“For years the thinkers of the movement in Europe were building up theories about the ‘political mass strike.’ These theories have now been put into practice in Belgium with remarkable precision.
“The strike in Belgium is not a precipitated strike. For months the Socialists of that country have been making preparations for it. They have been collecting money, storing provisions, and, what is even more important, educating the workingmen to their theories, training them to respond to the strike call like drilled soldiers. It is not an emotional, not an impulsive strike, therefore, but a coolly thought out, shrewdly calculated battle....
“As a result of this careful planning and training by the leaders 400,000 workingmen responded to Socialist colors with the precision of a trained army. The strike is both a battle and military review. The Socialists now have a clear and adequate view of their strength and numbers. The issue involved in this strike, which is uniform as opposed to plural voting, may be lost. The strike may even be called off by the Socialists themselves after a week or so if the government does not yield by that time. But the advantages which Socialism has gained by this census of its army is incalculable. It knows how much of the Belgian public is behind it and to what extent. This time the general strike is used to combat a single abuse of the government. In the future the same working masses may be directed against the present régime as a whole. It is a strike now. It may be a civil war or revolution the next time.”
But while the capitalistic Tribune is so sympathetic and optimistic, the leading labor union paper of this country, the United Mine Workers’ Journal has been highly sceptical and pessimistic:
“The strikers say they are ready and have the means to hold out six weeks.
“What if the other class should elect to hold out for twelve weeks; that is, if the strike should become a ‘lock-out?’
“There is no doubt but that the class against whom they are striking, the propertied class, who hold the unfair political advantage over them, could store more per member than the workers.
“We wish our brothers every success. Hope they will obtain what is undoubtedly theirs by right. But, in our opinion, unless the strike results in a test of force instead of passive endurance (and this same is more than probable) the workers’ needs will drive them back to their tasks before those who have been enriched by their labor will consent to give up the political advantages on which their economic advantages are based.”
Why this remarkable reversal of the opinions that might have been expected? Why have some of the richest Liberals in Belgium supported the strike?
The Belgians are striking for a right the French obtained in 1876—equal suffrage. Yet who are the chief beneficiaries of the political democracy of France? The condition of the laborers is about the same as in Belgium. The only difference is that in France the industrial and urban capitalists now hold the balance of power between the laborers on the one hand and the reactionary agrarians, landlords and employing peasants on the other; while in Belgium the latter classes, which control the Catholic Party, have a Parliamentary majority over the laborers and urban middle classes combined. The Belgium Liberals then have had everything to win by a strike, which aims at establishing the French situation in that country. As for the Socialists, equal suffrage would undoubtedly have the effect of driving the Liberals and Catholics together into the same government, as in Germany, thus making the Socialists the opposition party. It would also result ultimately in whatever social and labor reforms the Liberals might feel it to their interest to grant. But this is all.