WHY THE BASIS OF UNITY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 563, 30 April 1913, Page 2

WHY THE BASIS OF UNITY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED

By E. J. B. Allen, late assistant general secretary, British Syndicalist League. That a conference of trade unionists should meet and propose a more combined effort is a matter for congratulation, that a committee selected by them should elaborate so comprehen sive a scheme Cor working class unity both indutrially and politically, is a matter for jubilation. The Basis of unity for one industrial organisation is a clear statement of industrial unionism which, in itself, is neither parliamentary nor anti-par-liamentary.

The preamble and objectives leave nothing to be desired, under such a constitution the most militant of industrials could find ample scope for activity. Even tho most pronounced direct actionist could work hero oven though he felt compelled to restrain from giving any ssistance to the Parlaimentary party. We have to recognise this much.: that it is impossible, even for the most advanced men, to act effectively unless they have the workers with them in their efforts, we cannot move ahead faster than the rest of the working class, and this being so it is the most telling argument in favour of all militant unionists being in the United Federation of Labour. The movement is there, and it can be moulded just how the active men use their efforts to influence the organisation. The great safeguard is provided by the fact that the Federation is to be autonomous, and this is as it should be. Union activity is necessarily of a different nature to political propoganda, different methods and tactics have to be used, and therefore there should be a division of labour which should result in the greatest satisfaction to both the union movement and the political body. Let tha autonomy of the United Federation be jealously guarded and maintained and the most extreme direct actionist can find a full scope for his powers. The Federation must never have its policy subordinated to any outside consideration whatever, its one aim should be the linking up of the workers of New Zealand into one formidable body which shall embrace the workers of all industries, united in the workshop, mill, mine and bush, determined to act as one against their common foe, the whole employing class, until the wages system has been abolished.

With regard to the proposals for political unity in the Social Democratic Party much may be said. Experience teaches one that such questions as these have to be considered wholly and solely in the light of the particular circumstances from which the proposal emianatee. Is the political unity of the workers of New Zea land desirable, and if so, why? Undoubtedly the answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." Political unity, parliamentarily expressed, can be of great use to the workers in the existing.circumstances. Half-a dozen solid fighters express ng the workers' views in Parliament could be of considerable influence from many points of view. If they could only expose the action of the Government against strikers, and by vigorous protests in the House, to the extent of obstructing business, arrest the attention of the working class generally, and the advanced thinking portion of the community in particular, it is worth doing. Whilst for one moment I would not pretend that I believe Parliamentary action alone can solve Labour's problems, not even here in New Zealand, where the political forms are of so democratic a nature compared with Europe, yet I believe that Parliamentary action can be used here to advance the working class movement.

On such vital questions as conscription, and the maintenance of secular education in public Bchools, a parlaimentary party can be of use and can repeal the one and maintain the other, even if there is no majority of Social Democrats in the House.

The political party can stand as propagandists and as educators. What is more, the political party can admit within its ranks those who are not wage workers and who therefore cannot join a trade union, but who are nevertheless sincere rebels and desire to see the abolition of the system of private property in the necessaries of life.

Knowing all the disadvantage of partliamentary action, I yet think that in view of all the conditions pertaining specially here in New Zealand it is worth while engaging therein. The Social Democratic Party must not be allowed to become merely an anti-Massey party, but must function exclusively as a rebel party whose chief task is to voice Labour's aspirations and Labour's demands Parliament, press and public platform. If the two organisations are animated by the one desire, namely to secure the integral emancipation the working class, and they both specialise upon their particular tasks, neither one attempting to encroach upon the other's field of action, there is every reason to believe that an earnest co-operation of such forces is bound to result in a substantial improvement in the workers' conditions and move a long way towards their emancipation. If difficulties should arise let us meet them as they come, and not like little children conjure up bogies in the dark with which to terrify ourselves. There may be many dangers in the proposed unity, but there is sure disaster in dispersion. Let the militants agree upon a working basis for combined action and the day is our. There is still truth in the grand old slogan: "Workers of the World, Unite!"