III.

From what we have said as to the nature of the class struggle, and the mission of the working class, follow a number of consequences as to the policies and tactics to be pursued by the organized proletariat in its struggle against the capitalist system. That the proper understanding of the class struggle is closely associated with the question of tactics, is inadvertently admitted by Comrade Kelly himself a couple of paragraphs below his categorical denial, when he says: “Let us be class conscious, if you will, but upon the understanding that the class to which we belong is eighty-nine millions strong.” It is upon this “understanding” that he gives us the practical advice “to explain to our outraged fellow citizens that the Socialist party offers them the only political opportunity for securing democratic legislation; and that while the wage earners will always stand as the old guard of the movement, there are millions of others equally interested in its success.” As we have been doing this explaining work all along (although with very poor success), and as this advice comes at the end of an attempt to prove that Marx’s “understanding” of the class struggle was incorrect, we must infer that Comrade Kelly is not satisfied with the way we have been doing our explaining until now. He does not say so, but it follows logically that he wants us either to throw the center of gravity of our agitation on this explaining to the “millions of others equally interested,” or, perhaps form some alliance with their political representatives on the basis of this common interest.

Now, I do not want to reproach Comrade Kelly for giving us such advice. If this “understanding” of the class struggle is correct, such advice would not be improper. Again, it may surprise many of my comrades to hear me say so, but I must make public avowal of the fact that I am not absolutely and unqualifiedly opposed to alliances, coalitions, etc., of the Socialist party with other political organizations. Nor am I opposed to sometimes throwing the entire force of our agitation upon some point short of the attainment of the Co-operative Commonwealth, and even apparently unrelated to the Co-operative Commonwealth, such as some point of purely political reform. Provided — and here is the rub — such action be dictated by my “understanding” of the nature of the class struggle and the mission of the working class, and such point be one that will bring us nearer to the ultimate goal of that struggle and the fulfilment of that mission.

For instance: No reform program could be formulated on the basis of which the Socialist party could co-operate with all those exploited by the trusts and the tariff — the eighty-nine million class of which Comrade Kelly wants us to be a part. That these eighty-nine millions are not a social class is self-evident. We are all consumers, including the one million exploiters. But this would not matter very much. The working class may make common cause with another class or sub-class, if there is a common cause to fight for. But is there? Let us see. Why does Comrade Kelly exclude from the consuming brotherhood the one million? Each of them is robbed by the others as a consumer, and ought therefore to join in the fight on those others. Evidently Comrade Kelly considers that the interest which each of them has in the general policy of exploitation on which his welfare as a producer and exploiter depends, will make him forget his grievances as a consumer and fight on the side of exploitation. Before, therefore, we can assert that the “millions of others” are “equally interested” with the working class, or even at all interested in the abolition of exploitation, their social-economic position as producers or traders, and not merely as consumers, should be considered, in order to find out whether they, also, are not on the other side. Had Comrade Kelly done that he would have come to entirely different results than his class “eighty-nine millions strong.”

Of course, many of these “millions of others” might join in a fight on the particular exploitation that hurts them, say the tariff. But no lasting alliance could be made on that basis, even assuming that the workingmen have to gain something in the long run by the removal of this particular exploitation, of which there is some doubt. For these “millions of others” would immediately join the other exploiters in throwing this burden again on the workers in the shape of taxation, as is abundantly proven by experience. The workingmen are, nevertheless, opposed to the tariff, and were their representatives in Congress they would certainly have voted against it, and not act the traitors that the representatives of these “millions of others” did. But to make a special issue of it and enter into an alliance with these tariff-aggrieved gentry is absurd for anybody who understands the class struggle and all that it implies.

Matters are even worse with respect to trusts. Considerations of space will not permit me to enter into a full discussion of the subject. I intend to treat it more exhaustively later on. Here I will merely say that, as a general proposition, the respective policies of the working class and the “millions of others” with reference to trusts, are not only far apart, but often diametrically opposed.

I do not want to be understood, however, as asserting that there is absolutely nothing that the working class and these “millions of others,” or at least some of them, might not fight for in common, under certain circumstances. Indeed, in my opinion there is much that they ought to fight for in common with the working class. And when they are willing to do so they will find that the working class is not bound by any dogmas which would prevent it from meeting an honest ally more than half way, least of all that portion of the working class which is most influenced by the Marxian teaching. But such objects, and the measures for their attainment, must be examined carefully and separately, as they present themselves, always bearing in mind the ultimate goal to be attained, and the conditions of the fight imposed upon us by the nature of the struggle.

Some of them will be considered in a series of articles on Problems of Reform and Reformers, which I propose to put before the readers of The Call in the not distant future.[b]