Skip to main content

Full text of "Workers Party vs. Socialist Labor Party"

See other formats


Workers Party 


Socialist Labor Party 

By Joseph Brandon 








The Workers Party vs. 
the Socialist Labor Party, 

There are many points on which 
the Socialist Labor Party takes a 
different stand from that taken by 
the Workers (Communist) party. 
There are differences on principle 
and therefore, necessarily, differ- 
ences on tactics. If an organiza- 
tion's principles are correct, and the 
individuals concerned are honest and 
clear, the tactics reflected must also 
be correct. If an organization's tac- 
tics are wrong, it is nearly certain 
that its principles can foe nothing 
else but wrong. For this reason, if 
organizations differ on tactics, there 
is apt to be a like difference in the 
principles espoused by each. 

Principles and Tactics. 

Principles are fundamental and 
by showing herein that the principles 
of the Workers party are wrong, we 
can proceed to demonstrate the in- 
correctness of its tactics. And at 
the same time, by contrast, it will be 
conclusively prpyeji tliat the prin-- 

„-es and therefore the tactics of 
the Socialist Labor Party are the 
only logical ones to be followed in 
this country or any other industrially 
developed nation. 

The first difference and the pri- 
mary one between the two organiza- 
tions is hinged around the concep- 
tion each has of its goal. The goal 
of the Workers party is a Soviet 
form of government. The goal of 
the Socialist Labor Panty is the 
Workers' Industrial Republic. 

A Soviet form of government is 
semi-political, semi-economic. The 
Workers' Industrial Republic is 
wholly economic. The former origi- 
nated in Russia and is peculiar to 
the conditions of that country. 

The Workers party claims that in 
order to achieve Socialism, the 
workers must first go through a tran- 
sition period. Therefore their aim 
now is for this transition period. The 
goal being such, the tactics adhered 
to must be in keeping with the same. 

Dictatorship of the Proletariat 

The transition period, we are told, 
will last until the last vestiges of 
capitalism are destroyed and in or- 


der to safeguard the interests of the 
working class during this period, we 
must have a revolutionary dictator- 
ship of the proletariat. The Social- 
ist Labor Party in refutation says 
the following: 

We must not be swept off our feet 
by phrases. We concede that the 
Soviet form of government was the 
best and ONfLY government possible 
in Russia — but as Marxists we rec- 
ognize certain facts. Marx says in 
his preface to "Capital" : "The 
country that is more developed in- 
dustrially only shows to the less de- 
veloped the image of its own future." 
He did not and could not say that 
the lesser developed country showed 
a picture to the more highly devel- 
oped country. 

What Country Will Lead? 

It is not denied that America is 
much more developed industrially 
than Russia. It is obvious then that 
if an image of the future is to be 
shtfwn, Russia cannot do the show- 

What we must show here is why 
a Soviet form of government is not 

necessary in America, but we will go 
further — we will show that it is im- 
possible lo establish such a govern- 
ment in this country. 

Russia at the time of the 1917 
revolution was a demoralized, decen- 
tralized community. With immature 
industries, a pathetic transportation 
system, and with medieval feudalism 
maintaining a strong grasp in its 
communities, it was impossible for 
the Russian revolutionists to estate 
lish a Socialist Republic. To es- 
tablish a Socialist commonwealth 
presupposes a highly developed, ef- 
ficient and strongly centralized 
capitalism. This in turn presup- 
poses that the large mass of people 
are proletarians, i. e. ; wage workers. 
But in Russia, due to its undevel- 
oped circumstances, the majority of 
the people were not proletarians. 
Only about 15 per cent at most were 
wage workers and the balance, who 
were not of the aristocracy, con- 
stituted the class of peasants. 

The result was that conditions 
dictated that in order to move in a 
forward direction, a dictatorship of 
the proletariat must be inaugurated 
as the working class is the only pro- 

gressive class in society today. When 
conditions dictate, social scientists 
follow in acquiescence, and so the 
clear-thinking Socialists in Russia 
seized power despite the protests of 
the unthinking and muddleheaded 
radicals who were unable to analyze 
the situation correctly. From the 
dictatorship of the proletariat fol- 
lowed the Soviet form of govern- 
ment, the only kind of government 
possible under the circumstances. 

But does it follow, as the Workers 
party claims, that the procedure 
g<>ne through in Russia will have its 
counterpart in America? Does it 
follow, that America cannot go right 
through from capitalism to Socialism 
and therefore must have a transition 
period, during which we will have a 
dictatorship of the proletariat and 
a Soviet government? An emphatic 
NO is the answer. 

Lenin recognized the fact that the 
Soviet form of government was only 
transitory. In his interview with 
Arno Dosch-Fleurot he stated, after 
praising Daniel De Leon, the late 
leader of the Socialist Labor Party: 
/'Industrial Unionism is the basic 
thing. That is what we are build- 

ing," And again, when talking to 
Arthur Ransome about De Leon's 
wonderful contribution to Socialism, 
he said, "His [De Leon's! theory 
that representation should be by in- 
dustries, not by areas, was already 
the germ of the Soviet system/* 

A Difference in Organisms 

But it is only the germ and cannot 
be more until Russia has made fur- 
ther progress industrially. 

America and Russia can be com- 
pared, for analogous purposes, to a 
highly developed complex mammal, 
a man for example, and a marsupial 
creature, a kangaroo or an opossum. 
When a kangaroo or an opossum 
gives birth to its young, it deposits 
the newly born in a pouch where the 
youngster remains for about a 
month, attached to the parent, until 
it is able to function for itself. This 
period is a transition period. When 
a mammal gives birth, however, 
does the same thing happen? No. 
The mammal is a more highly devel- 
oped creature and it gives birth to 
its young and is immediately div- 
orced from it, without the young 
suffering any inconvenience. 

Russia, the marsupial, needed a 
transition period. America, the 
highly developed mammal, cannot 
even find place for it. 

In America, capitalism has devel- 
oped further than in any other 
country. A peasant class is practi- 
cally non-existent, and the line of 
demarcation between capital and la- 
bor is clear and precise. The work- 
ing class predominates and makes up 
the vast majority of the population. 

Russia's Problem and Ours 

In Russia the problem was not to 
take the industries but to create 
them. In America the problem is 
the reverse. We do not have to cre- 
ate the industries, what we must do 
is to take them. The easiest task 
the Russians had, the seizing of 
power, is the hardest nut we have to 
crack, and the thing that is no task 
for us at all is what is puzzling the 
Russians night and day, all these 

When the working class seizes 
power in America it controls all that 
is necessary ito run production on 
socialized lines. A dictatorship of 


the proletariat is unnecessary, the 
workers being in a majority. There 
will not even be a rule of the prole- 
tariat because the act of socializing 
the industries automatically abol- 
ishes all classes and therefore the 
proletariat as a class ceases to be. 

Tactics Must Fit Conditions 

If the Socialist Labor Party's 
analysis is correct, then it follows 
that the tactics reflected by this 
analysis are also correct. And by 
showing that the Workers party's 
goal is wrong, that automatically 
disposes of the tactics that organi- 
zation advocates. But to complete 
the picture we will proceed to show 
point by point that the position of 
the S. L. P. is 100 per cent perfect, 
all along the line, while the position 
of the Workers parity is ridiculous. 

Bearing in mind that Socialism is 
an industrial form of society, where- 
in the industries are managed and 

operated by and for the useful mem- 
bers of society, it follows that: 

In order to run the industries for 
themselves the workers must first se- 
cure complete power over and owner- 

ship of them. In order to accom- 
plish this they must organize so that 
it can be done in a thorough manner 
to avoid anarchy and chaos. 

Organization Must Precede 


Obviously the workers cannot 
wait until the Social Revolution has 
stepped upon the scene and then or- 
ganize. Tactics therefore dictate 
the organization of the working class 
today, under capitalism, into an or- 
ganization whose primary purpose is 
to seize the industries and act as the 
framework of the new social order. 
Just as the chick develops in the 
shell before emerging into the world 
as a distinct creature, so the future 
society must be built up under capi- 
talism. And just as the fully devel- 
oped chick breaks the shell of its egg, 
so the shell of capitalism will never 
be broken until the organization of 
future society is developed to the 
point where it is able to function. 
Does it not follow logically that the 
working class must organize today, 
under capitalism, in order to 
achieve its emancipation? It does, 

glaringly the faultiness of the Work- 
ers party's tactics and the soundness 
of the S. L. P. program. 

A. F. of L. Hindrance 

Sensing the necessity of working 
class organization upon the indus- 
trial field, but not comprehending the 
full significance of the necessity, the 
Workers party claims, as did the So- 
cialist party of old, that the present 
unions are capable of performing 
the necessary revolutionary tasks 
and shies at any attempt to destroy 
the present trade unions. The S. L. 
P., on the other hand, knowing full 
well that the Americas federation 
of Labor and kindred unions are 
what the Wall Street Journal cor- 
rectly termed "the bulwark of capi- 
talism," declares that before being 
able to smash capitalism, the work- 
ing class will have to remove this 

The Workers party counters and 

argues also, as the Socialist party 

did, that to change the unions we 

should bore from within until we 


gain sufficient adherents to our pro- 
gram to be able to capture the 
unions- This would be good tactics 
if it were possible but when viewed 
in the light of facts and logic and 
seen to be impossible then it is cer- 
tain that the tactics are not good but 
anti-working class and reactionary. 

Why? For the good and sufficient 
reason that it is impossible to cap- 
ture the unions by boring from with- 
in alone. The S. L. P. tried this 
method thirty years ago and found 
out that it would not work, but the 
Workers party, like the S. P. and 
the Bourbons of yore, learns nothing 
and forgets nothing, and therefore 
clings to antiquated methods that 
were long ago put into the discard 
by the classconscious Socialists of 

The "Dual Union" Nonsense 

It would not be so bad if the 
Workers party would only advocate 
boring from within and let it go at 
that. But it goes further and de- 
cries all efforts at forming new 
unions. It characterizes them as 
dual or opposition unions that split 

up the working class and make them 
more easy prey to the machinations 
of the master class. We will admit 
for the .sake of argument that dual 
unionism does this very thing. What 
of it? A strike entails misery to the 
workers — does that mean that 
strikes are to be tabooed? No. 
Strikes are necessary at times and 
the good they may bring outweighs 
the evils concurrent with them, and 
so we rlose our eyes to the bad fea- 
tures. So with dual unionism. In- 
dustrial Unionism is necessary, and 
if we cannot change the present 
craft unions into Industrial Unions, 
then dual unions become necessary 
and we must not hold back because 
of the evils that may spring up un- 
der "dual" unionism. In truth, 
however, we do not admit that is 
dual unionism. We have too often 
proven that the A. F. of L, is not a 
labor union in the true sense. 

Craft Unions Capitalistic 

Why is it impossible to change the 
old craft unions into industrial 
unions? This requires some expla- 
nation. The craft unions are founded 

upon capitalistic lines. They are or- 
ganized upon the basis that capital- 
ism always was and always .will be 
and that all the workers can hope 
for is to get a little better living con- 
ditions now or some time in the fu- 
ture. The industrial union, however, 
has a totally different conception of 
society. It denies that capitalism is 
a finality. It knows full well that 
capitalism is transitory and must go 
as all preceding systems had to go, 
and it organizes accordingly. 

Sad Tale of Boring from 

What happens when the borers 

from within begin to function in a 

trade union? One of two things. 

Either they are corrupted iby the 

condition of affairs existent and 

turn out to be labor fakers as bad as 

the rest, or else if they remain 

staunch and true to their principles, 

they are expelled from the union as 

.soon as they become obnoxious to the 

labor leader. What can or should 

the workers do who are expelled 

from the craft unions because of 

. their revolutionary activity? There 



is no alternative for them but to try 
to hold their adherents together and 
this can only be done by forming a 
new progressive union. 

The Workers party naively states 
that where its members are expelled 
from the unions they must strive to 
get back into the fold. For what 
purpose? To get kicked out again? 
Or to refrain from giving the 
watchdogs of the capitalist class an- 
other chance to duplicate their ac- 
tions? Such a course is spineless 
and spells ruination to the revolu- 
tionary character of ithe workers. 

How to "Bore" and How to 

The S. L. P. says, "Bore from 
within but bore to a purpose." The 
purpose of working inside the trade 
unions is to destroy the bulwark of 
capitalism and establish bulwarks of 
Socialism, the industrial union. The 
eraft union can never be captured or 
changed. Expulsion is inevitable — 
therefore dual unionism is inevitable. 
This dictates that boring from 
within alone is useless unless side by 
side with it we have a hitting from 


without process, on the outside the 
principles of Industrial Unionism 
and the organization in due time of 
those who are thrown outside by the 
labor lieutenants of the capitalist 
class. This method does not degen- 
erate the spirit of the workers who 
are boring from within. The fear 
of being thrown out of the union and 
losing the chance of earning a liveli- 
hood is banished. Industrial Union- 
ism gives courage and makes for 
character. The Workers party by 
opposing a new union is in the first 
place toadying to the labor faker, 
trying to placate him, and secondly 
is making it impossible for the 
working class to rear a genuine or- 
ganization of labor on the industrial 

A typical example of the Work- 
ers party's miseducation of .the 
working class is their advocacy of 
what they term "amalgamating" the 
present craft unions, "Amalgama- 
tion" in the sense that that word is 
used by the Workers party is not a 
substitute for nor a step toward In- 
dustrial Unionism. On the contrary 
such "amalgamation/' even if pos- 
sible of success, would merely in- 

crease the craft union's effectiveness 
as a tool of capitalism. Industrial 
Unionism is the only hope of the 
working* class. 

Ignorance Extends to Politics 

But the dilatory and anti- 
revolutionary tactics of the Workers 
party do not cease at the economic 
side of the question. Bearing in 
mind what was said in the beginning 
about tactics being a reflection of 
principle, the incorrectness -of the 
Workers party's principles spells 
disaster to all its tactical moves. 
Take a glance at the position of the 
Workers party on the political field, 
and what do we see? Here also the 
ignorance of goal gives rise to the 
same spineless attitude that we 
showed existed on the industrial 

The Workers party -wants a dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat. But it 
argues that the large mass of work- 
ers will never become Socialist and 
will have to be led by an intelligent 
minority. So it is willing to unite 
with any movement of workers, no 
matter how wrong this may be, in 



order that they will have some 
masses to lead. This is called a 
united front. 

Whether it is a Socialist party, 
which has been correctly character- 
ized as nothing but a machine for 
lying about Socialism, or whether it 
is a purely bourgeois movement like 
the La Follette movement, the 
Workers party is willing to barter 
away all its principles for the sake 
of being taken into the ranks. In 
other words, numbers are more im- 
portant than principles. Just sup- 
pose that the Russian revolutionists 
had adopted the same policy and 
been willing to sacrifice principles 
for the sake of going* with the 
masses; would the workers ever have 
seized power in Russia ? To ask 
the question is to answer it. 

Lenin said, "The smallness of an 
organization never frightens me. 
What I do fear is the heaping to- 
gether of heterogeneous bodies and 
calling that thing a 'party/ " 

How They Talk Nonsense 

But the Workers: party calls any- 
thing a party so l<png as it has num- 
bers heaped together. Testimony of 


this is to be found in a pamphlet, 
"The Bankruptcy of the Labor 
Movement/' by W. Z. Foster, pub- 
lished by the Trade Union Educa- 
tional League and sold and endorsed 
by the Workers party. In this 
puerile, if not knavish, piece of 
work, Foster has this (to say: 

Compare this situation [in America] 
with that prevailing in Europe, for in- 
stance, where the workers have under- 
stood to build themselves class political 
organizations. There Organized Labor 
is a great political power, and one 
which must be reckoned with on all vi- 
tal issues. In Germany the workers' 
parties control 42 per cent of the mem- 
bers of the Reichstag, in Austria 38 per 
cent, Czechoslovakia 36 per cent, Bel- 
gium 35 per cent, Denmark 34 per 
cent, Italy and Bulgaria 25 per cent, 
Norway, Holland and Switzerland 22 
per cent, in their respective national 
parliaments. In Great Britain many ex- 
perts look for the Labor party to be the 
dominant one after the next general 
elections. Politically the workers of 
Europe are a real power. 

Is there any difference between 
this statement and the eulogies of 

the Socialist party of America on the 
reform "socialist" movements of 
Europe? But as the Workers party 
constantly condemns the S. P. as 
non- revolutionary, the odium falls 
all the greater on the Workers party, 
which professes a revolutionary 
character. What a spectacle! The 
misleaders of the working class 
growing in power and would-be rev- 
olutionists jubilantly shouting that 
"politically the workers of Europe 
Are a real power." Does it not de- 
note what our pseudo-revolutionists 
of the Workers party are aiming at? 

The United Front Nonsense 

But there is something else behind 
the boosting of such organizations as 
the British Labor party. The secret 
is that in England there is a "united 
front," therefore Mr. Foster and the 
Workers party wax warm for the 
Labor party. But is the united front 
beneficial to the workers of Europe, 
or is it only beneficial to the/plead- 
ers"? Is ibhe policy of "N/b Com- 
promise" outworn, and is compro- 
mise a good thing today? Ip is just 
such things as happen in /England 

that make the slogan of the united 
front ridiculous and prove that "No 
Compromise" is still in order, Many 
instances have occurred where the 
Communists of Great Britain helped, 
under the guise of a united front; to 
elect anti-labor representatives to 
the British Parliament. 

For example, one T. Kennedy, af- 
ter his election as an M* P. on a 
united front ticket, came out openly 
and attacked the Soviet Government 
as the enemy of the working class. 
Still another M.P., also elected by 
the united fronters, came out in 
support of a boys* military move- 
ment, a la the Boy Scouts, and when 
taken to task, openly urged the sup- 
port of such movements. 

In America we have not seen so 
much of the united front because the 
Workers party is a mere joke on the 
political field. But we saw the en- 
dorsement of such an out and out 
spokesman of capitalism as Magnus 
Johnson and we also saw the desper- 
ate flirtation carried on with all 
kinds of "heterogeneous bodies" that 
the Workers party sought to attach 
itself to. 

And the reason therefor is that 

the Workers party IS frightened by 
the smallness of its organization. It 
is not of the stuff that revolutionary 
organizations are made of and so it 
perforce must seek large numbers or 
collapse. It is the antics of the So- 
cialist party all over again and the 
result is inevitable. The Workers 
party must go the same way as the. 
Socialist party. When truth com- 
promises with error, it is no longer 
truth, just as a virgin who makes a 
misstep and has a child as a result 
of it, is no longer a virgin, no matter 
how small the baby may be. 

The Workers Must Act 

The S. L. P. knows that no lead- 
ers are going to pull the workers into 
Socialism. As Marx stated, "The 
emancipation of the working class 
must be the classconscious act of the 
working class itself/' An ignorant 
muddle-headed working class will 
never be able to act correctly or 
move in the proper direction no mat- 
ter how brainy the leaders may be. 
"The day is past," says Engels, "for 
revolutions carried through by small 


minorities at the head of unconscious 

Workers Party Lying About 

But the illogical position of the 
Workers party drives it to still fur- 
ther extremes. In order to get the 
masses, it caters to the ignorance of 
the masses and so we find its plat- 
forms filled with all kinds of petty 
bourgeois reforms — the same that 
the Socialist party platforms used, 
to attempt to garner a large vote. 

Thus we find in the West the pro- 
gram of the Workers party advo- 
cates reforms to the farmers such as 
state banks, hail insurance, state aid 
a la the late Non-Partisan League 
and the Populist party of thirty 
years ago. And in the industrial 
sections like New York and Chi- 
cago, an appeal is made to the 
workers on the basis of lower 
rents, cheaper carfare and unem- 
ployment insurance. To the Work- 
ers party, Marx lived and wrote in 
vain. His teaching that the workers 
are robbed at the point of produc- 
tion and not at the point of consump- 

tion is not even grasped by them. 

The Revolutionary Organiza- 

The S. L. P. correctly holds that 
the political party must be a party 
of no compromise. Its mission is to 
point the way to the goal and it re- 
fuses to leave the main road to fol- 
low the small by-paths that lead 
into the swamp of reformism. Its 
skirts are clean. The banner of So- 
cialism is held high, uncorrupted, 
and not dragged down into the mire 
of petty bourgeois reform. Capital- 
ism cannot be reformed. It must be 

The Reformer an Anarchist 

Many years ago De Leon said 
that if you scratched a reformer you 
found an anarchist and vice versa. 
And the Workers party bears out 
De Leon's statement. 

From being the mildest of reform 
organizations, we find the Workers 
party jumping to the other extreme 
and advocating physical force and 
violence as' necessary to overthrow 

capitalism. The workers, we are 
told, must arm themselves for the 
revolution. Mass action and armed 
insurrection are the means by which 
our emancipation is to be accom- 
plished. The Workers party is al- 
most a century "behind the times 
when it resorts to such methods. 

The Physical Force Idiocy 

If there is anything the capitalist 
class likes and which it tries to 
bring about, it is to have the workers 
resort to these methods. Engels's 
preface to the "Civil War in 
France," which is published separ- 
ately by the S.LjP. under the title 
of "The Revolutionary Act/' gives 
the death-blow to the advocates of 
physical force. 

After pointing out that the devel- 
opment of capitalism had rendered 
barricade fights and armed insurrec- 
tion obsolete from the revolutionist's 
standpoint; after characterizing the 
revolutionist who would select the 
working class districts as the start- 
ing point for a violent upheaval, as 
a lunatic; Engels goes on to say: 

"Docs the reader now understand why 

the ruling class, by hook or by crook, 
would get us where the rifle pops and the 
sabre slashes? Why, today , do they charge 
us with cowardice because we will not, 
without further ado, get down into the 
street where we are SURE OF OUR DE- 
FEAT IN ADVANCE? Why are we so 
persistently importuned to play the role of 
cannon fodder?" 

The S. L. P. is opposed to vio- 
lence or the advocacy of violence in 
the labor movement because it knows 
that such tactics are playing right 
into the hands of the capitalist class. 
It is not cowardice that dictates the 
S. L. P. position but common sense 
and it is not heroism or bravery that 
dictates the advocacy of violence by 
the Workers party. It is not heroism 
that makes a fool rock a boat in 
deep water, it is idiocy. We can go 
a step further than Engels and say 
that he who advocates violence today 
is either a lunatic or ft police spy. 
The short history of the Workers 
party is replete with instances of the 
police spy and his work* Upon the 
Workers party rests the blame for 
the deportation of thousands of inno- 
cent workingmen who were misled 

by this policy into placing their 
necks within the noose of the capi- 
talist class and finding out that they 
could not be withdrawn. 

The Real Power of Labor 

Here in America we have a right 
to come out openly and agitate for 
the overthrow of the government and 
the establishment of a workers* re- 
public. If we did not have this op- 
portunity then no alternative would 
be open for us but to advocate a vio- 
lent overthrow of capitalism. But 
the Workers party, not understand- 
ing the proper goal of the workers, 
thinks that the aim must be to cap- 
ture the political government. The 
S. L. P., however, understanding 
Marx, knows that no class ever cap- 
tured political power until it had 
first built up its economic power, as 
political power in the final analysis 
is only a reflex of economic power. 

Therefore the S. L, P. advocates 
the building of Socialist Industrial 
Unions as the economic power, the 
might behind the political arm of 
labor. The capitalists can steal 
elections, miscount votes and resort 

to a thousand and one political tricks, 
but such is akin to monkeying with a 
thermometer — it cannot change the 
temperature. And the temperature 
here is the organized power of 
the working class in its industrial 

The Economic Foundation 

Let a crisis break out and unless 
the workers are organized as the S. 
L. P. points out, all the armed in- 
surrection and physical force will 
bring us nowhere except to the 
shambles to be slaughtered in cold 
blood and make a Roman holiday 
for the capitalist class. Only with 
the working class industrially or- 
ganized can an invulnerable united 
front be offered to the master class. 
The control over industry, over the 
means of life, gives the workers the 
key to the whole situation. 

Organized economic power is si 
perior to military power. The army, 
navy and police force depend 
upon the workers for their daily 
bread, and as he who controls the 
means whereby I live also controls 
me, the armed forces of the state 

must be subsidiary to the industrial 

Many years ago Engel-g (speaking 
of Marx) said: 

"Surely at such a moment, the voice 
ought to be heard of a man whose whole 
theory is the result of a life-long study of 
the economic history and condition of 
England, and whom that study led to the 
conclusion that, at least in Europe, Eng- 
land is the only country where the inevi- 
table social revolution might be effected en- 
tirely by peaceful and legal means." 

The S. L, P. says that this ap- 
plies with even greater force to 
America. The success of the revolu- 
tion depends upon the clear-headed- 
ness of the working class. Capital- 
ism cannot be overthrown until the 
workers are fully cognizant, of their 
position on the historic stage. The 
Workers party cannot organize the 
working class because it resorts to 
methods that cause it to be outlawed 
just as the L W. W. was. 

The labor movement must not de- 
scend into a conspiracy, whispered 
of in rat-holes, in cellars and behind 
closed doors. It must be able to 
stand the light of day. As Engels 

says: "We, the 'revolutionists/ the 
'upsetters/ we thrive much better 
with legal than with illegal means in 
forcing an overthrow/' 

To Sum Up 

The Workers party goal of a So- 
viet form of government is impos- 
sible in America. The S. L. P. goal 
of industrial government is the only 
one possible. 

The Workers party advocacy of a 
transition period is nonsense, as is its 
clamoring for a dictatorship of the 
proletariat. Industrial Unionism is 
the means necessary for making the 
change from capitalism to Socialism. 

The Workers party policy of bor- 
ing from within and capturing ithe 
craft unions is futile. The S. L, P, 
program of building new unions is 
the only possible way out. 

The Workers party policy of a 
united front breeds reform and ener- 
vates the revolutionary spirit of the 
workers. The S. L. P. policy of 
"No Compromise" makes for 
staunchness and sterling revolution- 
ary character. 

The Workers party advocacy of 

violence brings naught to the work- 
ers but blood baths, imprisonment 
and deportation. The S. L. P. in- 
sistence on civilized methods keeps 
out the disruptive police spy and 
makes possible the organization of 
the revolutionary forces openly and 
above board. 

The S. L. P. alone of all the or- 
ganizations on the political field has 
a concrete program, clear, concise 
and logical, and it is the only one 
possible of inaugurating. 

The time is ripe for action, not 
phrases. Slogans will get . us no- 
where, what is needed is a classcon- 
scious organization of the working 
class on the political and industrial 
fields. Both arms of labor are neces- 
sary in the struggle and it behooves 
every classconscious worker to line 
up on the side of that organization 
that has the clearness of vision, the 
vigor of conviction, and the prin- 
ciples and tactics necessary to the 
emancipation of the workitag class. 
The S. L. P. alone points the way 
to freedom. All other organizations, 
including the Workers party, arc 
the agents of reaction. 

The only argument ever made 

against the S. L. P. is that it is 
small, but if the smallness of an or- 
ganization did not bother Lenin, 
neither should it bother any other 
classconscious worker. When the 
time is ripe for the social revolution, 
it will be the organization, no matter 
what its size, that has the correct 
principles and tactics that will be 
the rallying point of the working 

Said Daniel De Leon 

"The S. L. P. never compromises 
truth to make a friend, never with- 
holds a blow at error lest it make 
an enemy, 

"In firm assurance of final victory, 
it pursues its course unswerved by 
weak desire for temporary advan- 
tage. It is ever outspoken and 
straightforward, believing that, in 
fearless independence, the integrity 
of purpose by which it is inspired 
will, in the long run, win the respect 
and confidence of those whom it 
aims to weld into a classconscious, 
aggressive body. 

"Its propaganda is not alone frv 
educate ; it is to organize the work- 

ing class for the conquest of power, 
for -the complete overthrow of capi- 
talism. Until that mission is accom- 
plished, it will stand like a rock, 
alert and watchful, yielding noth- 


This article appeared originally in tli- 

Weeke* ® People 

Issue of August Firsts 1925 

The WEEKLY PEOPLE is the Party 
owned official organ of the Socialist La- 
bor Party. It is the oldest, and today the 
ONLY. Marxian Socialist paper pub- 
lished in this country. No one who pre- 
tends to understand and uphold Marxism 
can afford to be without it. It prints all 
the essential news concerning the labor 
movement, and speaks authoritatively on 
Scientific or Marxian Socialism. 

Every issue contains articles similar to the 
one here reprinted, besides a number of 
other interesting features, including book 
reviews, reprints of poetry of protest and 
revolution, and a reprint of one of Daniel 
De Leon's immortal editorials. Daniel De 
Leon was hailed by Nicolai Lenin as the 
"first American Socialist to affect Euro- 
pean thought/' 

All of this and much more for the paltry 

sum of 


Sample copy free upon request. 

Weekly People, 45 Rose Street, 
New York City