The Maoriland Worker FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1911. Edward: Tregear and Organisation.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 35, 3 November 1911, Page 10

The Maoriland Worker

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1911. Edward: Tregear and Organisation.

A Journal of industrial Unionism, Socialism and Politics. "Organ of the New Zealand Federation of Lahor." THE MAORILAND "WORKER is published weekly at 290 Victori a Street. Te Aro, Wellington. Tetephone No. 2775. THE MAORILAND WORKER will be supplied to all Newsagents on tlie usual trade terms (on Bate or return) by the Gordon and Gotch Proprietary, Wellington. Auckland. Christchurch. and Dunedin. This Paper may be had Ihrouerh the ordinary trade channels, and anyone who finds difficulty in obtaining it will conler a favour by letting us know in what district it is not obtainable. Jjiterary communications to be addressed to The EDITOR. MAORILAND WORKER. Box 179. P. 0.. Wellington.. Such communications must be accompanied by the Name and Address - of the Sender. Write.on one side of paper only. THE MAORILAND WORKER will be posted to any address for Six Shillings and Sixpence per annum prepaid. Advertising, rates on application. „FAIR, FEARLESS, AND FREE. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1911..

Last week we printed Mr: Tregear's letter of acceptance of executive office under the Mills Unity Scheme. We have read the letter a dozen times, and the oftener we have read it the less, we have made of it. It -is one of those letters which read beautifully and mean the same. Just what its gifted writer wishes to specifically convey it would be hard to say. Does Mr. Tregear int_nd N his letter to be an objection to the General Strike, and an argument against the General Strike? Stripped of its agreeable niceties, this is what it seems to be. With the generalities concerning unity and organisation —and. the need and wisdom of working-class solidarity —none will.find fault, and for our part we approve and endorse all said in this connection. By the way, we emphatically refuse to be pushed into the position of antiunion or anti-organisation. So does the N.Z. Federation of Labor. So does the N.Z. Socialist Party. This paper and tlie organisations it supports are for working-class unity and came into existence to advance unity. Socialists and Industrial Unionists are consistently preaching unity, live for unity, are ready to die for unity. Unity is our Lope, our aspiration, our strength. This is our impellent message:— Then Workers of the World unite, Or branded be as craven quite; _ Soon shall your eyes behold the light. Awake! Arise! Up. in your might! Awake! Arise! Up. in. your might! Oh, Workers of tlie World, unite! To judge, of the use being made of Mr. Tregear's letter, only those for the Mills Unity Scheme ever were for unity or ever dan be for unity. Mills unity is now termed Constructive Unity—which term would not be objectionable if -it had constructed something besides reams of press puffs. Where is this Constructive Unity.?. Produce it, in heaven's name. Mr. Tregear knows, Professor Mills knows, we all know that whatever differences obtain among ' tha workers there are no differences upon the need t-2id wisdom of unity—-but solely differences tempestuous upon* the rmumer of getting the unity and upon what the unity is for-. And so wo have no time to waste in combating Mr. Trtgear's earnest pleas for unity, nor.,in expressing any thing hut agreement with his solemn- insisiittU3o upon, our joint and several duties

and responsibilities. For Mr. Tregear's character and celebrity we have the heartiest admiration, and we yield to nobody in our respect" for his high sense of civic obligation. If we had our way Mr. Tregear would be kept out of a stormy unity "campaign and kept at authorship—at giving the world tho greatest book it could have regarding New Zealand's political, social and industrial history. Mr. Tregear is too good a man, too big a man, to be made appear a foe to Industrial Unionism ■and Socialism by being utilised against the organisations which have stood for these ideas in this Dominion. Reverting to our question anent the C4eneral Strike and Mr. Tregcar's letter, it will be noted that the letter concedes the remarkable success of .the recent strikes in England—"successful because the men were industrially organised"—but draws the astounding moral that "had the cessation of work extended to all trades and occupations, the whole social structure would have collapsed." The reasoning appears to be that sectional strikes saved the social structure, for, mark you, a general strike would have destroyed the social structure. Surely no one. could ask for any grander tribute to the necessity and efficacy of the General Strike ? By its means, a collapsed social structure —in other words,,an overturned capitalistio order, an ended present economic system —and collaterally a reconstructed society, production for use, profitmongering exterminated, New Time, Cooperative Commonwealth, wealth for its working-class makers! ' We submit- that no better case has been made out against sectionalism and for Industrial Unionism. Actually, the sectionalism was successful, but not as successful (you agree, Mr. Tregear?) as it might have been —but only successful according as it partook of the nature of universal action. Tlie bigger the strike the bigger the chance; the smaller the strike the certainer the defeat. Mr. Tregear,- still apparently deprecating the marked success of the strike on account of what it nearly involved, passes on • to gratuitously and quite mistakenly 1 assume that the men were only industrially and not also politically organised, trad therefore "unprepared to avert the catastrophe" of the collapse of the social structure. But what they were really unprepared for was the collapse of the social structure, which to them could.not be "catastrophe" but very Heaven of Heavens. Had .the strikes • been the General Strike-in the spirit and objective of Industrial Unionism, it is unanswerable that the strikers could have done anything and everything' they . wished — which Mr. Tregear deplores, but which, nevertheless, is commanding demonstration of the power of Industrial Unionism. Just -what Mr. Tregear plainly sees (and deplores) we are spending money _and time to make the workers see—Tor when they see it, Destruction and Construction of God-like power and blessing to swindled working-class now and for evermore.. Mr. Tregear, .'tis true, argues that ."the workers know how to stop the machine." but not how to'set it going again- This is a mere assumption, without warrant in any historical upheaval. Never has there been alleged stoppage without another starting'; in fact, the "stoppage" has always been part of the process. In reality, the workers do NOT know how to stop the machine (i.e., Mr. Tregear speaking---"the whole complex business of industrial'and ' Mat .ow a 1 lite") and could not stop it if they 'would : assuredly,•. they could not know how to stop -miless tho;.;

also knew how to restart. The one implies the other. '

If Mr Tregear is contending that- the workers know how to stop the machine, perhaps he'll tell us, how he knows they know? If he is contending, and he appears to be so contending, that the workers are sufficiently educated upon the destructive side, but not upon the constructive —that they are masters of destruction and weaklings at construction —then we tell him he is wrong; for were it true., then not one stone would be left upon another in all this Social system of ours. '"I will destroy and 1 will rebuild," said Jesus, and went to the 'Cross —not that His destroyers feared his rebuilding, -but that they feared his destruction.. ■ - . If Mr. Tregear reads this article he will agree, we believe, that all evolution and events give the lie to the platitude about "stopping the machine." The workers do not know how to stop this thieving system. The thunderous thing to be done is to teach them how to stop, this system. Everything points to the workers being stronger on the constructive than on tlie destructive side. Happenings in Russia and other countries maddeningly attest the workers' weakness in destruction. It isn't "easy" to stop, or to smash, in our warfare. It's hard, and risky, and hurtful. We should be inclined to say that with "the dirty work" of stopping done (by courageous men and women) any fool (comparatively) could start afresh. It's the stopping, stoping, stopping that calls for strength. In regard to the strike v. arbitration —-to 'continue the train of thought—it isn't because the strike is better liked that arbitration is being "turned down." Every worker would naturally prefer the, "peaceful" way if it were the correct way. Those who rave against "violence," do they think that we who are said to advocate "violence" prefer war to peace? Do the unity campaigners labelling us of the Socialist Party "revolutionary. and "red-rag," believe that it is personal preference for the pleasant whi<?h causes us to keep out of the respectable "evolutionary" Lib.Lab. camp? Halting between Liberalism and Socialism —conceiving Mills Unity as bridge between them—Mr. Tregear cries: "Must it be necessary to resort to the universal strike ? Let us first make sure that less violent means have utterly failed." Of course, "less violent means" have failed—lamentably failed-L-lamentablv - and ' bulging!y failed. If arbitration, for instance, had succeeded, would unions wholesale be repudiating it because it had succeeded ? If Liberalism ' had siicceeded would the Labor Party be attacking it? If anything in this wide world had given to the smitten toilers the elementary requirements of an assured sufficiency of food, shelter and clothing, would that any tiling have been rejected? Preposterous! —all and absolutely. : . "Less violent means"' have utterly failed.' Everything has failed. Everything short of Socialism must fail. - And Mr. Tregear, in the face of the mountainous failure of Australian Laborism, cites that Laboris.m, "at least as able as its opponents" (mercy on us, Lord!) as worthy of emulation by New Zealanders, ■ when the said New Zealanders have gained more reforms m a country without Labor-in-power than the Australians have gained with Lab-or-in-power! In the same letter as we are told that "the workers'know ho v.- to stop the. ma-, chine, but not how to set the whole complex business of industrial'and-na-tional life going under new and improved direction," we are also told that in Australia "we see organised Labor in political command, able through its own leaders to carry on tlie direction of social and national affairs." How hollow Mr. Tregear's sweeping' deduction! ■ How ill-omened his citation of Australian Labor politically, which evolves "order out of the chaos" of industrial trouble by smashing the strikes and jailing' the strike leaders! -.■;; : . At the same time as Mr. Tre'gear wants a Labor party in power -in. New Zealand, he also wants the workers to refrain from fighting the Liberal Party. Says he-("Weekly ' Her aid," Oct, 18): "Tlie men who gave us in' late years workers' homes . . -. are not and cannot be classed as enemies to Labor." Liberalism, classicly, is the "ism" of tlie bourgeoisie—the "ism" which came into prominence with capitalism and for capitalism. As Liberalism is not for giving Labor the product of its labor, how can it be other than enemy to Labor? As the Unity Scheme and.the Unity Campaign are in essence and in propaganda "Liberal" calling themselves "Labor." how shall the tortuously dei fiv.d v.orkors of New Zealand gain i heir emancipation per the scheme and the campaign which never mention {■lnaiicipation because emancipation is Im' objective of neither Liberalism nor Lnborism.

AH that the workers need is eiria.nH-<. pation. Nothing can give it them but. Socialism. Then would it not be souad--er, honester, to preach Socialism, propagate Socialism, avow Socialism, &,u& organise in Socialism's name for' So* ciafism's goal?