Correspondence
F. S (Queensland). — As all the laws, including “eminent domain,” are accepted, or made, and enforced by the capitalist class through their control of political power, it is evident that when it suits the interest of the capitalist class as a whole (or the majority thereof), they will be quite prepared to take over any industry from its particular owners and run it to suit themselves.
This has been shown in the case of the Post Office and Telephones.
Probably compensation would be paid, though this is only distributing the burden on the whole capitalist class by way of taxation, instead of letting it fall on the particular capitalist.
(a) Probably most of the anxiety on the part of many scientists to deny the term “materialist” applied to themselves is due to snobbishness and conceit. A “materialist” is usually looked upon as a “vulgar” or “low class” person, or something worse. Hence the haste of the scientist, who wishes to stand well with “society,” to repudiate any suggestion that he is a materialst. Hence also the hair-splitting and attempts to find infinitesimal shades of difference in the descriptions of what are at base he same set of facts.
When to this is added the fact that many of them depend directly upon the capitalist class for their living, it will he easily understood that they do not care to offend their employers.
J. F.
W. WARD (Watford). — Our declaration of principles embodies the minimum points on which the Socialists can unite. The class struggle in society so clearly recognised in our principles is repudiated by the actions of the B.S.P. Realising that the interests of the Liberal and Tory sections of the master class are opposed to those of the working class, Socialists can never ally themselves with or support those parties, but must ever oppose them. What other word, then, but “treachery” describes the advice given by the B.S.P. to the workers during the St. Rollox and S. Hackney bye-elections, urging them to vote for the Tory party ? You say the B S.P. is opposed to compromise, but their actions belie you. You say they believe in getting Socialism “in portions, which in due course must mean the whole,” showing again that they do not accept the class struggle as their guiding principle, for Socialists know that the masters’ interests being opposed to ours, they will not give us Socialism “in bits.” Socialism will be established by the working class when they control political power. Our work then is to convert the workers to the Socialist policy. Those who delay that conversion by leading the workers into the masters’ camp must be opposed. The “unity” of jingoes like Blatchford and Hyndman, Liberal vote-catchers like H. Quelch and Thorne, and Syndicalists like Leonard Hall, is not Socialist unity but Anarchist confusion.
Ed. Com.
T. SAWYER (Balham) and E. J. HIGGINS (Philadelphia) — Next month.