Austin Lewis defends Frank Bohn and William D. Haywood from violence-baiting by Socialist Party grandee Morris Hillquit, part of a larger attack on an insurgent left in the party.

‘Patrol of Respectable Socialism’ by Austin Lewis from Revolt. Vol. 2 No. 25. December 16, 1911.

In the Chicago “Daily Socialist” of Nov. 18th, Morris Hillquit has an article on “Socialism and Law,” which is intended as a public rebuke to Haywood and Bohn for certain remarks in their joint pamphlet, “Industrial Socialism.” The passage which provokes Hillquit’s criticism is under the heading, “Economic Determinism,” and reads as follows:

“When the worker, either through experience or a study of Socialism, comes to know this truth (the economic foundation of modern ethics and jurisprudence) he acts accordingly. He retains absolutely no respect for the property ‘rights’ of the profit-takers. He will use any weapon which will win his fight. He knows that the present laws of property are made by and for the capitalists. Therefore he does not hesitate to break them. He knows that whatever action advances the interests of the working class is right, because it will save the workers from destruction and death. A knowledge of economic determinism places the worker squarely on his intellectual feet and makes him bold and independent of mind.”

The learned comrade finds in this statement it is an incitement to illegality and violence, to be feared that a timorousness born perhaps of city life, causes him to see an enemy in every bush. Comrade Hillquit is the patrol of respectable socialism, which has as its aim the bourgeoisization of the coarse workingman. There is none so respectable as the respectable Socialist. The minister is more clerical than the priest, and, unquestionably, a Methodist Bishop might be reasonably proud of Hillquit’s article.

But pussy-footed criticism has the defects of its feline qualities, therefore, a certain not very subtle deception pervades the whole article. It is made to appear, presumably for tactical reasons not unconnected with political party campaigning, that Haywood and Bohn advocate violence. The article, however, does not substantiate any such inferences, for what does it say? It declares that knowledge of the economic basis of modern society destroys respect for property rights, and that the worker who gets the economic basis idea is not too particular about the weapons he uses to enforce his idea. Violence is no further advocated than in this, that, is not at all.

Is not this true? Let recent history answer. An examination of working class activity proves the truth of the statement that loss of respect for capitalistic institutions renders those institutions more liable to attack, to illegal attack moreover. To dilate upon this would expose us to a wail of horror such as Simons recently set up, nevertheless the history of modern trade unionism even in this country is replete with instances supporting this position. Moreover Hillquit, who has political ambitions, would be perhaps surprised to hear that not infrequently these abominable ebullitions of illegality are provocative of social reform. On the Coast for example we speak on the public streets simply because we compelled the right, and compelled it illegally. We were not in the least respectable about it, on the contrary, we were quite rough and ready and went to jail. And those who went to jail, were not the I.W.W. at whom of course Hillquit would turn up a respectable nose, but actual members of the Socialist party, in the days before the I.W.W. was born. Some of us indeed in that remote past actually admired Hillquit.

Of course all the historic information about Marx and the International is so much flap doodle, a sort of slopping over of the special pleader. It is professional Hillquit and I understand that very well. When Haywood and Bohn recommend the assassination of rulers or advocate street rioting, we can look up the proper section of the Marxian code and proceed to condemnation accordingly, but in the meantime no threats appear to have been uttered, not even threats of “law breaking.” In fact, the only threats are those made by Hillquit, who talks, probably, in reminiscent mood, of barricades, an anachronism of which I am sure Haywood would never be guilty.

To render the Methodist Bishop parallel more complete Hillquit strikes the moral pose, and declares for a fight “with clean weapons.” Fine! But Hillquit forgets that he is an opportunist politician, and as such must use weapons the cleanliness of which is not their chief desideratum. Here, however, we draw a veil, for the epithets of the moralists always cover us with blushes and confusion.

The real note, the shrinking respectability declares itself in the last paragraph in which we meet the words, “Any indiscreet remark of expression is sure to be quoted against us forever and ever.” Herein is the gist of the matter; herein is the attitude of the critic made manifest. The chief trouble with Hillquit after all, is the very ordinary trouble, what will people say, or rather what will respectable people say? Vox populi is not even Vox Dei to Hillquit, it is Deus himself. Respectability is so much the deity of our unwilling critic, that one might almost mistake him for an English grocer.

Revolt ‘The Voice Of The Militant Worker’ was a short-lived revolutionary weekly newspaper published by Left Wingers in the Socialist Party in 1911 and 1912 and closely associated with Tom Mooney. The legendary activists and political prisoner Thomas J. Mooney had recently left the I.W.W. and settled in the Bay. He would join with the SP Left in the Bay Area, like Austin Lewis, William McDevitt, Nathan Greist, and Cloudseley Johns to produce The Revolt. The paper ran around 1500 copies weekly, but financial problems ended its run after one year. Mooney was also embroiled in constant legal battles for his role in the Pacific Gas and Electric Strike of the time. The paper epitomizes the revolutionary Left of the SP before World War One with its mix of Marxist orthodoxy, industrial unionism, and counter-cultural attitude. To that it adds some of the best writers in the movement; it deserved a much longer run.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/revolt/v2n25-w34-dec-16-1911-Revolt.pdf