A 1913 appeal by Washington State left wing leader Frans Bostrom for the Socialist Party to abandon its middle-class individualism and work on a proletarian collectivist basis in a disciplined party with debates, but where the majority rules. No surprise Bostrom was a founding Communist six years later.

‘Party Discipline’ by Frans Bostrom from The Commonwealth. No. 144. October 2, 1913.

The charge so often made against us that we do not seem to know what we want, that there are 57 different varieties of Socialism, and that every Socialist seems to have some notion of his own that no other Socialist believes in, etc., is unfortunately partly true.

It is of course a fact that we all want the co-operative commonwealth. Regardless of all other differences, that is settled. Theoretically we also all of us subscribe to the belief in the existence of the class struggle. But only theoretically. Few of us are consistent enough to apply the theory in our daily life. Most of us have embraced the philosophy of the materialistic conception of history and believe that in any nation, the form of government, the religious beliefs the morals, manners and usages are a reflection of the prevailing way in which the people of that nation earn their living. But we only believe, we seldom remember that conditions and not men are to blame for what we do not like. We are afraid of hurting the feelings of our religious and sentimental sympathizers by the denial of the importance of individual will power, which is implied in this philosophy. We silently acquiesce in the Marxian theory of value, but do not care to make much noise about it for fear that we will drive away our middle-class friends, who will never concede that all the robbery of the workers is perpetrated “in the shop.” In other words, we dare not preach the truth for fear of losing in numbers. We are hypocrites. And then we are only creatures of our environments, for this is the era of hypocrisy and insincerity. In fact, we have not enough audacity (for fear of being considered “cranks”) to completely emancipate ourselves from the common curse. The difference between the teachings of one Socialist and another is therefore merely the extent to which one has thrown away capitalist superstitions and absorbed Socialist truths more than the other. In other words, we are all Socialists, but one more so than the other.

We all agree about the co-operative commonwealth. We disagree disgustingly in regard to tactics. If we could only forget everything else and only strive for the ultimate goal, but we can’t. It is too far away yet–a mere ideal in fact. We are confronted with every-day affairs and have to make up our minds daily as to our proper attitude as against these affairs. What shall we do then? Obviously there is only one way and that is to frequently meet and discuss the problems, and having discussed them, to decide, and having decided, to obey the decision rendered by the majority. It is for that purpose that the local exists for local decisions, the state organization for decisions of state-wide importance and the national party for the solution of national problems. The recluse, who herds with himself, with his books and his papers, and imagines that he knows it all, and refuses to participate in “the party quarrels,” is utterly useless and is moreover not a Socialist, no matter how well he knows his Marx, since the first principle of Socialism is co-operation. United action can come only from absolute submission to majority rule. Majority rule will be the rule of ignorance and stupidity unless we educate ourselves through exchange of ideas, in debates and “quarrels,” until we have rubbed off the sharpest corners of our “individualities” and have learned to act as collectivists. Perfect unity can come only through perfect truth. We can all agree that two and two makes four. No chance for a quarrel there. Until we arrive at such a unanimity in regards to sociological problems, we shall be compelled to accept majority rule as the next best thing. Let  us differ and debate, argue and quarrel as much as we please, it is inevitable. But after the majority has spoken, let no one commit sabotage on its will and remain in the party. We want no knockers. Individualism has no place in the organization. The majority may be foolish and in fact generally is, but it is not so foolish as the wise guy who despises it and refuses to submit to it because its action does not correspond with his notion of what should be done. As a party we can advance no faster than the bulk of the membership advances, just as we as a nation cannot get Socialism before the majority of the people want it. If the minority is intelligent, let it educate the majority. But in order to do so it must be in the local. There are in this state a good many persons, who have been members of the party off and on. When in the party they have not participated in the discussions with an open mind, ready to learn. They hold fossilized convictions which they have attempted to foist upon the majority with dogmatic assertions or false proofs. Mistaken in their judgment of the strength of the sentiment in the party, or getting impatient because of their insignificant progress, they have bolted and dragged some misguided followers with them and attempted to go it by themselves. Not being able to agree with a tolerant and charitable majority in the party it is but natural that they cannot agree with each other. The upshot has been that they have gradually crept in by the back door to the party, only to again begin the same game over again. They are incurable individualists and can never become Socialists, regardless of how well posted they are in Marxian economics. No permanent growth can be made with them in the party. Minorities must exist in the organization, since we can not all see things alike. But the minority in the party must be composed of Socialists and not of individualists. The questions at issue must be new ones and not such as have been settled long ago. It should not be necessary to have to defend Socialism in a Socialist local against the onslaught of individualists in Socialist disguise. We have never found it difficult to convince the average American about the correctness of our theories, but he says “it won’t work.” And even after he has been made to believe that it will work, you can only get about one in twenty of him to join the organization, for that is about the percentage if you deduct the foreigners from the roster. Why? Because the average American is an inveterate individualist to whom the loose tactics of the anarchist appeals much stronger than the restraining discipline of the Socialist. Pandering to this failing Tom Hickey originated the so-called Texas program and has built up an organization under the name of the “Socialist party of Texas,” the principal tenet of which is “de-centralization.” Every local has complete autonomy. Any and all tactics are permissible or at least uncondemned and therefore unpunishable. This organization (?) prospered quite a bit last year, but has dropped more than any other state this year. It carries within itself the seed to self-destruction. The bolting faction in this state has adopted the Texas program and will break up all the sooner for it. The Socialist idea of freedom is founded upon economic security and not upon sentimental “do as you please” notions. As a means to hasten its dissolution we should favor decentralization in the capitalist state. For the same reason we should oppose it in the party. In the co-operative commonwealth alone it would be possible to utilize decentralization without detriment of efficiency. Until then he is on a par with the co-operative colony scheme. Dreams are at a discount in this century. Common sense methods only have any chance. And if Socialism is not synonymous with common sense, what is?

The Commonwealth was a Socialist Party-aligned paper based in Everett, Washington that began in February, 1911. First edited by O.L. Anderson, the weekly paper was quickly involved in the state’s very fractious inner Socialist Party life. Editors followed the changing political fortunes with Anna A. Maley directing The Commonwealth from September, 1911 until May, 1912, who also focused the paper nationally. Maley left the paper to run for governor in 1912, the first woman and first Socialist in the state to run for that office, winning a respectable 12% of the vote. Six more editors followed Maley, including Maynard Shipley. The paper’s orientation was left and supported the I.W.W. when many S.P. papers were denouncing them. The Commonwealth struggled, like nearly all left publications in history, with money financially and sold to the Socialist Party of Snohomish County in April, 1914 to be reborn as The Washington Socialist.

Access to PDF of original issue: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84025731/1913-10-02/ed-1/seq-1/