Skip to Content

Fiat Lux

Methods of Organisation. Which is correct?

 A good deal of importance has of late been attached to the question of the industrial organisation of the working class. It is now more than ever necessary to sound a note of warning. A lot has been written and said unduly emphasising this importance. While the present writer admits the necessity for some form of organisation on the industrial field, he realises that these, at best, have their limitations.

 Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, with the advocacy of their respective methods of “war” on the capitalist class, such as the rank and file movement of the metal trades, the general “down tools" policy, “direct action,” sabotage, etc.—all these have been brought to the front at various times, with claims that they represent the correct form of organisation for the workers to take up in order to free themselves from the domination of capitalism.

New Departure. And a Warning.

Much excitement has been caused by the more frequent air attacks and the means adopted to frustrate them. As might be expected, very little truth is allowed to be known, and the good old game of bluff is made to do full service. Following the raids it is now the practice to have somebody of note make a speech of the grin and bitters order, in which care is taken to provide a sufficient amount of sympathy (with the tongue in the cheek), a deal of praise for the fortitude of the sufferers (workers, of course, every time), but, above all, to point out the necessity for steeling ourselves to yet greater efforts in order to vanquish, once for all, this dastardly method of warfare, adopted by an unscrupulous enemy, etc., etc.

Much use is made of the gag that the raids are deliberately organised for the purpose of striking terror and wreaking destruction in the ranks of Britain's working class, and colour is lent to this assertion by the fact that it is they who chiefly suffer.

Syndicate content