Untitled

PREFACE
IX
movement during the last half-century fully sustains Mr.
Hillquit's position. The problem of methods has always
been a vital matter to the labor movement, and, for a
hundred years at least, the quarrels now dividing syndicalists
and socialists have disturbed that movement. In
the Chartist days the "physical forcists" opposed the
"moral forcists," and later dissensions over the same
question occurred between the Bakouninists and the
Marxists. Since then anarchists and social democrats,
direct actionists and political actionists, syndicalists
and socialists have continued the battle. I have attempted
here to present the arguments made by both
sides of this controversy, and, while no doubt my bias is
perfectly clear, I hope I have presented fairly the position
of each of the contending elements. Fortunately,
the direct actionists have exercised a determining influence
only in a few places, and everywhere, in the end, the victory
of those who were contending for the employment
of peaceable means has been complete. Already in this
country, as a result of the recent controversy,
it is written
in the constitution of the socialist party that "any
member of the party who opposes political action or advocates
crime, sabotage, or other methods of violence as
a weapon of the working class to aid in its
emancipation
shall be expelled from membership in the *
party."
Adopted by the national convention of the party in 191 1,
this clause was ratified at a general referendum of all the
membership of the party. It is clear, therefore, that the
immense majority of socialists are determined to employ
peaceable and legal methods of action.
It is, of course, perfectly obvious that the methods
to be employed in the struggles between classes, as between
nations, cannot be predetermined. And, while
* Article II, Section 6.