| <"FITS" FOR THE EDITOR. Some "Socialist">
|
Dear Comrade,
|
Com. Curtin is one of those who only
| feed themselves on such wisdom as others have already
| digested. Criticism has been and must be the essential
| point with any Socialist, provided, of course, that it
| is fair and sincere. Comrades like myself hailing from
| the old world are accustomed to criticise, and I know
| full well that the term "calumniator" is directed
| against us. We know what we are talking about, and we
| have met not one man, but dozens who were opportunists,
| as this was for them the only way of getting a billet.
| They pretend and profess to represent the people, but
| are only hypocrites. I could mention a score of names,
| but, I presume you know them yourself. As a member of
| the party, I claim the right, nay, I assert I have the
| duty to know and control the actions of our officials,
| so far as it is possible for me. I thus want to know,
| what has happened at the interview between Mr Delprat
| and our "god," Tom Mann. Why does Tom Mann not speak
| about it in his official report about Broken Hill and
| Port Pirie? If there is nothing he must conceal, why
| does he not speak out? All Socialists are very
| interested in that remarkable interview. The fate of
| thousands depended on that interview. I don't believe in
| a thing because it is done by a person who has a
| well-known name. I want facts. If the facts are kept away
| from us, one is bound to get suspicious, and if we of
| the rank and file are getting suspicious, can one wonder
| that the outside is coming to all kinds of conclusions?
| We are domineered by the capitalists, but it seems that
| we are domineered, too, by our so-called leaders, who
| expect us to blindly trust them without taking us into
| their confidence. We cannot get the motives of the
| capitalists, but the actions of our leaders ought to be
| open and above board. Members have a right to form their
| own opinions without being compelled to swallow
| second-hand opinions, even if the manufacturers of those
| opinions call themselves leaders. To call a person, who
| dares to make use of his rights as member, a calumniator
| does not strengthen the case. If you have a weak case
| abuse your opponents seems to be the maxim of Jack
| Curtin. The party seems to be anxious to create tinpot
| gods (Australian make, and not of Brum. origin). The
| last copy of your paper is a case in point. You quote a
| report culled from the
We seem to be entirely in the hands of a clique, who
| imagine that they can boss the members. There was a
| great cry of "downing tools" when Tom Mann was at
| Albury, but now that he got away one hears very little
| about it. Harry Holland does not happen to be Tom Mann
|
Let us be sincere, let us be frank, let us criticise
| not only our opponents, but let us criticise fairly and
| squarely our own ranks. If we shunt criticism, if we
| declare our leaders infallible; if we declare, that it
| is taboo to say anything against our leaders our
| movement cannot survive; for the sake of humanity, let
| us deal with the social problem in the way we think it
| best, let each member say what he likes as long as he is
| in earnest and sincere. Open criticism will not harm
| anybody, but it will do a lot of good. Abuse on the
| other side will never induce anybody to give up his
| opinions for that of somebody else.