[size=0.9em]
从一个认为自己有能力辨别人类进步的不寻常路线的人的角度来看，如果要取得进步，那么在他的思维导图上有这样一条路线的人，已经尽力向别人指出; 让他们看到它时看到它; 这样做的人选择了他所看到的清晰而简单的表达方式，将他的思想传达给他人，对于这样一个人来说，遗憾和精神混乱似乎是“直接行动”一词在一般思想中突然获得一种限定的意义，完全不是隐含在文字本身中，当然也从未被他或他的共同思想家所附加。
然而，这是一个常见的杰作之一，进步游戏对那些认为自己能够为其设定界限的人起到了作用。一遍又一遍地，名字，短语，格言，口号，已被翻过来，颠倒，后面和侧面，由于那些使用了正确意义上的表达的人的控制; 然而，那些顽固坚持并坚持被听到的人最终发现，误解和偏见的时期只是更广泛的探究和理解的前奏。
我更倾向于认为现在对“直接行动”这个术语的误解就是这种情况，因为在麦克纳马拉斯认罪的时候，洛杉矶某些记者的误解，或者故意的失实陈述突然在流行的头脑中获得了解释，“对生命和财产的强制攻击”。这对记者来说要么是无知的，要么是非常不诚实的; 但它有很多人好奇地了解直接行动。
事实上，那些如此懒散而如此过分地谴责它的人，会在审查中发现，他们自己在许多场合都采取了直接行动，并将再次这样做。
每一个曾经认为自己有权主张，并大胆地宣称自己，或者与其他共同信仰的人共同主张的人，都是一个直接的行动主义者。大约三十年前，我记得救世军正在积极地采取直接行动，维护其成员的言论，集会和祈祷的自由。他们一再被捕，被罚款和监禁; 但是他们一直在歌唱，祈祷和游行，直到他们最终强迫他们的迫害者让他们独自一人。工业工人现在正在进行同样的斗争，并且在许多情况下迫使官员们采取同样的直接策略让他们独自一人。
每个曾经计划做任何事情，去过去做过，或者把他的计划放在别人面前的人，都赢得了与他合作的合作，而没有去外部当局为他们做点什么，是一个直接的行动主义者。所有合作实验基本上都是直接行动。
每个人一生都与任何人有所不同，并通过和平计划或其他方式直接与其他相关人员一起解决，是一个直接的行动者。这种行动的例子是罢工和抵制; 很多人会想起抵制屠夫的纽约家庭主妇的行为，并降低了肉的价格; 目前，黄油联合抵制似乎迫在眉睫，直接回复价格制造商的黄油。
这些行为通常不是由于任何人在直接性或间接性的各自优点上的推理过多，而是对那些因某种情况感到压迫的人的自发反驳。换句话说，大多数时候，所有人都信奉直接行动原则及其实践。但是，大多数人也是间接或政治行动者。它们同时也是这些东西，而不是对它们进行太多的分析。只有极少数人在任何和所有情况下都避免采取政治行动; 但是没有人，没有人，谁曾经如此“不可能”以至于完全避开直接行动。
大多数有思想的人真的是机会主义者，倾向于，有些人可能更倾向于直接性，更多的是间接性作为一般性事物，但是当机会要求它时，任何一种方式都可以使用。也就是说，有些人认为投票统治者掌权是一个错误和愚蠢的事情; 但是，在特殊情况的压力下，他们可能会认为最明智的做法是在某个特定时间投票给某个人。或者有些人认为，一般来说，人们获得他们想要的东西的最明智的方式是通过投票获得权力的间接方法，使某些人能够做出他们想要的法律; 然而，在特殊条件下，偶尔会有同样的人建议罢工; 正如我所说，罢工是直接行动。或者他们可能会做社会党的鼓动者（他们大多宣称现在反对直接行动）去年夏天，当时警方正在举行他们的会议。他们有效地去了会场，准备说不管是不是，他们让警察退缩了。虽然这对他们来说不符合逻辑，因此反对多数人意志的法律执行者，但这是一个很好的，成功的直接行动。
根据他们的信仰的本质，那些只致力于直接行动的人 - 只是谁？为什么，非抵抗者; 正是那些根本不相信暴力的人！现在不要误以为我说直接行动意味着不抵抗; 不是以任何方式。直接行动可能是暴力的极端，或者它可能像希洛亚溪的水域一样平静。我所说的是，真正的非抵抗者只能相信直接行动，而不是政治行动。所有政治行动的基础都是强制; 即使国家做了好事，它最终也依赖于俱乐部，枪支或监狱，因为它有能力将它们带走。
现在，美国的每个学童都受到了他学校历史引起的某些非抵抗者的直接行动。每个人都立即回忆起的案例是来到马萨诸塞州的早期贵格会。清教徒指责贵格会“通过向世界宣扬和平来困扰世界”。他们拒绝支付教堂税; 他们拒绝携带武器; 他们拒绝宣誓效忠任何政府。（这样他们就是直接的行动主义者，我们可以称之为消极的直接行动主义者。）因此，作为政治行动主义者的清教徒通过法律将他们排除，驱逐，罚款，监禁，毁坏，最后，挂起他们。贵格会就一直在前进（这是积极的直接行动）; 和历史记载，挂了四个贵格会后，玛格丽特布鲁斯特在马车的尾巴上掠过波士顿的街道，“清教徒放弃了试图让新传教士沉默”; “贵格会的持久性和贵格会的非抵抗力赢得了胜利。”
在早期殖民历史中直接行动的另一个例子，但这次绝不是和平的，是被称为培根的叛乱的事件。我们所有的历史学家都肯定会捍卫叛乱分子在这件事上的行动，因为他们是正确的。然而，这是针对合法组建的权威的暴力直接诉讼案件。为了那些忘记细节的人的利益，让我简单地提醒他们弗吉尼亚州的种植者害怕印第安人的普遍攻击; 合理。作为政治行动主义者，他们或者培根作为他们的领导人问道，州长给了他一个委员会来为他们自己辩护筹集志愿者。州长担心这样一个武装人员公司会对他构成威胁; 也有理由。他拒绝了委员会。因此，种植园采取直接行动。他们在没有委托的情况下培养了志愿者，并成功地击退了印第安人。培根被州长宣布为叛徒; 但是人民和他在一起，州长害怕反对他。然而，到目前为止，叛乱分子烧毁了詹姆斯敦; 但是对于培根的过早死亡，可能还有更多的事情要做。当然，反应非常可怕，因为它通常是叛乱崩溃或被压垮的地方。然而，即使在短暂的成功期间，它也纠正了许多滥用行为。我确信，在反应重新掌权之后，那些时代的政治行动所有成本的倡导者必须说：“看看直接行动给我们带来了什么罪恶！看哪，殖民地的进步已经有了已经倒退了二十五年;“
在革命前的激动和兴奋时期，从最和平到最暴力的各种各样的直接行动; 而且我相信几乎所有研究美国历史的人都认为这些表演的叙述是故事中最有趣的部分，这部分最容易陷入记忆中。
在和平行动中，有非进口协议，穿着土布的联盟和“通信委员会”。随着敌对势力的不可避免的增长，暴力直接行动得以发展; 例如，在破坏收入印章或关于茶船的行动方面，要么不允许茶叶落地，要么将其放入潮湿的储存室，或者将其扔进港口，如波士顿，或者通过迫使茶船主向他自己的船点火，就像在安纳波利斯一样。这些都是我们最常见的教科书记录的行为，当然不是以谴责的方式记录，甚至不是以道歉的方式记录，尽管它们都是对法律构成的权力和财产权采取直接行动的案例。如果我引起他们的注意，以及其他类似性质的人，直接行动一直被使用，并且对现在正在谴责它的人们进行历史性的制裁。
据说乔治华盛顿是弗吉尼亚州种植者非进口联盟的领导者; 他现在可能会被法庭“禁止”组建任何这样的联盟; 如果他坚持下去，他会因蔑视而被罚款。
当南北之间的大争吵变得越来越热，这又是直接的行动，先于政治行动。我可以在这里指出，政治行动从未被采取过，甚至没有考虑过，直到沉睡的思想首先被直接抗议现有条件的行为引起。
反奴隶制运动和内战的历史是最大的悖论之一，尽管历史是一系列悖论。在政治上，正是奴隶制国家主张更大的政治自由，以及单一国家的自治权，以免受美国的干涉; 从政治角度来说，正是非奴隶制国家代表着一个强大的中央集权政府，分裂主义者说并真正地说，这种政府逐渐被发展成越来越多的暴虐形式。发生了什么事 从内战结束时开始，联邦政权一直在不断侵犯以前各国关注的问题。工资奴隶，在他们今天的斗争中，他们不断地与奴隶主所抗议的集中力量发生冲突（他心中的暴政在他的嘴唇上自由）。从道德上讲，正是非奴隶制国家在一般方面主张更大的人类自由，而分离主义者则代表种族奴役。仅以一般方式; 也就是说，大多数北方人，不习惯黑人奴隶制的实际存在，认为这可能是一个错误; 然而他们并没有因为废除它而感到焦虑不安。仅废奴主义者，他们相对较少，是真正的道德，奴隶制本身 - 不是分裂或结合 - 是主要问题。事实上，对他们来说至关重要，他们中有相当多的人本身就是解散工会，
当然，在那些主张废除奴隶制的人中，各种各样的人都有各种各样的性情。像
惠蒂尔这样的贵格会（事实上，即使在早期的殖民时期，也是那些主张废除圣徒的贵宾们）; 有一些温和的政治行动主义者，他们是以最便宜的方式买下奴隶的; 有极端暴力的人，他们相信并做了各种暴力事情。
至于政治家做了什么，这是一个长期记录的“锄头 - 不要去它”，这是一个三十年来妥协，争吵，并试图保持原样，以及手工制作的记录。当新的条件要求做某事或假装完成时，双方都要。但是“他们课程中的明星们反对西西拉;” 系统从内部分解，而来自无人的直接行动者正在无情地扩大裂缝。
直接反叛的各种表现形式是“地下铁路”的组织。大多数属于它的人都相信这两种行为; 但无论他们在理论上多少赞同多数人制定和执行法律的权利，他们在这一点上都不相信。我的祖父是“地下”的成员; 他在前往加拿大的路上帮助了许多逃亡的奴隶。在大多数方面，他是一个非常有耐心，守法的人，尽管我经常认为他尊重它，因为他没有多大关系; 始终领导先锋生活，法律一般远离他，而直接行动势在必行。尽管如此，他仍然遵守法律，但他不尊重任何奴隶法，无论是多数人的十倍;
有时在“地下”的运作中需要暴力，并被使用。我记得有一位老朋友和我有关，她和她的母亲整夜都在门口守望，而一个团队正在搜寻的奴隶藏在地窖里; 虽然他们有贵格会血统和同情心，但桌子上还有一把霰弹枪。幸运的是，那天晚上不必使用它。
当逃亡的奴隶法在北方的政治行动主义者的帮助下通过，他们希望为奴隶主提供新的诡计时，直接的行动者开始拯救被重新夺回的逃犯。有“Shadrach的救援”和“救援杰瑞”，后者救援人员由着名的格里特史密斯领导; 以及许多更成功和不成功的尝试。仍然政治人物继续喋喋不休，并试图平息事情，废奴主义者受到超级守法的太平洋国家的谴责和谴责，就像
Wm一样。D.海伍德和
弗兰克博恩现在正受到自己党派的谴责。
有一天，我读了芝加哥
日报社会主义者从路易斯维尔当地社会党的秘书到国家秘书的来文，要求用一些安全和理智的发言者代替已经宣布在那里发言的博恩。在解释原因时，多布斯先生在博恩的讲话中引用了这句话：“如果麦克纳马拉斯成功地捍卫了工人阶级的利益，那么他们就是对的，就像
约翰布朗一样，如果他成功地解放了无知是约翰布朗犯下的唯一罪行，无知是麦克纳马拉斯的唯一罪行。“
在此之后，多布斯先生评论如下：“我们强烈地争论这里所作的陈述。试图在约翰布朗的公开 - 如果是错误的 - 反抗与一方面的秘密和杀人方法之间划清界限。另一方面，麦克纳马拉斯不仅表明了浅层推理，而且从这些陈述中得出的逻辑结论极具恶作剧。“
显然，多布斯先生对约翰布朗的生活和工作一无所知。约翰布朗是一个暴力的人; 他会蔑视任何人试图让他出去的东西。一旦一个人成为暴力的信徒，就只有他最有效的应用方式的问题，这只能通过他所掌握的条件和手段的知识来确定。约翰布朗根本没有从阴谋方法中收缩。那些读过
弗雷德里克道格拉斯自传的人露西·科尔曼的回忆录将记得，约翰·布朗提出的计划之一就是在西弗吉尼亚州，北卡罗来纳州和田纳西州的山区组织一系列武装营地，派遣秘密使者进入奴隶之中，煽动他们逃往这些营地，并在那里采取措施，如时间和条件，以进一步引起黑人的反抗。这个计划失败的原因是由于奴隶本身对自由的渴望的弱点，而不是其他任何东西。
后来，当那些处于无限狡诈状态的政治家设计了一个新的命题，即“如何不做”，即被称为“堪萨斯 - 内布拉斯加法案”，这使得奴隶制问题由定居者决定，直接的行动主义者双方派遣伪造的定居者进入该领土，并开始打击它。先入侵的亲奴隶制的人，制定了一部承认奴隶制的宪法和一项惩罚死亡的法律，任何帮助奴隶逃脱的人; 但是，自从他们来自更遥远的国家后，他们到达时间稍长一些的自由造纸者制定了第二部宪法，并拒绝承认对方的法律。约翰布朗在那里，混合了所有的暴力，阴谋或开放; 在体面，和平，政治行动主义者的眼中，他是“一个马贼和一个凶手”。毫无疑问，他偷了马，在他偷窃他们的意图之前没有发出任何通知，并且他杀死了亲奴隶的男子。在他最后一次尝试哈珀渡轮之前，他多次击中并侥幸逃脱。如果他不使用炸药，那是因为炸药尚未作为实用武器出现。他对生活进行了更多的故意攻击，而不是两兄弟多布斯谴责他们的“杀人方法”。然而历史并没有理解约翰布朗。人类知道，虽然他是一个暴力的人，手上有人血，犯了叛国罪并被绞死，但他的灵魂是一个伟大，强大，无私的灵魂，无法忍受让400万人受伤的可怕罪行像愚蠢的野兽，并认为对它进行战争是一种神圣的，上帝所称的责任，
正是由于社会变革先行者的直接行为，无论他们是和平还是战争性质，人类的良心，群众的良知，都被引起了改变的需要。如果说政治行动没有带来好的结果，那将是非常愚蠢的; 有时，好的事情会以这种方式出现。但直到个别叛乱，然后是群众反叛，才会迫使它发生。直接行动始终是克莱莫尔，即发起者，通过这种行动，大量的冷漠主义者意识到压迫正在变得难以忍受。
我们现在和土地上的压迫 - 不仅在这片土地上，而且在世界上所有享受文明非常混合的祝福的地方。正如动产奴隶制问题一样，这种形式的奴隶制一直困扰着直接行动和政治行动。我们人口中有一定比例（可能比政治家要小得多，他们习惯于在群众大会上分配）正在产生我们所有其他人所生活的物质财富; 就像4,000,000名动产黑人一样支持他们上面的所有寄生虫群。这些是土地工人和工业工人。
通过我们没有人创造但在他来到这里时存在的机构的无预防和不可预知的运作，这些工人，整个社会结构中最绝对必要的部分，没有他们的服务，任何人都不能吃，或穿，或庇护自己，只是那些最少吃饭，穿着和被安置的人 - 更不用说他们分享我们其他人应该提供的其他社会福利，例如教育和艺术满足。
这些工人以这样或那样的方式相互联合起来，看看他们的状况能有什么好转; 主要是通过直接行动，其次是政治行动。我们有世界农民，农民联盟，合作协会，殖民化实验，劳动骑士，工会和
世界工业工人。所有这些都是为了从经济领域的主人那里榨取更好的价格，更好的条件，更短的时间; 或者另一方面抵制降价，恶化条件或延长工作时间。他们都没有试图最终解决社会战争。除了工业工人之外，他们都没有认识到存在社会战争，只要目前的法律社会条件持续存在，就不可避免。他们在找到房产时就接受了房产机构。他们是由普通人组成，平均欲望，他们承诺做他们认为可能和非常合理的事情。他们在组织时并没有致力于任何特定的政治政策，而是与他们自己的直接行动联系起来，无论是积极的还是防御性的。
毫无疑问，所有这些组织中都存在着超越眼前需求的成员; 谁确实看到现在正在运作的部队的不断发展必然会带来生活不可能继续存在的条件，因此，它将抗议，并以暴力抗议; 他们别无选择，只能这样做; 它必须这样做或驯服死亡; 因为没有挣扎就投降不是生命的本质，它不会顽固地死去。二十二年前，我遇到了农民联盟的人，他们这样说，工党骑士团谁这么说，工会会员就这么说了。他们想要比他们的组织所期望的目标更大的目标; 但是他们不得不像现在这样接受他们的同伴，并试图激励他们为可能让他们看到的东西工作。而他们能看到的是更好的价格，更好的工资，更少的危险或暴虐条件，更短的时间。在这些运动开始的发展阶段，土地工人无法看到他们的斗争与从事制造或运输服务的人的斗争有任何关系; 后者也不能认为他们与农民的运动有任何关系。就此而言，他们中很少有人看到它。他们还没有得知，与那些挪用地球，金钱和机器的人有一种共同的斗争。土地工人无法看出他们的斗争与从事制造或运输服务的人的斗争有任何关系; 后者也不能认为他们与农民的运动有任何关系。就此而言，他们中很少有人看到它。他们还没有得知，与那些挪用地球，金钱和机器的人有一种共同的斗争。土地工人无法看出他们的斗争与从事制造或运输服务的人的斗争有任何关系; 后者也不能认为他们与农民的运动有任何关系。就此而言，他们中很少有人看到它。他们还没有得知，与那些挪用地球，金钱和机器的人有一种共同的斗争。
不幸的是，农民的伟大组织在政治权力之后愚蠢地追逐自己。在某些国家取得权力非常成功; 但法院宣布其法律违宪，并且其所有政治征服都存在漏洞。它最初的计划是建造自己的电梯，并将产品存放在其中，将这些产品从市场中拿走，直到它们能够逃离投机者。此外，组织劳务交流，在存放交换的产品上发行信用票据。如果它坚持这种直接互助计划，它至少在某种程度上会在一定程度上说明人类如何摆脱银行家和中间人的寄生。当然，它最终会被推翻，除非它已经彻底改变了男人 以此为例强迫推翻土地和金钱的合法垄断; 但至少它会有很大的教育目的。事实上，它“追随红鲱鱼”而仅仅是因为它无用而解体。
劳动骑士队的比较微不足道，不是因为没有使用直接行动，也不是因为它篡改了政治，这很小，但主要是因为它是一个异质的工人群体，无法有效地联系他们的努力。
随着工党骑士的平息，工会变得强大，并且持续缓慢但持续增加权力。这种增长确实是波动的; 有挫折; 那些伟大的单一组织已经形成并再次分散。但总的来说，工会一直是一个不断增长的力量。他们之所以如此，是因为他们很穷，他们已经成为一种手段，让某些工人能够将他们的联合力量直接交给他们的主人，从而为自己找到他们想要的一部分 - - 他们的条件决定了他们必须尝试获得。罢工是他们自己伪造的天生武器。这是罢工的直接打击，老板十分害怕九次。（当然有时候他很高兴一个，但这是不寻常的。）他害怕罢工的原因并不是因为他认为他不能赢得反对，而只是因为他不想中断他的生意。普通老板对“有阶级意识的投票”并不十分害怕; 有很多商店，你可以整天谈论社会主义或任何其他政治节目; 但如果你开始谈论工会主义，你可能会立即被解雇，或者最好被警告闭嘴。为什么？并不是因为老板是如此明智，以至于知道政治行动是工人陷入困境的沼泽，或者因为他明白政治社会主义正在迅速成为中产阶级运动; 一点也不。他认为社会主义是一件非常糟糕的事; 但这是一个很好的方法！但他知道，如果他的商店加入工会，他就会马上遇到麻烦。
人们经常说，像鹦鹉一样重复，老板是“阶级意识的”，他们为了阶级利益而团结在一起，并且愿意承受任何形式的个人损失，而不是对这些利益是虚假的。事实并非如此。大多数商人就像大多数工人一样; 他们更关心自己的个人损失或收益，而不是关心他们班级的收益或损失。当一个工会威胁时，老板看到的是他个人的损失。
现在每个人都知道任何规模的罢工都意味着暴力。无论任何人对和平的道德偏好是什么，他都知道这不会是和平的。如果是电报罢工，则意味着切断电线和电线杆，并使用假痂来破坏仪器。如果它是钢轧机冲击，则意味着敲击结痂，破坏窗户，设置仪表错误，以及用数吨和吨材料破坏昂贵的辊子。如果它是一个矿工的罢工，它意味着摧毁铁轨和桥梁，并炸毁工厂。如果是服装工人的罢工，那就意味着发生了一场不负责任的火灾，在一个看似无法进入的窗户上抽出一堆石头，或者可能是制造商自己头上的一块砖头。如果这是一场街车罢工，它意味着轨道被碾碎或用灰车和斜坡车的内容装上障碍物，翻车或被盗的围栏，意味着被砸碎或焚烧的汽车和转向开关。如果是系统联合攻击，则意味着“死”引擎，狂野引擎，出轨货物和停滞不前的列车。如果是建筑行业罢工，则意味着结构化。而且，无论何时何地，人与警察之间的罢工者和罢工者与罢工者和罢工同情者之间的斗争始终如一。
在老板的一边，它意味着搜索灯，电线，栅栏，牛栏，侦探和挑衅特工，暴力绑架和驱逐，以及他们可以设想直接保护的每一件装备，除了最终援引警察，民兵，国家警察和联邦军队。
大家都知道这一点; 当工会官员抗议他们的组织要和平和守法时，每个人都会微笑，因为每个人都知道他们在撒谎。他们知道暴力被秘密和公开地使用; 并且他们知道它被使用是因为罢工者不能做任何其他方式，而不立即放弃战斗。他们也没有把那些因压力而诉诸暴力的人误认为是破坏性的歹徒，他们因天生的狡猾而做了他们所做的事。人们普遍认为，他们通过他们没有创造的情况的严酷逻辑来做这些事情，但却迫使他们进行这些攻击，以便在他们的生活斗争中取得好成绩，或者让他们陷入贫困的无底状态，让死神在贫民窟医院，城市街道或河流泥中找到它们。这是工人们面临的可怕替代方案; 这就是最善良的人类 - 那些会竭尽全力帮助受伤的狗，或将一只流浪的小猫带回家并护理它的人，或者为了避免在蠕虫身上行走而离开的人 - 诉诸于此对同胞的暴力行为。他们知道，事实告诉他们，如果他们能够获胜，这是获胜的唯一途径。它总是在我看来是一个人可以做或说的最完全荒谬，绝对无关紧要的事情，当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋寻求救济或帮助时，回应“投入自己的权力” ！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。这就是最善良的人类 - 那些会竭尽全力帮助受伤的狗，或将一只流浪的小猫带回家并护理它的人，或者为了避免在蠕虫身上行走而离开的人 - 诉诸于此对同胞的暴力行为。他们知道，事实告诉他们，如果他们能够获胜，这是获胜的唯一途径。它总是在我看来是一个人可以做或说的最完全荒谬，绝对无关紧要的事情，当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋寻求救济或帮助时，回应“投入自己的权力” ！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。这就是最善良的人类 - 那些会竭尽全力帮助受伤的狗，或将一只流浪的小猫带回家并护理它的人，或者为了避免在蠕虫身上行走而离开的人 - 诉诸于此对同胞的暴力行为。他们知道，事实告诉他们，如果他们能够获胜，这是获胜的唯一途径。它总是在我看来是一个人可以做或说的最完全荒谬，绝对无关紧要的事情，当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋寻求救济或帮助时，回应“投入自己的权力” ！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。或者放在一边避免走在蠕虫身上 - 诉诸暴力对抗同胞。他们知道，事实告诉他们，如果他们能够获胜，这是获胜的唯一途径。它总是在我看来是一个人可以做或说的最完全荒谬，绝对无关紧要的事情，当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋寻求救济或帮助时，回应“投入自己的权力” ！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。或者放在一边避免走在蠕虫身上 - 诉诸暴力对抗同胞。他们知道，事实告诉他们，如果他们能够获胜，这是获胜的唯一途径。它总是在我看来是一个人可以做或说的最完全荒谬，绝对无关紧要的事情，当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋寻求救济或帮助时，回应“投入自己的权力” ！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋接近救援或协助时，回应“投入自己的权力！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。当一个正在处理眼前情况的前锋接近救援或协助时，回应“投入自己的权力！” 当下一次选举是六个月，一年或两年之后。
不幸的是，那些最了解暴力如何在工会战争中使用的人不能站出来说：“在这样的一天，在这样的地方，这样和那样的具体行动已经完成，结果就是做出了这样的让步，或者这样的老板投降了。“ 这样做会危及他们的自由和继续战斗的力量。因此，那些最了解的人必须保持沉默，嘲笑他们的袖子，而那些知道很少的人。事件，而不是方言，必须使他们的立场明确。
过去几周里，有很多人在努力。演讲者和作家，老实说服我相信政治行动和政治行动只能赢得工人的战斗，一直谴责他们高兴地称之为“直接行动”（他们真正的意思是阴谋暴力）作为恶作剧无可估量的作者。一个
奥斯卡Ameringer例如，最近在芝加哥举行的一次会议上说，86年的Haymarket炸弹已经遏制了八小时运动二十五年，他们认为该运动本来可以取得成功，但对于炸弹而言。这是一个很大的错误。没有人能够在数年或数月内准确地测量前推或反应的效果。没有人能够证明这个八小时的运动本来可以在二十五年前赢得。我们知道，这项8小时工作日是通过政治行动在1871年伊利诺伊州的法规书上提出的，并且一直是一纸空文。那么，工人的直接行动本可以赢得它，无法证明; 但可以证明，比Haymarket炸弹更多的有效因素对它起作用。另一方面，如果炸弹的反应性影响确实如此强大，我们应该自然地期望芝加哥的劳动和工会条件比没有发生这种事情的城市更糟糕。相反，虽然不好，芝加哥的一般劳动条件比大多数其他大城市更好，工会的力量比旧金山以外的任何其他美国城市都要好。因此，如果我们要为Haymarket炸弹的影响做出任何结论，请记住这些事实。我个人认为它对工人运动的影响不是很大。因此，如果我们要为Haymarket炸弹的影响做出任何结论，请记住这些事实。我个人认为它对工人运动的影响不是很大。因此，如果我们要为Haymarket炸弹的影响做出任何结论，请记住这些事实。我个人认为它对工人运动的影响不是很大。
关于暴力，目前的愤怒也是如此。没有任何根本改变。两名男子因为他们所做的事而被监禁（二十四年前，他们因为他们没做的事而被绞死）; 还有一些可能会被监禁。但生活的力量将继续反抗他们的经济链。无论在什么票上投票或未投票，都不会停止这场反抗，直到连锁被打破。
连锁店将如何被打破？
政治行动者告诉我们，只有通过民意调查中的工人阶级党派行动才能实现; 通过投票自己拥有生命来源和工具; 通过投票表明那些现在指挥森林，矿山，牧场，水道，工厂和工厂的人，同样指挥军事力量来保护他们，将他们的统治权移交给人民。
与此同时？
与此同时，要和平，勤劳，守法，耐心，节俭（正如马德罗告诉墨西哥农民将他卖给华尔街后）！即使你们中的一些人被剥夺了权利，也不要起来反对，因为它可能“挫败党”。
好吧，我已经说过一些好事偶尔会通过政治行动来完成 - 不一定是工人阶级的党派行动。但是我非常相信，偶尔取得的好成就不仅仅是邪恶的抵消; 正如我确信虽然通过直接行动偶尔会产生祸害，但它们不仅仅是善于抵消。
几乎所有最初旨在使工人受益的法律都要么在敌人手中变成武器，要么成为死信，除非工人通过他们的组织直接执行他们的遵守。因此，最终，必须依赖直接行动。作为获得法律终结的一个例子，请看一下反托拉斯法，该法应该使一般人和特别是工人阶级受益。大约两周以来，大约250名工会领导人被引用作为信任前者的指控，作为伊利诺伊中央对其罢工者的回答。
但将信仰固定在间接行动上的邪恶远远大于任何这种微不足道的结果。主要的罪恶是它摧毁主动权，遏制个人的反叛精神，教导人们依靠别人为他们做他们应该为自己做的事情; 最后，通过将仰卧位聚集在一起直到获得多数，然后通过大多数人的特殊魔法，将这种仰卧感转化为能量，这是一种异常的观念。也就是说，那些已经失去了作为个体罢工的习惯的人，他们在等待大多数人成长的过程中屈服于每一个不公正的事物，只会通过一个包装过程变成人类的高爆炸药！
我完全同意，生活的来源，地球的所有自然财富以及合作生产所必需的工具必须让所有人都能自由获取。对我来说，工会主义必须扩大和深化其目的，或者它将会受到影响，这是一个肯定的确定性; 我确信情况的逻辑会逐渐迫使他们看到它。他们必须知道工人的问题永远无法通过敲打结痂来解决，只要他们自己的政策通过高启动费和其他限制限制其成员资格有助于制造结痂。他们必须知道，增长的过程不是沿着更高的工资线，而是更短的时间，这将使他们能够增加成员资格，以吸收所有愿意加入工会的人。他们必须知道，如果他们想赢得战斗，所有盟军工人必须共同行动，迅速采取行动（不对老板发出任何通知），并保留他们随时自由行事的权利。最后，他们必须知道，即使那时（当他们有一个完整的组织），他们也不会永远赢得任何永久性的，除非他们为所有事情而奋斗 - 不是为了工资，不是为了一点点的改善，而是为了地球的整个自然财富。并继续直接征用它！
他们必须知道，他们的权力不在于他们的投票力量，他们的力量在于他们停止生产的能力。假设工薪阶层占选民的大多数，这是一个很大的错误。工资收入者今天和明天在这里，这阻碍了大量的投票; 他们中有很大一部分是没有投票权的外国人。社会主义领导人知道这一点的最多专利证明就是他们在每一点上都在妥协他们的宣传，以赢得商业阶层这个小投资者的支持。他们的竞选文件宣称，他们的采访者得到华尔街债券购买者的保证，他们就像准备从资本主义管理者那样从社会主义者手中购买洛杉矶债券; 现在的密尔沃基政府对小投资者来说是一个福音; 他们的阅读通知向这个城市的读者保证，我们不需要去大型百货公司购买 - 而是购买密尔沃基大道上的某某，他们将满足我们与“大企业”机构的关系。简而言之，他们正在竭尽全力赢得支持，并延长社会主义经济所说的中产阶级的生活，因为他们知道没有他们就无法获得多数。
一个工人阶级政党可以做的最多，即使其政治家仍然诚实，也将在立法机构中形成一个强大的派系，通过将其投票与一方或另一方相结合，可以赢得某些政治或经济上的缓和。
但是，一旦他们成长为一个固化的组织，工人阶级所能做的就是通过突然停止所有工作来展示拥有的阶级，整个社会结构都依赖于他们; 如果没有工人的活动，其他人的财产对他们来说绝对毫无价值; 这种罢工，这种罢工，是财产制度中固有的，并且会在整个事情被废除之前不断重演 - 并且已经有效地证明了这一点，并继续进行罢工。
“但军事力量，”政治行动者说。“我们必须获得政治权力，否则军队将被用来对付我们！”
在真正的总罢工中，军方无能为力。哦，是的，如果你有一个社会主义的贿赂当权者，他可以宣布工人为“公职人员”并试图让他们反对自己！但是，对于一个不动的工作群体的坚固的墙壁，即使是Briand也会被打破。
与此同时，在这种国际觉醒之前，战争将继续进行，尽管所有歇斯底里的善意的人都不了解生活及其必需品; 尽管胆小的领导人已经做了所有的颤抖; 尽管可能采取了所有反动的报复; 尽管政治家所做的所有资本都是出于这种情况。它将继续下去，因为生命呐喊生活，财产否认其生存的自由; 生命不会提交。
不应该提交。
直到那一天，一个自我解放的人类能够吟唱
斯温伯恩的人类赞美诗“
[size=0.9em]
From the standpoint of one who thinks himself capable of discerning an undeviating route for human progress to pursue, if it is to be progress at all, who, having such a route on his mind's map, has endeavored to point it out to others; to make them see it as he sees it; who in so doing has chosen what appeared to him clear and simple expressions to convey his thoughts to others, -- to such a one it appears matter for regret and confusion of spirit that the phrase "Direct Action" has suddenly acquired in the general mind a circumscribed meaning, not at all implied in the words themselves, and certainly never attached to it by himself or his co-thinkers.
However, this is one of the common jests which Progress plays on those who think themselves able to set metes and bounds for it. Over and over again, names, phrases, mottoes, watchwords, have been turned inside out, and upside down, and hindside before, and sideways, by occurrences out of the control of those who used the expressions in their proper sense; and still, those who sturdily held their ground, and insisted on being heard, have in the end found that the period of misunderstanding and prejudice has been but the prelude to wider inquiry and understanding.
I rather think this will be the case with the present misconception of the term Direct Action, which through the misapprehension, or else the deliberate misrepresentation, of certain journalists in Los Angeles, at the time the McNamaras pleaded guilty, suddenly acquired in the popular mind the interpretation, "Forcible Attacks on Life and Property." This was either very ignorant or very dishonest of the journalists; but it has had the effect of making a good many people curious to know all about Direct Action.
As a matter of fact, those who are so lustily and so inordinately condemning it, will find on examination that they themselves have on many occasion practised direct action, and will do so again.
Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions, was a direct actionist. Some thirty years ago I recall that the Salvation Army was vigorously practising direct action in the maintenance of the freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray. Over and over they were arrested, fined, and imprisoned; but they kept right on singing, praying, and marching, till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them alone. The Industrial Workers are now conducting the same fight, and have, in a number of cases, compelled the officials to let them alone by the same direct tactics.
Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct action.
Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle, and went straight to the other persons involved to settle it, either by a peaceable plan or otherwise, was a direct actionist. Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts; many persons will recall the action of the housewives of New York who boycotted the butchers, and lowered the price of meat; at the present moment a butter boycott seems looming up, as a direct reply to the price-makers for butter.
These actions are generally not due to any one's reasoning overmuch on the respective merits of directness or indirectness, but are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppresses by a situation. In other words, all people are, most of the time, believers in the principle of direct action, and practices of it. However, most people are also indirect or political actionists. And they are both these things at the same time, without making much of an analysis of either. There are only a limited number of persons who eschew political action under any and all circumstances; but there is nobody, nobody at all, who has ever been so "impossible" as to eschew direct action altogether.
The majority of thinking people are really opportunist, leaning, some perhaps more to directness, some more to indirectness as a general thing, but ready to use either means when opportunity calls for it. That is to say, there are those who hold that balloting governors into power is essentially a wrong and foolish thing; but who nevertheless under stress of special circumstances, might consider it the wisest thing to do, to vote some individual into office at that particular time. Or there are those who believe that in general the wisest way for people to get what they want is by the indirect method of voting into power some one who will make what they want legal; yet who all the same will occasionally under exceptional conditions advise a strike; and a strike, as I have said, is direct action. Or they may do as the Socialist Party agitators (who are mostly declaiming now against direct action) did last summer, when the police were holding up their meetings. They went in force to the meeting-places, prepared to speak whether-or-no, and they made the police back down. And while that was not logical on their part, thus to oppose the legal executors of the majority's will, it was a fine, successful piece of direct action.
Those who, by the essence of their belief, are committed to Direct Action only are -- just who? Why, the non-resistants; precisely those who do not believe in violence at all! Now do not make the mistake of inferring that I say direct action means non-resistance; not by any means. Direct action may be the extreme of violence, or it may be as peaceful as the waters of the Brook of Shiloa that go softly. What I say is, that the real non-resistants can believe in direct action only, never in political action. For the basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through.
Now every school child in the United States has had the direct action of certain non-resistants brought to his notice by his school history. The case which everyone instantly recalls is that of the early Quakers who came to Massachusetts. The Puritans had accused the Quakers of "troubling the world by preaching peace to it." They refused to pay church taxes; they refused to bear arms; they refused to swear allegiance to any government. (In so doing they were direct actionists, what we may call negative direct actionists.) So the Puritans, being political actionists, passed laws to keep them out, to deport, to fine, to imprison, to mutilate, and finally, to hang them. And the Quakers just kept on coming (which was positive direct action); and history records that after the hanging of four Quakers, and the flogging of Margaret Brewster at the cart's tail through the streets of Boston, "the Puritans gave up trying to silence the new missionaries"; that "Quaker persistence and Quaker non-resistance had won the day."
Another example of direct action in early colonial history, but this time by no means of the peaceable sort, was the affair known as Bacon's Rebellion. All our historians certainly defend the action of the rebels in that matter, for they were right. And yet it was a case of violent direct action against lawfully constituted authority. For the benefit of those who have forgotten the details, let me briefly remind them that the Virginia planters were in fear of a general attack by the Indians; with reason. Being political actionists, they asked, or Bacon as their leader asked, that the governor grant him a commission to raise volunteers in their own defense. The governor feared that such a company of armed men would be a threat to him; also with reason. He refused the commission. Whereupon the planters resorted to direct action. They raised volunteers without the commission, and successfully fought off the Indians. Bacon was pronounced a traitor by the governor; but the people being with him, the governor was afraid to proceed against him. In the end, however, it came so far that the rebels burned Jamestown; and but for the untimely death of Bacon, much more might have been done. Of course the reaction was very dreadful, as it usually is where a rebellion collapses or is crushed. Yet even during the brief period of success, it had corrected a good many abuses. I am quite sure that the political-action-at-all-costs advocates of those times, after the reaction came back into power, must have said: "See to what evils direct action brings us! Behold, the progress of the colony has been set back twenty-five years;" forgetting that if the colonists had not resorted to direct action, their scalps would have been taken by the Indians a year sooner, instead of a number of them being hanged by the governor a year later.
In the period of agitation and excitement preceding the revolution, there were all sorts and kinds of direct action from the most peaceable to the most violent; and I believe that almost everybody who studies United States history finds the account of these performances the most interesting part of the story, the part which dents into the memory most easily.
Among the peaceable moves made, were the non-importation agreements, the leagues for wearing homespun clothing and the "committees of correspondence." As the inevitable growth of hostility progressed, violent direct action developed; e.g., in the matter of destroying the revenue stamps, or the action concerning the tea-ships, either by not permitting the tea to be landed, or by putting it in damp storage, or by throwing it into the harbor, as in Boston, or by compelling a tea-ship owner to set fire to his own ship, as at Annapolis. These are all actions which our commonest textbooks record, certainly not in a condemnatory way, not even in an apologetic way, though they are all cases of direct action against legally constituted authority and property rights. If I draw attention to them, and others of like nature, it is to prove to unreflecting repeaters of words that direct action has always been used, and has the historical sanction of the very people now reprobating it.
George Washington is said to have been the leader of the Virginia planters' non-importation league; he would now be "enjoined," probably by a court, from forming any such league; and if he persisted, he would be fined for contempt.
When the great quarrel between the North and the South was waxing hot and hotter, it was again direct action which preceded and precipitated political action. And I may remark here that political action is never taken, nor even contemplated, until slumbering minds have first been aroused by direct acts of protest against existing conditions.
The history of the anti-slavery movement and the Civil War is one of the greatest of paradoxes, although history is a chain of paradoxes. Politically speaking, it was the slave-holding States that stood for greater political freedom, for the autonomy of the single State against the interference of the United States; politically speaking, it was the non-slave-holding States that stood for a strong centralized government, which, Secessionists said and said truly, was bound progressively to develop into more and more tyrannical forms. Which happened. From the close of the Civil War one, there has been continual encroachment of the federal power upon what was formerly the concern of the States individually. The wage-slavers, in their struggles of today, are continually thrown into conflict with that centralized power against which the slave-holder protested (with liberty on his lips by tyranny in his heart). Ethically speaking, it was the non-slave-holding States that in a general way stood for greater human liberty, while the Secessionists stood for race-slavery. In a general way only; that is, the majority of northerners, not being accustomed to the actual presence of negro slavery about them, thought it was probably a mistake; yet they were in no great ferment of anxiety to have it abolished. The Abolitionists only, and they were relatively few, were the genuine ethicals, to whom slavery itself -- not secession or union -- was the main question. In fact, so paramount was it with them, that a considerable number of them were themselves for the dissolution of the union, advocating that the North take the initiative in the matter of dissolving, in order that the northern people might shake off the blame of holding negroes in chains.
Of course, there were all sorts of people with all sorts of temperaments among those who advocated the abolition of slavery. There were Quakers like
Whittier(indeed it was the peace-at-all- costs Quakers who had advocated abolition even in early colonial days); there were moderate political actionists, who were for buying off the slaves, as the cheapest way; and there were extremely violent people, who believed and did all sorts of violent things.
As to what the politicians did, it is one long record of "hoe-not-to-to-it," a record of thirty years of compromising, and dickering, and trying to keep what was as it was, and to hand sops to both sides when new conditions demanded that something be done, or be pretended to be done. But "the stars in their courses fought against Sisera;" the system was breaking down from within, and the direct actionists from without as well were widening the cracks remorselessly.
Among the various expressions of direct rebellion was the organization of the "underground railroad." Most of the people who belonged to it believed in both sorts of action; but however much they theoretically subscribed to the right of the majority to enact and enforce laws, they didn't believe in it on that point. My grandfather was a member of the "underground;" many a fugitive slave he helped on his way to Canada. He was a very patient, law-abiding man in most respects, though I have often thought that he respected it because he didn't have much to do with it; always leading a pioneer life, law was generally far from him, and direct action imperative. Be that as it may, and law-respecting as he was, he had no respect whatever for slave laws, no matter if made by ten times of a majority; and he conscientiously broke every one that came in his way to be broken.
There were times when in the operation of the "underground" that violence was required, and was used. I recollect one old friend relating to me how she and her mother kept watch all night at the door, while a slave for whom a posse was searching hid in the cellar; and though they were of Quaker descent and sympathies, there was a shotgun on the table. Fortunately it did not have to be used that night.
When the fugitive slave law was passed with the help of the political actionists of the North who wanted to offer a new sop to the slave-holders, the direct actionists took to rescuing recaptured fugitives. There was the "rescue of Shadrach," and the "rescue of Jerry," the latter rescuers being led by the famous Gerrit Smith; and a good many more successful and unsuccessful attempts. Still the politicals kept on pottering and trying to smooth things over, and the Abolitionists were denounced and decried by the ultra-law-abiding pacificators, pretty much as
Wm. D. Haywood and
Frank Bohn are being denounced by their own party now.
The other day I read a communication in the Chicago
Daily Socialist from the secretary of the Louisville local Socialist Party to the national secretary, requesting that some safe and sane speaker be substituted for Bohn, who had been announced to speak there. In explaining why, Mr. Dobbs makes this quotation from Bohn's lecture: "Had the McNamaras been successful in defending the interests of the working class, they would have been right, just as
John Brown would have been right, had he been successful in freeing the slaves. Ignorance was the only crime of John Brown, and ignorance was the only crime of the McNamaras."
Upon this Mr. Dobbs comments as follows: "We dispute emphatically the statements here made. The attempt to draw a parallel between the open -- if mistaken -- revolt of John Brown on the one hand, and the secret and murderous methods of the McNamaras on the other, is not only indicative of shallow reasoning, but highly mischievous in the logical conclusions which may be drawn from such statements."
Evidently Mr.Dobbs is very ignorant of the life and work of John Brown. John Brown was a man of violence; he would have scorned anybody's attempt to make him out anything else. And once a person is a believer in violence, it is with him only a question of the most effective way of applying it, which can be determined only by a knowledge of conditions and means at his disposal. John Brown did not shrink at all from conspiratorial methods. Those who have read the autobiography of
Frederick Douglas and the Reminiscences of Lucy Colman, will recall that one of the plans laid by John Brown was to organize a chain of armed camps in the mountains of West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, send secret emissaries among the slaves inciting them to flee to these camps, and there concert such measures as times and conditions made possible for further arousing revolt among the negroes. That this plan failed was due to the weakness of the desire for liberty among the slaves themselves, more than anything else.
Later on, when the politicians in their infinite deviousness contrived a fresh proposition of how-not-to-do-it, known as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which left the question of slavery to be determined by the settlers, the direct actionists on both sides sent bogus settlers into the territory, who proceeded to fight it out. The pro-slavery men, who got in first, made a constitution recognizing slavery and a law punishing with death any one who aided a slave to escape; but the Free Soilers, who were a little longer in arriving since they came from more distant States, made a second constitution, and refused to recognize the other party's laws at all. And John Brown was there, mixing in all the violence, conspiratorial or open; he was "a horse-thief and a murderer," in the eyes of decent, peaceable, political actionists. And there is no doubt that he stole horses, sending no notice in advance of his intention to steal them, and that he killed pro-slavery men. He struck and got away a good many times before his final attempt on Harper's Ferry. If he did not use dynamite, it was because dynamite had not yet appeared as a practical weapon. He made a great many more intentional attacks on life than the two brothers Secretary Dobbs condemns for their "murderous methods." And yet history has not failed to understand John Brown. Mankind knows that though he was a violent man, with human blood upon his hands, who was guilty of high treason and hanged for it, yet his soul was a great, strong, unselfish soul, unable to bear the frightful crime which kept 4,000,000 people like dumb beasts, and thought that making war against it was a sacred, a God-called duty, (for John Brown was a very religious man -- a Presbyterian).
It is by and because of the direct acts of the forerunners of social change, whether they be of peaceful or warlike nature, that the Human Conscience, the conscience of the mass, becomes aroused to the need for change. It would be very stupid to say that no good results are ever brought about by political action; sometimes good things do come about that way. But never until individual rebellion, followed by mass rebellion, has forced it. Direct action is always the clamorer, the initiator, through which the great sum of indifferentists become aware that oppression is getting intolerable.
We have now and oppression in the land -- and not only in this land, but throughout all those parts of the world which enjoy the very mixed blessings of Civilization. And just as in the question of chattel slavery, so this form of slavery has been begetting both direct action and political action. A certain percent of our population (probably a much smaller percent than politicians are in the habit of assigning at mass meetings) is producing the material wealth upon which all the rest of us live; just as it was 4,000,000 chattel Blacks who supported all the crowd of parasites above them. These are the land workers and the industrial workers.
Through the unprophesied and unprophesiable operation of institutions which no individual of us created, but found in existence when he came here, these workers, the most absolutely necessary part of the whole social structure, without whose services none can either eat, or clothe, or shelter himself, are just the ones who get the least to eat, to wear, and to be housed withal -- to say nothing of their share of the other social benefits which the rest of us are supposed to furnish, such as education and artistic gratification.
These workers have, in one form or another, mutually joined their forces to see what betterment of their condition they could get; primarily by direct action, secondarily by political action. We have had the Grange, the Farmer's Alliance, Co-operative Associations, Colonization Experiments, Knights of Labor, Trade Unions, and
Industrial Workers of the World. All of them have been organized for the purpose of wringing from the masters in the economic field a little better price, a little better conditions, a little shorter hours; or on the other hand to resist a reduction in price, worse conditions, or longer hours. None of them has attempted a final solution of the social war. None of them, except the Industrial Workers, has recognized that there is a social war, inevitable so long as present legal- social conditions endure. They accepted property institutions as they found them. They were made up of average men, with average desires, and they undertook to do what appeared to them possible and very reasonable things. They were not committed to any particular political policy when they were organized, but were associated for direct action of their own initiation, either positive or defensive.
Undoubtably there were and are among all these organizations, members who looked beyond immediate demands; who did see that the continuous development of forces now in operation was bound to bring about conditions to which it is impossible that life continue to submit, and against which, therefore, it will protest, and violently protest; that it will have no choice but to do so; that it must do so or tamely die; and since it is not the nature of life to surrender without struggle, it will not tamely die. Twenty-two years ago I met Farmer's Alliance people who said so, Knights of Labor who said so, Trade Unionists who said so. They wanted larger aims than those to which their organizations were looking; but they had to accept their fellow members as they were, and try to stir them to work for such things as it was possible to make them see. And what they could see was better prices, better wages, less dangerous or tyrannical conditions, shorter hours. At the stage of development when these movements were initiated, the land workers could not see that their struggle had anything to do with the struggle of those engaged in the manufacturing or transporting service; nor could these latter see that theirs had anything to do with the movement of the farmers. For that matter very few of them see it yet. They have yet to learn that there is one common struggle against those who have appropriated the earth, the money, and the machines.
Unfortunately the great organizations of the farmers frittered itself away in a stupid chase after political power. It was quite successful in getting the power in certain States; but the courts pronounced its laws unconstitutional, and there was the burial hole of all its political conquests. Its original program was to build its own elevators, and store the products therein, holding these from the market till they could escape the speculator. Also, to organize labor exchanges, issuing credit notes upon products deposited for exchange. Had it adhered to this program of direct mutual aid, it would, to some extent, for a time at least, have afforded an illustration of how mankind may free itself from the parasitism of the bankers and the middlemen. Of course, it would have been overthrown in the end, unless it had so revolutionized men's minds by the example as to force the overthrow of the legal monopoly of land and money; but at least it would have served a great educational purpose. As it was, it "went after the red herring" and disintegrated merely from its futility.
The Knights of Labor subsided into comparative insignificance, not because of failure to use direct action, nor because of its tampering with politics, which was small, but chiefly because it was a heterogenous mass of workers who could not associate their efforts effectively.
The Trade Unions grew strong as the Knights of Labor subsided, and have continued slowly but persistently to increase in power. It is true the increase has fluctuated; that there have been set-backs; that great single organizations have been formed and again dispersed. But on the whole trade unions have been a growing power. They have been so because, poor as they are, they have been a means whereby a certain section of the workers have been able to bring their united force to bear directly upon their masters, and so get for themselves some portion of what they wanted -- of what their conditions dictated to them they must try to get. The strike is their natural weapon, that which they themselves have forged. It is the direct blow of the strike which nine times out of ten the boss is afraid of. (Of course there are occasions when he is glad of one, but that's unusual.) And the reason he dreads a strike is not so much because he thinks he cannot win out against it, but simply and solely because he does not want an interruption of his business. The ordinary boss isn't in much dread of a "class- conscious vote;" there are plenty of shops where you can talk Socialism or any other political program all day long; but if you begin to talk Unionism you may forthwith expect to be discharged or at best warned to shut up. Why? Not because the boss is so wise as to know that political action is a swamp in which the workingman gets mired, or because he understands that political Socialism is fast becoming a middle-class movement; not at all. He thinks Socialism is a very bad thing; but it's a good way off! But he knows that if his shop is unionized, he will have trouble right away. His hands will be rebellious, he will be put to expense to improve his factory conditions, he will have to keep workingmen that he doesn't like, and in case of strike he may expect injury to his machinery or his buildings.
It is often said, and parrot-like repeated, that the bosses are "class-conscious," that they stick together for their class interest, and are willing to undergo any sort of personal loss rather than be false to those interests. It isn't so at all. The majority of business people are just like the majority of workingmen; they care a whole lot more about their individual loss or gain than about the gain or loss of their class. And it is his individual loss the boss sees, when threatened by a union.
Now everybody knows that a strike of any size means violence. No matter what any one's ethical preference for peace may be, he knows it will not be peaceful. If it's a telegraph strike, it means cutting wires and poles, and getting fake scabs in to spoil the instruments. If it is a steel rolling mill strike, it means beating up the scabs, breaking the windows, setting the gauges wrong, and ruining the expensive rollers together with tons and tons of material. IF it's a miners' strike, it means destroying tracks and bridges, and blowing up mills. If it is a garment workers' strike, it means having an unaccountable fire, getting a volley of stones through an apparently inaccessible window, or possibly a brickbat on the manufacturer's own head. If it's a street-car strike, it means tracks torn up or barricaded with the contents of ash-carts and slop-carts, with overturned wagons or stolen fences, it means smashed or incinerated cars and turned switches. If it is a system federation strike, it means "dead" engines, wild engines, derailed freights, and stalled trains. If it is a building trades strike, it means dynamited structures. And always, everywhere, all the time, fights between strike-breakers and scabs against strikers and strike-sympathizers, between People and Police.
On the side of the bosses, it means search-lights, electric wires, stockades, bull-pens, detectives and provocative agents, violent kidnapping and deportation, and every device they can conceive for direct protection, besides the ultimate invocation of police, militia, State constabulary, and federal troops.
Everybody knows this; everybody smiles when union officials protest their organizations to be peaceable and law-abiding, because everybody knows they are lying. They know that violence is used, both secretly and openly; and they know it is used because the strikers cannot do any other way, without giving up the fight at once. Nor to they mistake those who thus resort to violence under stress for destructive miscreants who do what they do out of innate cussedness. The people in general understand that they do these things through the harsh logic of a situation which they did not create, but which forces them to these attacks in order to make good in their struggle to live or else go down the bottomless descent into poverty, that lets Death find them in the poorhouse hospital, the city street, or the river-slime. This is the awful alternative that the workers are facing; and this is what makes the most kindly disposed human beings -- men who would go out of their way to help a wounded dog, or bring home a stray kitten and nurse it, or step aside to avoid walking on a worm -- resort to violence against their fellow men. They know, for the facts have taught them, that this is the only way to win, if they can win at all. And it has always appeared to me one of the most utterly ludicrous, absolutely irrelevant things that a person can do or say, when approached for relief or assistance by a striker who is dealing with an immediate situation, to respond with "Vote yourself into power!" when the next election is six months, a year, or two years away.
Unfortunately the people who know best how violence is used in union warfare cannot come forward and say: "On such a day, at such a place, such and such specific action was done, and as a result such and such concession was made, or such and such boss capitulated." To do so would imperil their liberty and their power to go on fighting. Therefore those that know best must keep silent and sneer in their sleeves, while those that know little prate. Events, not tongues, must make their position clear.
And there has been a very great deal of prating these last few weeks. Speakers and writers, honestly convinced I believe that political action and political action only can win the workers' battle, have been denouncing what they are pleased to call "direct action" (what they really mean is conspiratorial violence) as the author of mischief incalculable. One
Oscar Ameringer, as an example, recently said at a meeting in Chicago that the Haymarket bomb of '86 had set back the eight-hour movement twenty-five years, arguing that the movement would have succeeded but for the bomb. It's a great mistake. No one can exactly measure in years or months the effect of a forward push or a reaction. No one can demonstrate that the eight-hour movement could have been won twenty-five years ago. We know that the eight-hour day was put on the statute books of Illinois in 1871 by political action, and has remained a dead letter. That the direct action of the workers could have won it, then, cannot be proved; but it can be shown that many more potent factors than the Haymarket bomb worked against it. On the other hand, if the reactive influence of the bomb was really so powerful, we should naturally expect labor and union conditions to be worse in Chicago than in the cities where no such thing happened. On the contrary, bad as they are, the general conditions of labor are better in Chicago than in most other large cities, and the power of the unions is more developed there than in any other American city except San Francisco. So if we are to conclude anything for the influence of the Haymarket bomb, keep these facts in mind. Personally I do not think its influence on the labor movement, as such, was so very great.
It will be the same with the present furore about violence. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Two men have been imprisoned for what they did (twenty-four years ago they were hanged for what they did not do); some few more may yet be imprisoned. But the forces of life will continue to revolt against their economic chains. There will be no cessation in that revolt, no matter what ticket men vote or fail to vote, until the chains are broken.
How will the chains be broken?
Political actionists tell us it will be only by means of working-class party action at the polls; by voting themselves into possession of the sources of life and the tools; by voting that those who now command forests, mines, ranches, waterways, mills, and factories, and likewise command the military power to defend them, shall hand over their dominion to the people.
And meanwhile?
Meanwhile, be peaceable, industrious, law-abiding, patient, and frugal (as Madero told the Mexican peons to be, after he sold them to Wall Street)! Even if some of you are disenfranchised, don't rise up even against that, for it might "set back the party."
Well, I have already stated that some good is occasionally accomplished by political action -- not necessarily working-class party action either. But I am abundantly convinced that the occasional good accomplished is more than counterbalanced by the evil; just as I am convinced that though there are occasional evils resulting through direct action, they are more than counterbalanced by the good.
Nearly all the laws which were originally framed with the intention of benefitting the workers, have either turned into weapons in their enemies' hands, or become dead letters unless the workers through their organizations have directly enforced their observance. So that in the end, it is direct action that has to be relied on anyway. As an example of getting the tarred end of a law, glance at the anti-trust law, which was supposed to benefit the people in general and the working class in particular. About two weeks since, some 250 union leaders were cited to answer to the charge of being trust formers, as the answer of the Illinois Central to its strikers.
But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!
I quite agree that the sources of life, and all the natural wealth of the earth, and the tools necessary to co-operative production, must become freely accessible to all. It is a positive certainty to me that unionism must widen and deepen its purposes, or it will go under; and I feel sure that the logic of the situation will gradually force them to see it. They must learn that the workers' problem can never be solved by beating up scabs, so long as their own policy of limiting their membership by high initiation fees and other restrictions helps to make scabs. They must learn that the course of growth is not so much along the line of higher wages, but shorter hours, which will enable them to increase membership, to take in everybody who is willing to come into the union. They must learn that if they want to win battles, all allied workers must act together, act quickly (serving no notice on bosses), and retain their freedom to do so at all times. And finally they must learn that even then (when they have a complete organization) they can win nothing permanent unless they strike for everything -- not for a wage, not for a minor improvement, but for the whole natural wealth of the earth. And proceed to the direct expropriation of it all!
They must learn that their power does not lie in their voting strength, that their power lies in their ability to stop production. It is a great mistake to suppose that the wage- earners constitute a majority of the voters. Wage-earners are here today and there tomorrow, and that hinders a large number from voting; a great percentage of them in this country are foreigners without a voting right. The most patent proof that Socialist leaders know this is so, is that they are compromising their propaganda at every point to win the support of the business class, the small investor. Their campaign papers proclaimed that their interviewers had been assured by Wall Street bond purchasers that they would be just as ready to buy Los Angeles bonds from a socialist as a capitalist administrator; that the present Milwaukee administration has been a boon to the small investor; their reading notices assure their readers in this city that we need not go to the great department stores to buy -- buy rather of So-and-so on Milwaukee Avenue, who will satisfy us quite as well as a "big business" institution. In short, they are making every desperate effort to win the support and to prolong the life of that middle-class which socialist economy says must be ground to pieces, because they know they cannot get a majority without them.
The most that a working-class party could do, even if its politicians remained honest, would be to form a strong faction in the legislatures which might, by combining its vote with one side or another, win certain political or economic palliatives.
But what the working-class can do, when once they grow into a solidified organization, is to show the possessing class, through a sudden cessation of all work, that the whole social structure rests on them; that the possessions of the others are absolutely worthless to them without the workers' activity; that such protests, such strikes, are inherent in the system of property and will continually recur until the whole thing is abolished -- and having shown that effectively, proceed to expropriate.
"But the military power," says the political actionist; "we must get political power, or the military will be used against us!"
Against a real General Strike, the military can do nothing. Oh, true, if you have a Socialist Briand in power, he may declare the workers "public officials" and try to make them serve against themselves! But against the solid wall of an immobile working- mass, even a Briand would be broken.
Meanwhile, until this international awakening, the war will go on as it had been going, in spite of all the hysteria which well-meaning people who do not understand life and its necessities may manifest; in spite of all the shivering that timid leaders have done; in spite of all the reactionary revenges that may be taken; in spite of all the capital that politicians make out of the situation. It will go on because Life cries to live, and Property denies its freedom to live; and Life will not submit.
And should not submit.
It will go on until that day when a self-freed Humanity is able to chant
Swinburne's Hymn of Man"
发表于 2018-7-31 15:14
发表于 2022-7-6 05:16