Grey River Argus and Blackball News.

Grey River Argus, 12 November 1920, Page 2

Grey River Argus and Blackball News.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER. 12. 3920 SOCIALISM AND POLITICS— A REPLY.

Delivered every morning in Greymouth, Krnnnrn Hokitika, Dobsoii, Wallseml, Taylor v"J lie, Croua dvu t Ngahere, BlackLaß. Nelso. Creek, Bruimer, Te Kingha, Botoninnu , P. _-ua, lucabouuie, Patara, B«ru, Kaiinutn, Kotnku. .Toaim, Aratikn. Pmrnuga, Biiuoliie/ Cobdeji, 8..- .ar's, Kokiri, ■Au.. l _i-u,-ik&---matua, Stilhvater. Waiuta. and Kecl'tou,

Recently we referred to the vagaries of -a professed Marxian student who said his primary aim at the present time was to kill the New Zealand Labour Party. Thfs seems to be his

governing idea for a Avorking policy towards his ideal qf Socialism, oi : what he may magine to be Socialism. He oven went the length of telling us to study the Russian Revolution and its loaders in order to learn what needs to be known as a preliminary to working effectively.- lor Socialism. He quoted Lenin in a manner that every militarist in Ihs country would applaud, and that was as much as. he did to illustrate how learned in revolutionary poiicy hi.s study of Lenin had made him. Well, we have not so much to learn about the ideas stud policy ct Lenin as h e evidently imagines. The^Hjot indeed, seems to be quite on the other foot, and avc shall proceed to give reasons for so thinking. Lenin's latest book on revolutionary tactics, "The Infantile Sickness of 'Leftism' in 'Communism,' " adds new interest to the controversy surrounding the subject of Parliamentary action, more particularly in relation to the attitude of a. certain section of Marxian students and aspiring communists in this country. We must not be understood as averse in any -way to careful study of the Marxian theories. But there arc Marxians here, as in other lands, whose motto is, "Down with Parliamentary action!" Yet wo submit they will find themselves in a quandary when trying to reconcile theii> anti-Parlia-mentary attitude with Lenin's definite instruction to the "Communists of Britain" to participate']!! all forms of Parliamentary action. In the ninth chapter specific reference is made to the "correct" policy to be pursued by the Communist Party. Lenin does not minco matters in laying down the law. He refers to- statements made by Sylvia Pankhurst and W. Gallaeher, both antiI'arliamentarians, approves of their "noble revolutionary sentiment," then proceeds to administer an effective rebuke in the following sentences:

It follows without any doubt that

the English Communists must participate in Parliament, must from within Parliament help the workers to see in practice the results of the Henderson and Snowdcn Govern-

ment, miist help the Hendersons and

Snowdens to vanquish Lloyd George and Churchill. To act otherwise

means to hamper the progress of the revolution, because, without an alteration in the view of the majority of the working class, revolution is impossible, and this change can be brought about by the political experience of the masses , only, and never through propaganda alone. Forward without compromise, without stopping, or turning. % . . This is intellectual childishness, and not the serious tactics of the revolutionary class. j Omitting the motive implied in the reference to Henderson and Snowden, it is difficult to appreciate the distinction bctw.een the above policy and the Parliamentary method, outlined by Keir Htvrdie. Or, for that matter, the policy of tho present-day Parliamentarian. In effect Tt says: Participate in politics, employ Parliamentary tactics, "alter the views of the majority of fliß working cass," otherwise "revolution"'isimpossible. And so sny all of us. But the pregnancy of the above is fully

developed when Lenin says: — I If we, not a revolutionary group, • but a party of the revolutionary 1 class, wish to carry the masses with '<■ us (without which we run the Tisk 1 of remaining mere babblers), we must first help Henderson and Snowden to defeat Lloyd George and Churchill. , f Surely these Marxians in New Zealand w"ho have condemned Labour's party w r ill now, as Leninites, he anxious to stand for every scat in the country! In his book Lenin thus refers to a Ijook in which the writer (Mr W. Gallaeher) absolutely disagrees with Parliamentary action. In a paternal reply, Lenin remarks: — "Comrade Gallaeher 's letter reveals, without doulDt, all the errors in embryo which are being made by the German 'Left' Communists, and which were committed by Hie Russian 'Left' Bolsheviks in the years 190S and 1918. He docs not take into consideration the fact that politics is a science and an art which does not drop from the skies, and which cannot be gotten for nothing, and that the proletarian, if ho wishes .to overcome the bburgeoisc, must create for himself his own proletarian 'class politicians,' as capablo as bourgcoise politicians. The authoT of the letter does not even think of putting the question as to. whether or not it is possible for the Soviets to vanquish Parliament Avithout introducing 'Soviet workers' into the' latter,- without discntegrating Parliament from within, without preparing inside of Parliament the success of Soviets in the impending struggle for the dispersion of. Parliaments. That the Hendersons, Clynes, Mac Donalds, and Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary is true. It is also true that they want to take the power into their own hands (pro- ! fcrring, however, a Coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to govern according to the same old rules, that they will inevitably behave when in power like the Schiedemanns and Noskes, all this is true. But from this it does not follow that to support thpm 'means treason. The revolutionaries of the working class must render to these gentlemen a certain Parliamentary support." Now in view of what Mr Thos. Fcary -would have us believe, is it not inexplicable for Lenin to declare: ''The revolutionaries must render to

these gentlemen a certain Parliamentary support." What for? To get inside Parliament, to "vanquish it," to "prepare for the success of Soviets." Surely Lenin is not saying what he thinks- in his book. Mr Feary says he thinks quite differently, and Mr Feary is an all-wise leader of the proletariat who knows all about the Russian revolution, and before he is "finished with it," is going to kill the New Zealand Labour Party. Where does Lenin's policj 1 " differ from that of

the New Zealand Labour Party so far as Parliamentary action is concerned? Let Mr Feary deal with this query, before setting out to kill the Labour Party. Wh'en- he has answered it, he may want to kill someone else. He .may set out with a tomahawk for Lenin's scalp! If, as Lenin says, comI promise is the proper course to adopt with Labourites, reactionary or not, it could even be concluded that a compromise even with Mr Massey would be very good policy if the object is to abolish all the antiquated social and political top-hamper for he and his party are responsible'? Mr Feary makes the mistake of compromising only with Toryism and iightging Labour! To the question, "Shall we participate in bourgeoisc Parliaments?" Lenin gives an unequivocal answer, which, as a lesson in tactics, affords complete justification for the Labour Party's attitude: — Tactics should be constructed on a sober, strictly objective, consideration of all the forces of a given country, as well as on the evaluation of the experience of revolutionary movements. To manifest one's "revolutionism" solely by dint of swearing at Parliamentary opportunism', of denial of participation in Parliaments, is very easy, but just because it is too easy, it is not the • solution of a difficult, most difficult problem. To create a really revolutionary Parliamentary faetiou in Europoan States is much more dif- ! ficiilt than in Russia .... To attempt to '•.circumvent' this, difficulty, to 'leap over' the hard task of utilising reactionary Parliaments for revolutionary purposes, is absolute childishness.'' Precisely! The Labour Party have all along declared that national development and experience,, should-deter-mine the tactics and method of the Socialist Parties. The above quotation crystallises most effectively the -case against tlic anti-Parliamentary, no-com-promise, dcstroy-the-lJ abour-f akir, am" liatc to the Third International at any price, Revolution to-morrow, type of mind. That it emanates from Lenin is, to say the least, not without interest. Equally instructive is Lenin in commenting on the policy of the "Left Wing of the Communist Party" (strange that there should be a Left WiiigJ) tp^tho Trade Unions. One quotation will suffice: — 'The Executive Committee of the Third International should,"" in my opinion, directly condemn, and suggest to the next conference- of the Communist- Int| rnation.nl the necessity of general condemnation of the policy of non-participation in reactionary trade unions. ' i?~ Good, if trade unions are reactionary, their methods ineffective, organisation, cweak, leadership vacillating,, don't remain outside criticising, forming new factions. Your place is within, propagating advanced views, strengthening, assisting, building vp — in a word, working with the Labour mass, helping it to take advantage of its growing consciousness. If Lenin is rightj what a lot qi' time some

people have wasted during recent years. ' The one-idea Marxians snould. turn their gaze on the world around them | as well as upon the highly abstract | theories of their beloved mentor: