Oakland, Cal.
Since the controversy as to politics has tapered down to this point, I feel constrained to ask the question of the Editor: “Have the workers in reality the choice left as to effective tactics?”
Granted the validity of the assertion by the Editor, that without open political agitation the working class movement will narrow down to conspiracy, is it not being driven that way by the tactics of the ruling class? And must not the ruled class adopt the same methods if it wishes to meet and vanquish the opponents?. Was it any more or less than a “conspiracy” that the mine-owners, resorted to in the war in Colorado? Did it not burst through the. thin veneer of constitutionality and brag of it in words? Did not the men in Colorado express their political will in regards to an 8-hour law by a majority vote of 47,000 for a constitutional amendment? If all the laborers in that state had been organized in as sound and solid an organization as the WFM, could they not have borne the brunt of the battle without the political movement? Could an utterly irresponsible autocratic power in Russia have gone any further after the same amount of provocation? Could these things not happen in any other State than Colorado after the late Supreme Court decision? Let us not deceive ourselves, but do we really live in a constitutional country or is it only an illusion? The powers in Colorado were only provoked to the extent of being compelled to employ three shifts of men instead of two, yet when they could not starve the men into submission, did they not play their last trump? Could they have done any worse in the face of an existing conspiracy on the part of the miners? Is it not a merit for the WFM to have unmasked the law and order brigands by tearing the mummery of hypocrisy from the faces of the plutes and shown the working class with what kind of an enemy they must reckon? Is there a possibility of emancipation by peaceful methods after these experiences? Will not the ruling class provoke violence if the demands for better conditions of the workers threaten the profits of the former? Has the working class really a choice left as to tactics, or is not the manner of resistance determined by the method of oppression?
Fully realizing the importance of keeping the proletarians from indulging in a headlong reckless, unheedful rush, can the class-conscious workers be trusted enough to learn from past experiences and shape their course accordingly? Have we any choice?”
ANSWER.
Boiled down to their substance, the above questions proceed from the error of holding that actual war exists now. In last week’s answer to Kopald the error was exposed. Eherich himself would recognize his error if he allowed his eyes a wider sweep of the horizon.
It is true that the capitalist class has violated the constitution in the instance of the Colorado men. But that is not evidence enough of the existence of actual war. The rest of us are doing what Haywood was kidnapped for, and yet we are at large. The kidnapping and other outrages had taken place, and yet the convention of the Industrial Workers of the World met and worked in peace, although the capitalists aimed at its destruction, and evidently had their agents there to do their bidding.
Of identical nature is the error implied in the question whether the workers should not “adopt the same methods” as the capitalists. In this, as in the instance just touched on above, Eherich just sees one thing, but overlooks other things that are necessary for a correct conclusion. Eherich correctly points out the barbaric methods resorted to by the capitalists. He overlooks another thing that these self-same capitalists resort to, and without which their barbaric methods would not work in the manner they do. That other thing that capitalists resort to is external homage to the ways of civilization, external homage to the Genius of the Age. He who says, the workers should adapt themselves to the methods of capitalism and cites their barbarism may not exclude their external homage to civilization. Adaptation in this instance would consist in a hypocritical posture towards political action, plus preparation of the means of barbarism. Adaptation, accordingly, would reject Eherich’s suggested repudiation of political action. The bona fide Movement of Labor may not “adopt” the methods of the capitalist class in the class war. The Labor Movement must, on the contrary, place itself upon the highest plane civilization has reached. It must insist upon the enforcement of civilized methods, and it must do so in the way that civilized man does. Civilized man acts equipped with experience. Experience teaches that Right is a toy unless backed by Might; experience teaches also that the capitalist class is a brigand class bearing the mask of civilization, and that -it is helped in the cheat by the undoubted circumstance that it has been a promoter of civilization. Equipped with this experience and knowledge, the civilized man will take up political action as the only means that, theoretically, promises a peaceful trial of strength ; and he will simultaneously organize the integrally industrial union as the only available and the all-sufficient Might to enforce the Right that his ballot proclaims.
As to the question, whether or not the capitalist does not now “conspire” and “act in secret,” and whether the worker should not adopt that method also—that question, partly answered above, deserves special treatment. No; secrecy is the bane of the union generally; it would be the destruction of the revolutionary union! The Mahoneys and Shermans wanted secrecy. The widest publicity is essential to safety. Secrecy leaves the majorities in the Unions in ignorance o what happens at Union meetings; secrecy promotes the trade of the police spy, the “agents provocateurs,” those raw-boned “anti-political revolutionists,” like McParland, in the pay of the capitalist politicians. Left in ignorance of what happens in the Union, the majority of the membership is ever dependent upon private information; the informant may be honorable, he may also be dishonorable; the revolution must not be exposed to trip upon misinformation. On the other hand, the “agent provocateur” will find his occupation gone if publicity is enforced; the blood and thunder ranter, knowing his words would be published as coming from him will love his neck too well to indulge in crime-promoting declamation. Secrecy is death; publicity, life.
Has the Movement any choice? Certainly it has.—Ed. The People