Page:William Zebulon Foster - Strike Strategy (1926).pdf/75

 was typical. The employers, knowing the weakness of such strikes, sometimes deliberately provoke them.

An important question in connection with strike settlements is whether or not partial settlements shall be made; that is, whether it is a good policy in strikes to make settlements with those employers who are willing to "sign up." For many years the left wing gave a categorical "no" answer to this question. It advocated the policy that all employers must settle at once or none can be signed up. It declared that partial settlements are organized scabbery.

In arriving at these conclusions the left wing was moved principally by (1) the disastrous effects of the policy of craft treachery of the reactionary labor leaders, (2) the fact that the left wing based its policies chiefly on the big trustified industries where partial settlements are manifestly impossible.

But the general conclusion that there shall be no partial settlements under any circumstances is wrong. It is ultra-leftist. In certain situations the workers find it advantageous to make such partial settlements. The problem is to find out when and under what circumstances they may be made profitably.

When partial settlements serve the general strategical aim of splitting the ranks of the employers and enable the workers to play off one section of them against the others they are tactically advisable. Then it is a case of making one group of capitalists scab on the rest. But when these settlements weaken or divide the workers' ranks, or compromise the political purposes of a great strike they must be rigidly avoided.

Industries still in a highly competitive state, such as