Socialism and “Socialists” in Australia

Industrial Unionist, Volume 1, Issue 8, 1 September 1913, Page 3

Socialism and “Socialists” in Australia

The Sydney International Socialist appeared recently with a, quarter of its entire space given over to the publication of a diatribe against 'Haywood and the I.W.W. from the pen of W. E. Trautman. This article was originally published in the New York Weekly People, an organ edited and owned by the famous (or infamous) Mr. Daniel De Leon. The writer penned a letter in reply to the lengthy “ hot air” effusion, but that ‘ ‘ lack of space ’ ’ which was so conspicuous when an opportunity occurred for slandering the I.W.W. was apparently instrumental in securing the publication of my letter only in a mutilated form; while t two and a-half columns were given to irrelevant comments thereon, including some further De Leonite ravings on I.W.W. matters in America. These editorial comments concluded with a hint that no further space would be devoted to a presentation of the I.W.W. side of the case. So much for the fair play of party ‘ 1 revolutionaries. ’ ’ The growth of the I.W.W. in Sydney, the demand for our literature and the eagerness with which the workers, even in this politically-benighted part of the planet, are listening to the message of Industrial Unionism undiluted with the two-winged theories of Parliamentary aspirants, has evidently become so repugnant to the Socialist Party in Australia that we now find that organisation vicing with the press, the pulpit and politicians of all persuasions in slandering the 1.W.W., in misrepresenting our tactics and aim and in personal abuse of the membership both here and in the United States. Undesirable elements may or may not occasionally fin-d their way into the 1.W.W., but the organisation will indeed be in a sorry plight when it has to look to the Australian S.P. for principles or moral guidance. If one were so inclined a tale

could be unfolded as to the expulsion of certain members of the party because of their over-anxiety to get to the bottom of certain financial matters, but while this may have a passing interest for those acquainted with the personnel of the party, I refuse to follow the example which the t( I.S. ” has so unctuously set itself, the moral reformation of the I.W.W. and the Working Class movement generally, because this tendency to attack all who do not subscribe to the “ Party” philosophy has a much wider significance. Wherever we turn to-day we find the spokesmen of political, socialist and labour bodies are loud in their denunciation of those who put not their trust in Parliaments, but advise the workers not merely to be content with theorising about the class war, but to wage that war incessantly and to the full extent of their organised power against the forces of capitalism. So it is that in Europe politicians who differ so widely in their views as to just where and how political action can be used, such as McDonald, Quelch, Jau res, and others, join in harmonious chorus in denouncing Syndicalism and the principles of Direct Action as “ anarchistic” and reactionary, and endeavour to pour cold water on those great mass uprisings of the proletariat in England and elsewhere which have recently done so much to upset the serenity of Capitalist society. So, too, in America the Socialist Party, despite its revolutionary pratings, manifested its loyalty to the existing economic system and its displeasure with those who violently disturb existing economic arrangements by having Haywood recalled from the National Executive of the Party on account-, of his unpleasant persistency in actively ‘ carrying out in practice what party protagonists preach in theory, namely, waging (not talking about) the

Class Struggle. And more recently we find prominent officials of the same party, including the irreproachable Debs, whitewashing a tool of the Capitalist Class in West Virginia, who was instrumental in his . capacity of Governor in shooting, jailing and outraging miners on strike. Sp, also, in Australia the would-be saviours of- our class speak sneeringly of those whose philosophy, so far as the Class Struggle is concerned, is a philosophy of action and not of mere words. Our intellectual make-up, we are told, consists in repeating revolutionary doctrines taught in America, and in copying the methods and tactics of fellow-workers there. Even if this were true we are at least more up-to-date than those who repeat ‘ ‘ learnedly ’ ’ the doctrine of the materialist conception of history and other dogmas given to the world over half a century ago, the practical utility of which has, to say the least, been doubtful in the every-day struggle with Capitalism. To listen to some of these ultraMarxian friends of ours, while they are grinding out their stereotyped phrases in technical Marxian jargon, one would think that if Marx had never been born the workers would have been doomed to perpetual slavery. Meanwhile, they expect the bewildered wage slave to look solemn and impressed by their store of “ scientific” knowledge, ignoring the fundamental fact that the true test of revolutionary feeling is to be found in the actions of the Working Class and not in their theoretical acceptance or rejection of a particular philosophy. There would, indeed, appear to be a fear amongst our pseudo-intellectual saviours that whenever the workers instinctively put into practice that part of the Marxian philosophy which is any use to them, i.e., act for themselves, they are in danger of showing that the task of “ eman-

cipating the Workers which own political parties have set themselves is not to be the walk-over they imagined. That this ‘ ‘ emancipation, ’ ’ if left to the Parliamentary Socialists, would inevitably end in establishing that tyranny which Spencer describes as the “ coming slavery,” nobody who studies the programme of any important Socialist Party will deny. While theoretically attacking the State, they are in actual practice making it more powerful and formidable by seeking to enlarge and multiply its economic functions; and it is time that all who have economic freedom for their aim recognised that no matter how revolutionary may be the attitude of individual Socialists towards the present system, participating in the politics of the capitalist state must naturally and logically lead towards establishing a bureaumore powerful than any trust or combine known to Capitalist Society, rhe S.P. in Australia, like its kind in other countries, has cleared the air for us. It has definitely declared war against those who seek to get the workers to act for themselves. Its goal, moreover, resembles that at which the I.W.W. is aiming as the moon resembles cheese. Closer examination reveals the fallacy of the resemblance. But let us be thankful that we have discovered our real relationship so early in the history of the I.W.W. in Australia.—T. G., Sydney.