BAKUNIN OR MARX

Grey River Argus, 2 December 1920, Page 4

BAKUNIN OR MARX

Commenting on the controversy as to joiitical versus direct action, tbc 'Maoriland Worker" Tcmarks: — Direct action, and by "direct acion:; is meant, not a strike for sonic mmediatc purpose, but a definite polcy for the dethronement of Capitalism, inplics tho social general strike, or ock-out of the owning class.' This inevitably carries with it an endorsement •»f physical force as the method by vhich the workers of a countmy arc to ecurc power. And the result of such v policy, who can foresee the end? Thi. c jontroversy is by no means new. 11 lutes far bsiek in the pages of working •lass histOTv. Tho two most promiicnt types of the two schools were Marx, who stood for what roughly is understood by Constitutionalism or ParliamentaTiani-yn plus economic effort, and Bakuuin, who advocated and practised violcr.ee. In tho workshop? the world both methods have been tested. Movements have arisen founded upon the rival policies, and practically without ' exception the results have heou the same. The First International was torn asunder by tho warring of these two factions. Direct actionists captured -the International and transplanted it to America, where it soon dwindled away and ceased to be. Ln America, too, the gospel of Bakunin, as preached by John Most and others, spread throughout the union movement and brought disaster upoii it. In the reaction cair.c the blight of Gomperiim, which to-day afflicts American Labour. And Gompcrism, let it be noted, is anti -political action', antiSocialist, and anti-International. In Europe the same struggle went on. France and Spain followed in the footsteps of America, and a weak and purpostfess syndicalism is the Tesult— a syndicalism which denounces Communism with a vehemence that calls forth the plaudits of the capitalist Press. En Northern Europe Marxism conquered, and it is in these countries that the workers are now dictating terms and constructing programmes and defining policies which will win the world's wealth for' those who labour. But a cursory review of world experience should give us food for thought before impulsively swinging away from the policy which has found general acceptance except in the camps of reaction. Even a superficial knowledge of working class history should convince the workers of the wisdom of serious thought before plu«?ing this country Into the th-rocs of a conflict which for years raged in the International movement and for a time destroyed its organisation. We are a small eommu::ity; we are, from a Labour viewpoint, poorly organised; we are confronted by a powerfully-equipped enemy, entrenched in industry and in Government. To dislodge him we require to attack at every point, with all " our available forces, be it through job action or by means of the ballot. Let us cease this foolish advocacy of quasi-anarchica! doctrines in the belief that it demonstrates our superior intelligence and realise that in the bitter world of international experience the policy preached is one of disruption, despair and death."