Picketing, Striking, Scabbing

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 87, 8 November 1912, Page 8

Picketing, Striking, Scabbing

In » recent number of thai hrjlliynt little newspaper of Canada, "Cotton's Weekly." the following letter and reply appear. Both might easily h:tve been penned in aud for New Z 'aland at the present moment, and should ther..fore prove apposite and instructive :— A LETTER OF PROTEST. In reference to your article on the Garment "Workers' strike in your edition of July IS. defending the rights of pickets and upholding their unjustified actions, I have a few remarks tv make. Is the aim of Socialism to force c man by underhand methods or by brutality to comply with a. cause in which lm does not believe;' Do you call such methods justice: J If so', you are laboring under a delusion. Let mc inform you, my dear sir. that a man lias the right to do exactly what he pleases, so lone; as he does not interior" with the rights of other people or commit some crime againr'- the lav of hi* country. Vrii T ♦'oil +-> so« t 1 " 1 right of a crowd of strikers beating a poor man nearly to death who has a wife .and children to support, just because he is making an honest living and fails to sop his way '•■lear to comply with the wishes of a lot of agitators, wlio very seldom filllow the just and humane principles of a cause. No one has the right to deny .another of his opinion, and you grow so dogmatic in your assertions that no knowledge or faith can be derived from such arguments. Trusting you will benefit by this letter, I remain, A LOVER OF JUSTICE. DON'T BLAME THE STRIKERS. The above letter is so typical of the point of view of many a worker who lias not studied the questions at issue that it is well worth answering. The writer speaks of the rights of pickets and their unjustified actions. A picket is one who stands before a strike-bound shop and asks the workers not to work therein. Peaceable picketing is expressly legalised In Great. Britain. Surely strikers have the right of trying to persuade their fellow-work-ers not to scab. As to the unjustified actions of the strikers the writer does not specify what these are. The writer asks: "Is the aim of Socialism to force a man by underhand methods to comply with a cause in which he does not believe?" The aim of Socialism is the conquest of political power in order to abolish rent, interest and profit. When the Socialists get the power they will introduce the co-operatjve commonwealth. But supposing we have, under tho co-operative commonwealth, certain people who do not want to co-operate? Suppose we have a lazy person with capitalist instincts who wants to sneak a living out of others? Would it be wrong to make him comply with the principle of living on what he earns even if lie does not believe in the principle of working for a living? Surely not.

The writer confuses Socialism, which is a scientific analysis of the present society and an agitation for the abolition of capitalism, with the everyday struggle of the working-class to maintain a living wage.

The Legal Right to Scab v. Workers' Right to Organise

Says the writer: "A man has the j riiiht to do exactly as he pleases so; hws as he does not interfere with the iiLilits of other pnopl'- or commit some j crime." Here the word rkht is usedj very loosely. Tlmro are legal rights,] moral rights, capitalist rights, workinp-; c!as< rights, etc. A nan has tlm legal] right to <oab. CVvtninly, the capitalist , huvs and the capitalist judges _and the] capitalist, police all enforce this right, j Rut the scab's right to scab inter-j feres with the right of the workers to] get higher pay. ll' the workers can tie; up a "shop completely. they have achance to gel more pay and improve] their condition in life. When the scabj r-erciw. his right to scab, he interferes! with the right of other workers to get more pay out of their employer. Which right shall be maintained?

The question is answered according to the parties who are interested. The employer, the judge, the police and_ the scab all vociferously maintaiu the right of the scab. The strikers treat that scab as a traitor to the working-class. The-: consider him to he a low-lived creature, a worker who aids and abets the enemy of tho workers.

The writer of the letter fails to see the right- of a crowd of strikers to beat a poor man to death "who has a wife and family to support, just because he is making an honest living and fails to see his way clear to comply with the wishes of a lot of agitators."

Here hobs up that old word "honest" again. A much-abused word. The scab is not making on honest living according to working-class standards. He is making a dishonest ono. Tie is robbed by his master. He is beaten down to the last limit of a living wage. His employers are sweating the workingclass. The slaves rebel and one scab crawls te the feet, of the enslaver for a job. Even the masters despise such a creature.

It is not nice for workers to beat np scabs. But the capitalist system is not one bit nice. It is ferocious, brutal, immoral, putrid. The workers ore ground down. They have the laws, the judges, the police, the militia against them. Last, but not least, they have scabs, fellow-slaves who are traitors. It is a well-Tecognised fact that strikers will beat up scabs if they get a chance. When Britain goes to war with Germany, the Englishman caught helping the Germans would be shot in short order if the English can get hold of him. W T hen the workers go to war with their masters, the scab worker gets scant treatment if the workers can catch him.

This has little to do with Socialism. Socialism aims at the abolition of the capitalist ownership. When Socialism triumphs, scabs and strikers and company police will be no more. All the workers will have a chance to work and to get the value of the wealth they create. It is only the capitalist system which is to blame for the present upheavals.

If a scab is beaten up, don't blame the strikers; blame the capitalist class, who rob the workers, and whose exactions fore© workers to b© strikers.