The Commonwealth. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1911-1914, 1913-03-07
Reply To Boddy'S
Answer"

| III MY hANANA' ivy us W NNAAa"HN
Shockley.
Now, understand from Comrade
Boldly that he is a fellow worker |
am glad to know that this reply is to
many more of MS have spent our lives
in because II is our business, or duty
to our class, to unite.
The comrades answer" when
boiled down, consists of about three
parts and n question. The first two
points raised by him are so superb
cial that 1t is evident that he has de-
luded himself somehow in some way,
otherwise he would not be reaching
up into the superstructure of the is
sue to overthrow that, and fail, but
would at least have made n direct at
tempt to tackle the foundation or
basis of the issue, which is: Shall the
workers of the World Unite" and
"Emancipate Themselves" or, Shall
the Workers and Parasites Unite and
let the parasites, little or big, con-
tinue their age-long delusion? (Stan-
dard dictionary definition for para
site)
He thinks l should not refer to the
ruling class or any of its constituents
as the upper classes" and thereby
imply" that the workers are the
lower class"
In reply to this | must state that
we are dealing with facts, even
though they may be disagreeable
facts. If the working class is not the
lower or subject class, then there is
no need for socialist movement II
the working class can be typifled by
a big, brainy, brawny toiler stupidity
carrying on his back, perfumed,
driveling idiot drawing dividends
(blood) from the toiler's back. l wish
to ask the comrade if he is going to
continue deluding himself by denying
that we are trying to get out from
under the parasitic capitalist class
when it is a fact that it is on top of
us living off our lives?
Again the comrade objects, because
made the statement that upper
class" people have a mania for office,
Another implication against the work
ers, because as he states, then it is
implied that the workers have no
mania for office" l am afraid If too
much detail were INDUCED in the edl-
tor would have to chop us off. There
fore. in order to give the comrade no
chance for more misunderstanding, l
will try to "fest up" and state plainly
the implication that he faile dto grasp.
1t is:
workers of the World Unite" and
"emancipate Themselves" Can you
find anything in that advising us
workers to elect middle class people
to represent us? Or, do you require
us to come out and flatly announce
that the workers are going to elect
themselves to office las indeed they
should) to represent themselves in
order to emancipate themselves? We
can go to the old parties and get
plenty of moonshine. No moonshine
for US in our own movement for our
class interests! No looking-glass
proxies for us! Nothing goes but the
direct beams from the only useful
and necessary class! Do you think
that because we have always endured
the darkness OF night that we will
continue SO?
In his third point, which is really
on the issue, the comrade is incon-
sistent because when he objected, in
his first, to our implication CD of the
working class as the Clover class" he
was up in arms with "the working
class is the upper class, uppermost
in importance, for it is they who are
the support of the world, uppermost
in intelligence for it is from them that
all of the important and useful inven-
tions and discoveries come" Then to
make his third point he turns around
and says: Therefore, because a per
son is a worker it is no inevitable
sign that they are capable of perform
ing official duties or that they will
be true to the interests of the work
ing class"
Does the comrade believe that peo-
pie with opposing interests would be
more true than the workers them
selves to the workers interests? Or
even equally true? l defv him to
prove it out Of any class movement in
history,
When I stated that you cannot
make scientific socialists out of per-
sons to whose class interests it
Marxian socialism, does not appeal"
(since MARKHAM socialism is based up
on the analysis of the wage SYSTEM
and that such people always fitted
some part Of Narxism to their own in
terests when they did appear to be-
come scientific. ] only re-stated a
foot chat Mary first stated himself