nism at greater length. Their conclusions
as to politics are directed, not against the Socialist Party, but
against its non-revolutionary elements:--

"The Socialist Party stands not merely for the POLITICAL supremacy
of labor. It stands for the INDUSTRIAL supremacy of labor. Its
purpose is not to secure old age pensions and free meals for school
children. Its mission is to help overthrow capitalism and establish
Socialism.

"The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of
government and thus prevent them from being used by the capitalists
against the workers. With Socialists in political offices the
workers can strike and not be shot. They can picket shops and not
be arrested and imprisoned.... To win the demands made on the
industrial field it is absolutely necessary to control the
government, as experience shows strikes to have been lost through
the interference of courts and militia. The same functions of
government, controlled by a class conscious working class, will be
used to inspire confidence and compel the wheels of industry to
move in spite of the devices and stumblingblocks of the
capitalists....

"Socialist government will concern itself entirely with the shop.
Socialism can demand nothing of the individual outside the shop....
It has no concern with the numberless social reforms which the
capitalists are now preaching in order to save their miserable
profit system.

"Old age pensions are not Socialism. The workers had much better
fight for higher wages and shorter hours. Old age pensions under
the present government are either charity doled out to paupers, or
bribes given to voters by politicians. Self-respecting workers
despise such means of support. Free meals or cent meals for
poverty-stricken school children are not Socialism. Industrial
freedom will enable parents to give their children solid food at
home. Free food to the workers cuts wages and kills the fighting
spirit."

The American "syndicalists" are not opposed to political action, but
they want to use it _exclusively_ for the purposes of industrial
democracy.

While Messrs. Haywood and Bohn by no means take an anarchistic position,
they show no enthusiasm for the capitalist-collectivist proposals that
_present governments_ should take control of industry. They a