Page:IWW and political parties (Saint John, ca 1924).pdf/1

 ''' and '''

BY VINCENT ST. JOHN

I am in receipt of many inquiries relative to the position of the I. W. W. and political action. One fellow worker wants to know "How is this revolutionary body going to express itself politically?" and "if it is going to hop through the industrial world on one leg?"

A little investigation will prove to any worker that while the workers are divided on the industrial field, it is not possible to unite them on any other field to advance a working class program.

Further investigation will prove that with the working class divided on the industrial field, unity anywhere else—if it could be brought about—would be without results. The workers would be without power to enforce any demands. The proposition, then, is to lay all stress in our agitation upon the essential point, that is, upon the places of production, where the working class must unite in sufficient numbers before it will have the power to make itself felt anywhere else.

Will it not follow that, united in sufficient numbers at the workshops and guided by the knowledge of their class interests, such unity will be manifested in every field wherein they can assist in advancing the interest of the working class? Why, then, should not all stress be laid upon the organization of the workers on the industrial field?

The illustration used by our fellow worker in which he likens the economic organization to a one legged concern because it does not mention political action, is not a comparison that in any way fits the case. As well might the prohibitionist, the anti-clerical, or any other advocate of the many schools that claim the worker can better his condition by their particular policy, say that because the declaration of principles of the economic organization makes no mention of these subjects, the I. W. W. is short a leg on each count.