of the capitalist class) the union that organizes for that to the tune of “down with political action!” would to-day, in America, tactlessly and uselessly bring down upon itself the condemnation of civilization.
Walter Arnold libeled Iglesias and Vandervelde. As to the latter, The People has more than once expressed its opposition to his methods. To suspect his integrity, however one may suspect his judgment, is gratuitous insult. As to Iglesias, the gratuitousness of the insult is still crasser. Spanish conditions are among, the most backward. Difficult is there the part of the revolutionist. So difficult that suffering has bred unreasoning rage in many heads and breasts. Not even of these would it be fair to say they “blinded the workers” by “some kind of agreement,” although they have; more than once led the workers to useless slaughter—and then themselves escaped over the mountains into France, or over the water to Italy. The charge that Iglesias “blinded the workers” by “some kind of agreement” is an unqualified libel.—Ed. The People