1

nment by majorities, cognize that if there majority of workers

social system, that ve effect to its wishes In that fashion the new it is, can be canvassed ole electorate; and the › constitute the majority can elect the men whose atisfies them. To propose n instead of that method I propaganda and open ry action is to reveal a The majority of the workers are the particular measures advocates of Direct Action There is only one inference. Ponists' (to use a convenient

them) believe that they can majority votes in the trade itions where they could not parliamentary majorities in the uencies. That is to say, the to be obtained in the trade izations does not really represent deliberate choice even of the ority of the workers, to say nothing he millions whom the Actionists miss from consideration as bourgeois. represents only a manipulation of workers' votes by a minority who alously work the 'machine' while the ajority of the workers let the matter lone. The end of Direct Action, then, will be a mere Directorate of labor leaders who for the time being hold power like so many Tammany Bosses, and who can dictate a policy only so long as they are able to combine upon

one.

For the mass of the workers there is no more safety or stability in such a policy than there is for the rest of society. Labor solidarity, like the solidarity of any other aggregate, epends on the general conviction at the general interest is being prerved. Any Labor Directorate which

might attain either virtual or actual political power as a result of Direct Action would have to satisfy the demands of every labor section, as manipulated by its special leaders, who would insist that Direct Action must work out to their group interest as they interpreted it. The spirit which revealed itself as Syndicalism is latent in every labor section which has been led to accept Direct Action as the means of forcing the will of so-called labor on the nation. And labor leaders are at least as ready as any other politicians to subordinate their policy to their personal ambitions and their personal antagonisms.

There are men in the rank and file of the Direct Action movement who perfectly realize that their delegates may work more for their personal advancement than for the interest of their supporters; and they meet such criticisms as the foregoing by saying that disloyal delegates can be superseded. But even that optimism recognizes that every attempt at separatist control of the nation's destinies involves endless risks of individual self-assertion, which make possible the ascendancy of the most unscrupulous when they know how to 'swing' the opinion of the mass in their favor. It is a strange form of credulity that relies on a perfect operation of good faith and good sense within the covered area of a labor organization, while refusing to accept. the open electoral system on the score of its being controlled by sinister interests.

True, the open electoral system means the frequent deference of multitudes of electors to policies of selfinterest and class-interest, to wirepullers and to clap-trap. But is not that very fact the proof that the mass is still capable of being misled? And

hold his own in an organized society, and Anarchism of all sorts gradually ebbed out. It is partly to that old inspiration, however, that we may ascribe the new doctrine of Direct Action, which so resembles Anarchism in respect of determination to impose a revolutionary ideal on an unprepared society, and of total unpreparedness to organize a new society, save by hand-to-mouth methods.

We are told, of course, that the party of Direct Action has a programme-a policy, to begin with, of nationalization of certain industries, such as mines and railways. But that programme is no more advanced in detail than was the Anarchist dream of a new 'archism'; and meantime the existing system is to be paralyzed by the instrument of the universal strike. To bring a society to a standstill by way of compelling it to organize at once upon new lines, is a policy of Anarchism, in the sense that that must be the result. For those, of course, who see social order and progress in the Bolshevist despotism in Russia, with its Red Guards and Chinese police, and its rapid pauperization of a vast aggregate of peoples, the new war cry may be full of promise. But we have only to conceive any committee of British Laborists and Socialists taking charge of a headlong scheme of nationalization of mines and land and railways, with an eye to speedy nationalization of everything else we have only to conceive that experiment in order to realize how anarchy invariably follows on the violent transformation of any social system whatever. For societies subsist progressively only by means of a working agreement among the majority; and the movement of Direct Action is really the scheme of a minority who hope to effect their

ends by somehow persuading or seeming to persuade a docile mass of workers to accept their leadership.

Sane Socialists have long ere this seen that their ideal is set at naught by all separatist movements which despise common legislative action. The trouble began when 'class war' became a general watchword of Socialist propaganda. Those who could not see the tragic absurdity of preaching a gospel of class hatred in the name of social solidarity were the natural raw material of Syndicalism on one hand and the movement of Direct Action on the other. A Socialist who could see that Syndicalism (with its ideal of 'Every trade for itself') was the negation of Socialism, could hardly fail to see further that Direct Action must mean only social tyranny with a difference. When an organization of workers passes from the simple ideal of Trade Unionism (under which an industrial group makes its bargains with employers in general, and looks after its legislative interests) to an ideal of collective Trade Unionism, using the general strike as an instrument not merely against the employer, / but against the whole social and political system, it is proposing to pass at a stride from a kind of action which is well within the comprehension of its leaders to one that is outside their power of management. Efficient Trade Unionism is the result of generations of constant experiment, involving many ups and downs. The ideal of Direct Action means either an arbitrary combination of Trade Unions to manage a new socio-political system of which there has been no experience, or a chronic convulsion by means of which a sacred legislature is to carry out orders for which it has no plans.

Now, if the advocates of Direct Action have any real faith in the

principle of government by majorities, they must recognize that if there really exists a majority of workers desiring a new social system, that majority can give effect to its wishes at the polls. In that fashion the new plan, whatever it is, can be canvassed before the whole electorate; and the workers, who constitute the majority of both sexes, can elect the men whose programme satisfies them. To propose Direct Action instead of that method of national propaganda and open parliamentary action is to reveal a belief that the majority of the workers do not desire the particular measures which the advocates of Direct Action propose. There is only one inference. The 'Actionists' (to use a convenient name for them) believe that they can secure majority votes in the trade organizations where they could not secure parliamentary majorities in the constituencies. That is to say, the vote to be obtained in the trade organizations does not really represent the deliberate choice even of the majority of the workers, to say nothing of the millions whom the Actionists dismiss from consideration as bourgeois. It represents only a manipulation of the workers' votes by a minority who zealously work the 'machine' while the majority of the workers let the matter alone. The end of Direct Action, then, will be a mere Directorate of labor leaders who for the time being hold power like so many Tammany Bosses, and who can dictate a policy only so long as they are able to combine upon

one.

For the mass of the workers there is no more safety or stability in such a policy than there is for the rest of society. Labor solidarity, like the solidarity of any other aggregate, depends on the general conviction that the general interest is being preserved. Any Labor Directorate which

might attain either virtual or actual political power as a result of Direct Action would have to satisfy the demands of every labor section, as manipulated by its special leaders, who would insist that Direct Action must work out to their group interest as they interpreted it. The spirit which revealed itself as Syndicalism is latent in every labor section which has been led to accept Direct Action as the means of forcing the will of so-called labor on the nation. And labor leaders are at least as ready as any other politicians to subordinate their policy to their personal ambitions and their personal antagonisms.

There are men in the rank and file of the Direct Action movement who perfectly realize that their delegates may work more for their personal advancement than for the interest of their supporters; and they meet such criticisms as the foregoing by saying that disloyal delegates can be superseded. But even that optimism recognizes that every attempt at separatist control of the nation's destinies involves endless risks of individual self-assertion, which make possible the ascendancy of the most unscrupulous when they know how to 'swing' the opinion of the mass in their favor. It is a strange form of credulity that relies on a perfect operation of good faith and good sense within the covered area of a labor organization, while refusing to accept the open electoral system on the score of its being controlled by sinister interests.

True, the open electoral system means the frequent deference of multitudes of electors to policies of selfinterest and class-interest, to wirepullers and to clap-trap. But is not that very fact the proof that the mass is still capable of being misled? And

in output, and the economic bankruptcy of the enterprises.

Gradually the Soviet authorities began to replace this scheme by a centralized organization for separate branches of all departments of production, and at the same time gradually replaced 'workmen's control' by nationalization—that is, substituting the state for the workmen as masters of industry. This process of state organization of public economy was in its main features completed in the course of 1918. A whole system of local and central bodies was established controlling separate branches of industry, such as, for instance, Centrotextile, Centrosugar, Centronaphtha, Centrotea, etc. A body called the Supreme Soviet of Public Economy was placed at the head of the entire structure.

Thus the state became the sole employer, and the whole laboring class was in its pay. The importance of the labor committees in the management of the factories dropped into the background. The organization of the production and the distribution of the products fell to the share of the Soviets of public economy, and at the head of the management in separate factories we see gradually placed hired 'experts' with almost dictatorial powers.

Lenine, in his pamphlet The Direct Tasks of the Soviet Power, advocates this measure in great detail, although he admits that it is a recoil from the standpoint of Socialism.

What are, then, the results of nationalized industry?

First of all we must indicate the unheard-of increase of staffs of employees in the administrative bodies. For instance, in Centrotextile alone there were 6,000 employees according to the records of the official revision in 1918. The average number of

VOL. 15-NO. 784

papers that is, letters, inquiriescoming in was 500 a day, with 207 sent out. Each secretary had to deal in the average with 10 papers coming in and four sent out per day; each typewriter with two papers sent out per day, and so on. One can easily see to what an unproductive expenditure of money that kind of organization leads.

Neither is the matter any better in the purely economic sense. For the second half of 1918 the Centrotextile advanced sums to the amount of 1,348,619,000 rubles for the manufacture of textiles, and yet goods only to the amount of 143,716,000 rubles have been produced, namely, scarcely over 10 per cent.

The same may certainly be seen in the other 'Centros.'

I am not going to quote figures regarding the reduction of the production, the closing of a whole series of enterprises, and the reduction of the total number of workmen, because it may be argued that these events may not only be the result of the economic policy of 'nationalization,' but may be the effect of such external causes as, for instance, shortage of raw materials, fuel, etc. I shall only mention that these events have reached quite terrific dimensions.

I would like now to draw attention to some points directly connected with the economic policy of the Bolsheviki.

Payment for labor has grown beyond all measure, and has lost all bearing with purely business expenses and the productivity of labor. Thus, for instance, the outlays for the payment of labor and administration in the second half of 1918 grew, in the average, as against those of the first half of the year by 300 per cent, whereas, the purely business outlays have only increased by 50 per cent on the whole (Isvestia of the State Control, No. 1).