REVOLUTIONARY TRADE UNIONISM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19952, 20 November 1926, Page 9

REVOLUTIONARY TRADE UNIONISM.

A DANGER TO GUARD AGAINST

(Contributed by the New Zealand

Welfare League.)

All trade unionism is not the same to cuard against in character. There is a trade unionism which is sane, constructive, and beneficial both to ' workers and to society at large. On the other hand, there is a trade or industrial unionism which is fanatical, destruetiv , and injurious in its operations to tne mass of the people and to the nation. We have both of these classes of unionism in New Zealand Care should be exercised in seeing that these two forces are not classed. They are not one and the same, but are in principle opposed to each other There are employers who commit the blunder of oppos inu ali trade unionism, and thereby force moderate and thoughtful workers into alliance with revolutionary extremists, from whom they would gladly be tree. Employers and others, who oppose all trades unionism, and do not distinguish between good and bad, do a great deal of harm, and their attitude must be condemned. . ~ , . , The form of unionism which is dangerous and requires watching at every step is industrial syndicalism or revolutionary trade unionism. Rightly considered, this syndicalism is really not trade unionism or industrial at all. It is at the base a political movement of a subversive character. We have a specimen of' it in the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, the objects of which, when it was in court, were declared by the judge to be “ political. EXPERIENCE AT HOME.

The influence of syndicalism, or revolutionary trade unionism in Britain '.s traced by Mr Ramsay MacDonald ( Syndicalism," page 36) to the visit of William D. Haywood, an American who had taken the lead in forming the I.WAN . (Industrial Workers of the World) m 1905. He came to England, speaking mainly to South Wales audiences, where, says Mr MacDonald, “his crude appeals moved his listeners to wild applause.- In other words, he made many of the South Wales miners as insane as himself. Mr Frank Rose, Labour M.P. for North Aberdeenshire, says the virus of revolutionary syndicalism thus implanted, now " permeates the innermost councils a Labour, deny as we will.” Mr Rose points out that the hands of Labour have been strangely tied in upholding its constitutional rights against the destructive policy of the Communist wing. As evidence of its power, he cites the explanation of the National Labour Party’s Executive Committee that “ neither affiliated trade unions nor local Labour parties are in a position to debar the association with the Party of Communism, who technically indicate their acceptance of our constitution and principles.” nor can they “ curtail their activities to undermine the whole purpose of our movement from within.” This open confession shows how dangerous Communism is even to the trades union movement. The term “direct action” was adopted in 1919. The Trades Union Congress later endorsed “direct action.” Then the policy was adopted of forming “Councils of Action.” We have the final result in the general strike of this year and the coal stoppage, which has cost Britain £400,000,000 in hard cash and its people untold suffering. CURSE OF HYPOCRISY. In New Zealand we have the syndicalist Labour Alliance hypocritically professing that it wants one big union for purposes of peace, and the leaders at the some time fomenting trouble wherever they can. It has been the same in the Old Land. _ ‘'The fact remains," says Mr Rose, “ that the general strike of 1926 is the outcome of revolutionary propaganda that his vitiated the working class movement, under cover of some pretentious misnomer for at least a quarter of a century. ... To speak of the general strike as’ an industrial instrument is sheer hypocrisy; it is purely political in design and intention. . . . What was nothing but a surface smear a few years ago is not much more than skin deep, and will need the knife to remove it.” Against this danger it is needful for our people, both workers and employers, to be ever on their guard.