Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1905-03-08
8. L. =. COrTeCtS
AnErrOr or Two
Butte Mont, Feb II 'os

Dear Mr.. Walsh; Owing to alb
sence from the city the first of the
month did not until day before yes
terday see the News of Feb. I,
containing my letter and your reply.
Without wishing to overburden
your columns with controversy there
are one or two points in your reply,
which. if left unanswered would place
the S. l.. F., in false light before
your readers. In using the term
development" referring to your
advance toward the s. l.. p,
position | did so, not from a sence
of personal superiority, but from a
consciousness of the superiority of
the S. l.. p, viewpoint. From the
mountain top of MARKHAM Socialism,
the humblest worker in the S. l.. p,
can observe intelligently, the move
ments and progress of those below,
who have not yet emerged from the
mists of bourgeois economies. His
the superior vantage ground of the
scientists, whence the latter may
readily see the fallacies, inconsis-
tencies and contradictory attitudes
of his unscientifc opponents.
Hence my use of the scientific term
develoment."
Regarding the Lord De Leon let
ter il was hard to escape the con-
clusion implied in my reference
thereto, viz:-that since you, editor
of a S. p, paper. published De
Icons letter without unfavorable
comment. you thereby showed SYM
pathy with the 5. l.. p, point of
view on the important question of
tactics discussed therein. In the
circumstances, your silence spoke
to me as elequently as so many
words of approval of DeLeon's
answer to Ford.
As to the coming split in the So
cialist party and the futuer line
up" suggested in your editorial,
will Go To S. l.. p" your reply
to the point raise there (Which
was that your recognition of the
S. l.. p, as revolutionary, class
conscious proposition" would
make necessary your separation
from the "opportunist middle
class elements" controlling
the S. P.,) suggests a possibility l
had not thought of before viz: that
you simply intend to be an interested
spectator of the splitting up" pro-
cess and not an active participant
therein. In that case perhaps you
and the News have not reached the
parting of the way" am well
aware that it is one thing to give in
tellectual assent to a proposition and
another to stand on all the practical
consequences of such assent That
is why l suggested the only consistant
course for you to follow, provided
you had arrived at theS l.. p, view
point viz: withdraw from the So
cialist party, sever connections with
the News as S. p, paper and take
your place in the ranks of the revolu-
tionary army. That was the only
way you could escape thecontradict-
ory attitude into which private inter
ests would inevitably lead.
Certainly your objection to the S.
l.. p, on the plea that it is not in
fallible" and will need many inn
provements before the ushering in of
the cooperative commonwealth, !"
can have little weight even in your
own mind. For if Improvements are
necessary in the S. l.. P., before it
will be as | claimed, adequate for
the emancipation of the working
class" how infinitely more must be
the improvements in the S. r., before
il will even be on level with the S.
4 d.. l.-....- -. .-....l Al. L..llL-.-