FORCE OR LEGISLATIVE ACTION?

NZ Truth, Issue 583, 19 August 1916, Page 8

FORCE OR LEGISLATIVE ACTION?

Dear 'Truth," — J.E's. letter m your issue of August 6, calls for some comment, and as he has attacked the Marxian philosophy, I intend, with your permission, to defend that philosophy as far as my limited ability will per\talt J.B. has also all sorts and conditions of bourgeois political parties, who may or may not dub themselves Marxians, thereby leading himself and others astray. He quotes Lelbriecht, senr., thus: "That aU power is economic; that political action is but the reflex of economic power," and asksi "why, then, should ' the Social Democrats and Socialists, the world over, continually prate about political action being a power?" Since when did the Social Democrats become; ►"Marxian Socialists?" and wherein is the Marxian philosophy antagonistic to the Leibnecht quotation? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the German SJD's, and also the New Zealand brand prove them to be bourgeois parties, as they do not Subscribe to the Marxian slogan, of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains," He Instances the Briand Government of France, and, the present Australian Labor Government as being failures of political action. Now, according to 0J3., as the workers of Australia failed by political action, and the French Revolutionists failed by direct action, where would J.B's. sophistry land us had not Marx and others given us the key m the "Materialistic Conception of History?" If "political action" is to ''power" what the head is to the body, the Marxian Socialists are on safe grounds yet, as they concentrate their

efforts at the most vital part while the Direct Actionists are busy at the other end. I can assure J.B. and others that his or their statements of facts do not demolish Marx or his philosophy, as it is on this postulate that "all history is a history of class struggles" that his theory of Historic Materialism is based. — Yours, etc, "A TOM." Auckland.