The W.E.A. and the Workers

Maoriland Worker, Volume 11, Issue 475, 21 April 1920, Page 2

The W.E.A. and the Workers

By E. J. B. ALLEN

It eeems my fate to be accused of Inaccuracies when it is my accusers who are at fault. Quite recently-an Italian comrade contradicted a statement of mine to the effect that D'Annuzio had ever been a member of the Italian Socialist Party, yet if that comrade will write home to the. "Avanti" he will find that at one time D'Annunzio was a member of the Italian Socialist Party, but subsequently left it on the grounds of "incompatibility of temperament"—one can judge on whose side the incompatibility lay. .

Now comes Comrade Murdoch after my scalp because—owing to a one-sid-ed reading of my letter, which pointed out that the revolutionary workers in Great Britain were supporting the Central Labor Colleges Uγ .order-to supersede the bourgeois W.E.A.—he makes mc say' that "it is to the Marxian students that \ the revolutionary movement in England owes its being." He adds, "such is contrary to fact."

PersoHally. I am not an'orthodox Marxian and I am not one because some of the claims made have not been substantiated. For instance "the concentration of wealth into fewer hands" up to the present has not taken place. Tcherkesoff in, his "Pages of Socialist History," by giving the figures for probate over an extended period, proved conclusively that the capitalist class were growing stronger numerically, that there were more millionaries than previously, morerich than previously and of course more propertyless.. But that the capitalist class rob the workers more rich than previously and of if we arc to wait until there is only one Rockfeller or Rothschild or J. P. Morgan left, and then expropriate him we shall never "arrive." But this by the way. as an academic discussion upon "the concentration of capital" or "the materialist conception o£ history" ia of no great moment, and in any case is unsuitable in a weekly paper which has to try to perform the function of newspaper, propagandist sheet, nnd magazine. Seeing that lam not a "scientific" Marxian whose apotheosis is the Moses Baritz type and the 5.P.G.8., of which he was a member, I cannot be accused of working merely to praise the Marxian students. But comrade editor, "facts are chiels that winna ding," therefore I must join issue with friend Murdoch and give him a little history of the Industrial Union movement in Great Britain, on which I think he will admit I can write largely from first hand experience. It was during the end of the 'nineties that the younger members of the Social Democratic Federation began to see the purposelessness of politics "pure and simple" "trade unionism, "pure and simple." The splendid work of De Leon (a Marxian, friend Murdoch) in his debate with Job Harriman and his •'Burning Question of 'trade Unionism" had clearly demonstrated that trade unions were either "a bulwark of capitalism or framework of socialism," and when the S.D.F. refused to tackle the trade union question, but allowed an S.D.F: man as an official of a trade union to do what any other member would be expelled for. a break occurred. About four Scottish branches seceded and formed the S.L.P.

■ Whilst I freely admit that at that time the bulk of the propaganda was attacking the compromising parlia-, mentary policy of the I.L.P. and S.D.F. j the advocacy of an "impossible par-j liamentary policy of necessity prepared the way for an alternative. The "pure and simple" trade union and the "pure' ahd simple" political Labor Party that evolved from it, became the chief question of 'discussion amongst active socialists. When in 1904 the original manifesto was issued to call the conference which formed (he 1.W.W., the S.L.P. .supported it. The*e "Marxians" circulated Industrial Union literature. Though I was editor of the first two papers to appear in, Great Britain solely to advocate Industrial Unionism, it was due to the previous preparatory work of the branch of the S.D.F. and S.L.P. that there was sufficient support to make those ventures. Now. De Leon, whose writing and speeches formed the bulk of the propagandist matter for the revolutionary Union movement in Great Britain | was an out and out Marxian. One of his pamphlets is entitled "Marx or Malloek." He was in the S.L.P Debs. W.D. Haywood, Sinions. Trantman, 1 were S.R. men. Frank Bonn wus S.L.P. But it was these men who formed the I.W.W. The S.L.P. in Britain was formed from the Marxian S.D.F., and the S.L.P. is a Marxian body. It is quite true that, eventually thoy oxpelled myself and snveral others because wo would not accept their definition of politics as being "the series of activities centering around securing parliamentary power or predominance through tho suffrage as an institution of constitutional government." We claimed that politics were merely the expression of class terests into government ajul whether the ballot.general strike, 6r insurrection dislodged the capitalist from government power, that act or series of acts were perforce political. However, the "direct actionist" Lenin, inWils book "The State of Revolution," tfnicfil he claims is an exposition of "Marxian" teaching, takes up a similar attitude. Sorel, in. his "Decomposition dv Marxisme," claims that the "direct action" of the French syndicalists is the real Marxian teaching.

Indeed, Marx himself took part as bombardier in an insurrection. Perhaps he was no Marxian? To mc, it is immaterial whether a man calls himself a Marxian or not, if he teaches the workers that profit, rent and interest, are the result of labor, which have' been legally filched from them, and urges them to organise to prevent that robbery, lam with him. But to merely kick-—a m,ule has a great propensity for kicking but. still remains a mule--and not, to work definitely to make the necessaries of life common property, is useless.

It may not be necessary to wade through volumes, huge or otherwise, In either, W.E.A., Central Labor Colleges or Socialist Sunday Schools to learn Ihese facts, but until they are learned there is little hope for emancipation. The Bolsheviks have taken good care to see that the Red Armies are well supplied with Socialist literature, and the neasants have yet to be shown a better system thanprlvlate ownership. There probably ftfi nyw>Y, gtpfllflcatlqps Iα; Bolahe

vik'internal policy before things'.aje stabilised , at all. • These "Marxian" direct actionists have in spite ■of friend Murdoch's antipathy to "Marxian students," erected a statue to Karl Marx at the entrance to the Sniolni Institute.

That parliamentarism may .lead the workers Into a blind ally is quite,true, but I have yet to know of a single spokesman pf the N.Z.L.P. who has denied the value of unionist direct action. The "Marxian" Lenin Ms advised the revolutionary worker in Great Britain and Italy to uso parliamentary activity. Certainly not to make a fetish of it, but, to utilise it for propaganda as well as other work. Will friend Murdoch deny t\e utility of the Labor M.P.'s activity in the last Parliament? Take Bob temple's action with regard to the water jet drills; was or was that not of value to hte whole of the miners, in New -Zealand? I think" it was. What is the difference between petitioning the Auckland Harbour Board to remove or enlarge the Watersiders' waiting,room or petitioning parliament for better shearing accommodation to be compulsory? Is one "direct action" and the other "Marxian , parliamentarism"? There have been as many fakers in the union movement as in a poi'cica! party. Mr. Murdoch, through having been first of all educated by the Marxian S.D.F., became an Industrial Luionist. Thousands of others diJ liko wise, therefore, friend Murdoch, Marxian politics, in the shape of propaganda, in parliament and more i'tpecially outside- of it, are of use to the revolutionary movement. Road the pamphlets by ■ that "Marsian" Daniel De Leon "As to Politics.' , He was an Industrial Unionist. Placed in its proper perspective political uctiou is essential, vulgarised into merely "parliamentary cretinism" it is worse than useless.

Of those Comrade Murdoch mentions as having opposed Industrial Unionism. Hardie, Mary McArthur, and Frank Rose, never professe.l to be Marxians.

The Central Labor Colleges are advocates of Industrial Unionism, not so the New Zealand W.E.A. professorial tutors. Socialist Sunday Schools can do much to relieve the children's mind of the false teachings and bias of their every day schools, with regard to history and current events. Furthermore, unless the workers have learned to think co-operatively and on Socialist lines, it means, as in Russia, a dictatorship of a comparative handful to coerce them into new armies, and new forms of economic life. The less ceorcion has to be used in order to bring in a workers' Commonwealth, the better it will be. Sunday Schools, Labor Colleges and Political Action tend to familiarise the majority with Socialist ideals and at least coercion of members of our own class will be less necessary: A Dubb who kicks, but has not yet pictured a different state, is still i Dubb, and will j remain a wage slave in mind as well an in body. The conscious revolutionist is the best, because we are aiming not merely at rebellion but at a complete reconstruction. There is the need, particularly in Mew Zealand and Australia, for a genuine Labor Party. There are hundreds of small farmers and professional workers whom we need. The "direct actionist" of 1913----1914 found the small farmer our antagonist because ot! talk of PsOTagranda. Many who came into v ilie towns and learned the facts of > the case put up their batons and went home again. We have got to get the multitude of small farmers with us. A political party and co-operative move- [ ment can help to weld the union of the town proletariat with the small independent producers. Unless we have them in passive sympathy, if not active, they are the reserve army of the "White Guards" that our Massey Junkers and Wardite financiers will utilise to down u>i. There can be no political victory without them, there could be-no physical force move-, ment in opposition to them, there could be no social reconstruction with them in antagonism to a Socialist Government. How are we to disarm their opposition except by propaganda by "politics."? W T e arc not'in the midst of the densely populated industrial centres of Europe. Tactics that may be good there are useless ha-e. What progress has revolutionary "direct action" made in New Zealand? Where is the one time 1.W.W.? Half a dozen watersiders or miners can be excellent propagandists; but, half, a dozen cannot effect a social revolution. Like it or like it not, the political conditions prevailing in New Zealand render "political action" Imperative. For this to be effective the better equipped our speakers are the better service will they render. Hence the preliminary studies are of use. History and economics can throw vast light on many prdseiit-day problems. We must be able to meet our opponents in the domain of theory as well as of fact. . Education cannot make a man a man less of a revolutionary. It oan strengthen him. Education may make many a young man and- woman revolutionary who were not so before.