The Labor enquirer., 1884-07-26

fum ! urfhce View. ~ ~
They axs equally ssrssd that tbs len
dency IF the time u towards : social
lgstem bpilt upon organised - opezation
The moderate would opposs this B,
lsIowly conteatins eyesy inch of ths
gpound and delay tie evil day IS lang =
lposibla. 5The nd Iesls would make /,
Erush att and try T. tiiyest the tepdenfy
fromlits right path by dangling the ban
ble Of political freedom in its eyess
Letus now turn to 4 consideration d
the tactics Of the radicals toward the 50.
cialists.
To repeat I'VE were frst of Ill mel
with STORM Of furious denunciation.
When this failed to alsyn the Socialists
Misrepresentation OF tho most contempt
| ible kind was. resorted to in the hope
that this means would more effectually
|crush us by creating false impression Of
our ideas and objects in the public mind.
Our propaganda fourished with in
creased vigof and with seeming disregard
Of ell the efforts Of our opponents &
Wenow reach the next stage in the
evolution Of the tactics Of the bour-
geoisie. 8
The new dodge is to take up Socialist
rhetoric and put forward social reform, as
against Socialism
This departure has not yet been much
taken up by any very prominent men.
The leaders Of political parties are not
the men who ever bring forward q new
idea, The new idea is generally taken
up BY an obscure disciple and after he
has made some progress with it q shrewd,
selfseeking fellow generally takes hold
Of it and makes it popular.
And now the small lights Of liberalism
from Samuel Smith to Annie Besant are
engaged in the strange task of rousing
the people by employing Socialistic
rhetoric, and then gulling them with
watery schemes Of social reform. Men
like Samuel Smith, NJ. p, are more likely
to excite our amusement than our fear.
People like Mrs. Besant are more likely
to excite our contempt than our respect.
The amusement which we feel upon
reading or hearing the opposition of Mr..
Smith is caused by the curious manner
in which he displays and re-displays his
scant stock Of silly criticisms, and the
proud manner in which he promenades
his schemes of reform. We Socialists
are amused, and our amusement is
mingled with pity, when we find men
superficial enough to trot out time worn
economical fallacies with all the fervor
Of an enthusiast advocating newly dis
coYered truth Mr. Smith is not alto
gether a atypeof the usual ferocious de-
fender of capitalism. He IL a capitalist
and clearly loves his capital He is in a
stage Of development too far back to re-
alize that there are other and better
things in this world than the possession
of a power which destroys mems happi-
ness. He recognizes that he belongs to
a class which we intend to abolish, and
he comes forward with a good deal of
zeal and great want of discretion to
/ fight in defense of his class. He tells US
with the utmost simplicity that luxury
lis a good thing, because the making of
luxurious articles gives employment to
certain numbers Of workmen. We may
point out that if the labor expended
upon producing articles Of luxury were
expended upon the production Of really.
useful articles Of which the laborers are
so much in want; if we point out that
labor expended upon luxury is wasted
while labor expended upon useful arti-
cles is contribution to the progress of
the species and yields pleasure to
maker and consumer, our arguments
simply confound and cannot convince
our dull opponent. If I had not an in
veterate hatred Of jokes which slight
women, lat which jokes some Of your
damned American editors are 50 cIever),
i would call Mr.. Samuel Smith, M. P. an
old wife. As it is he is an opponent
whom believe to be very sincere and
intensely stupid,
Turning now to the leaders Of the Sec
ularists, l may add few words upon
their attitude. But let there be no mis-
conception.of my reasons for attacking
the Secular leaders" In doing SO I do
not attack Secularism. lam Secularist
myself, with no more regard for divine
authority than for human authority.
But having given up Jehovah, ! have no
intention Of taking up Bradlaugh or Be-
SAINT instead. These and other aristo-
cratic and conservative Secularists / very
heartily despise.
Mr.. Bradlaugh is still of the opinion
that Socialism can but be vanquished by
volleys of uproarious rhetoric. 1t has
yet apparently occurred to him that
something more than eloquent yelling is
required to rebutia set of principles. Mr..
Bradlaugh's method of answering Social
lists is to. urge, firstly, and as fatal OBJ
Jection, that Socialism can only be
brought about by a Revolution. Sec
ondly, he turns and asks the Socialists
for complete picture Of Society based
upon Socialistic principles. How would