Let us be practial. We want something practical.

[blindpig]

Always the cry of hum-drum mediocrity, afraid to face the stern necessity for uncompromising action.
That saying has done more yeoman service in the cause of oppression than all its avowed supporters.
The average man dislikes to be thought unpractical, and so, while frequently loathing the principles or
distrusting the leaders of the particular political party he is associated with, declines to leave them, in the
hope that their very lack of earnestness may be more fruitful of practical results than the honest
outspokenness of the party in whose principles he does believe.
In the phraseology of politics, a party too indifferent to the sorrow and sufferings of humanity to raise its
voice in protest, is a moderate, practical party; whilst a party totally indifferent to the personality of
leaders, or questions of leadership, but hot to enthusiasm on every question affecting the well-being of
the toiling masses, is an extreme, a dangerous party.

Yet, although it may seem a paradox to say so, there is no party so incapable of achieving practical
results as an orthodox political party; and there is no party so certain of placing moderate reforms to its
credit as an extreme - a revolutionary party.

The possessing classes will and do laugh to scorn every scheme for the amelioration of the workers so
long as those responsible for the initiation of the scheme admit as justifiable the 'rights of property'; but
when the public attention is directed towards questioning the justifiable nature of those 'rights' in
themselves, then the master class, alarmed for the safety of their booty, yield reform after reform - in
order to prevent revolution.

Moral - Don't be 'practical' in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled
yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves those who rob you would desire you to think.
In any case it is time we got rid of all the cant about 'politics' and 'constitutional agitation' in general. For
there is really no meaning whatever in those phrases.

Every public question is a political question. The men who tell us that Labor questions, for instance, have
nothing to do with politics, understand neither the one nor the other. The Labor question cannot be
settled except by measures which necessitate a revision of the whole system of society, which, of
course, implies political warfare to secure the power to effect such revision.

If by politics we understand the fight between the outs and ins, or the contest for party leadership, then
Labor is rightly supremely indifferent to such politics, but to the politics which center round the question
of property and the administration thereof Labor is not, cannot be, indifferent.

To effect its emancipation Labor must reorganize society on the basis of labor; this cannot be done while
the forces of government are in the hands of the rich, therefore the governing power must be wrested
from the hands of the rich peaceably if possible, forcibly if necessary.

In the phraseology of the master class and its pressmen the trade unionist who is not a Socialist is more
practical than he who is, and the worker who is neither one nor the other but can resign himself to the
state of slavery in which he was born, is the most practical of all men.

The heroes and martyrs who in the past gave up their lives for the liberty of the race were not practical,
but they were heroes all the same.

The slavish multitude who refused to second their efforts from a craven fear lest their skins might suffer
were practical, but they were soulless serfs, nevertheless.
Revolution is never practical - until the hour of the Revolution strikes. Then it alone is practical, and all
the efforts of the conservatives and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human
imaginings.

For that hour let us work, think and hope; for that hour let us pawn our present ease in hopes of a
glorious redemption; for that hour let us prepare the hosts of Labor with intelligence sufficient to laugh at
the nostrums dubbed practical by our slave-lords, practical for the perpetuation of our slavery; for that
supreme crisis of human history let us watch, like sentinels, with weapons ever ready, remembering
always that there can be no dignity in Labor until Labor knows no master.

From Socialism Made Easy by James Connolly, 1909

http://www.iww.org/en/culture/library

[leftstreet]

1. Ouch

...and the worker who is neither one nor the other but can resign himself to the
state of slavery in which he was born, is the most practical of all men.

K&R

[gratuitous]

2. Yes, "practical"

Always defined as something that doesn't upset the status quo. How do we remain selfish and wasteful, yet transform our society into one that takes care of the lost and the least sustainably?

[Starry Messenger]

3. k&r

JC was the man.

[TBF]

4. "there can be no dignity in Labor until Labor knows no master" nt

[blindpig]

5. kick

[Starry Messenger]

6. I'll just sneak this one in under your OP.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socpolref.htm

Socialism And Political Reformers

Workers’ Republic, 8 July 1899

Among the many developments of Socialist activity at which the man in the street is apt to be astonished, perhaps none are more difficult to comprehend at first sight than the implacable hostility shown by the Socialist parties of the world towards the political parties hitherto identified with the agitation for political reform. The uninitiated find it hard to understand why there should be such marked hostility between parties, both of whom place on their programme planks of political reform seemingly almost identical in character; why the Socialist party, which represents the most revolutionary ideas of our day, should seek the downfall of political reform parties with a zest and eagerness which the most bigoted Conservative could never hope to excel. It is observed that wherever the Socialist party is strong, as in Germany, France, or Belgium, it is the Liberal party – the party of mere political reformers – which has been the first to suffer in loss of prestige and membership in exact proportion as Socialism has advanced.

Strange, though the circumstance may seem to the unreflective mind, it is but what might have been expected to result from the appearance upon the political field of a force which like the Socialist party had at once a programme of political reform embracing all and more than the old reform parties had striven for, and a programme embodying demands for economic changes which receive no support from middle-class reformers, though a crying necessity of the times. The development of acute economic problems, side by side with the extension of the franchise – economic problems are, in fact, most acute in the politically freest countries – has borne in upon the minds of the working-class voters the conviction that, except as a means to an end, political freedom is a valueless acquisition for their class. They therefore demand the right to use that political power in the direction of their own class interests, but on making such demand are surprised to see their quondam middle-class leaders the first to denounce them and call upon the State to oppose them. When this point has been reached, as in the countries above named and to a lesser degree in England and America, the thoughtful observer of politics cannot but see that middle-class parties of reform have outlived their usefulness; that whatever political change is still required to establish the democracy in power can be sought for as well under the banner of the new political force of Socialism as under the old banner of Liberalism, and that this new power by basing its agitation upon the material wants of the producing class gathers to its aid a potential power, in the passion and self-interest of the majority of the nation, which the mere doctrinaires – Liberal, Radical, or Republican – could never hope to rally. Therefore political reform parties decay as the Socialist Parties thrive; the latter early the political demands of the former on their banner side by side with the economic demands of their class, and thus deprived of their sole reason for existence the capitalist reform parties lose their attraction for the multitude – now pressing eagerly onward to the inspiration of a new and better hope.

On the other hand Conservatism is, as a party, secure of an existence as long as the present system lasts. It may be set down as an axiom that there will always be a Conservative party as long as there is tyranny and privilege to conserve. Hence we find the old reform parties shedding their members at both ends – the wealthier section falling over into the ranks of Conservatism, in order to strengthen the only party able to defend their monopolies, and the working class section joining hands with the Socialists as the only party embracing the cause alike of political and industrial liberty. The Socialists are naturally desirous of hastening this process, in order that the political battlefield may be left clear and open for the final struggle between the only two parties possessed of a logical reason for existence – the Conservative party defending the strongholds of monarchy, aristocracy and capitalism; and the Socialist party storming those strongholds in the interest of human freedom. This consummation cannot be realised as long as there exists a political party which, like the Liberals of England and the Continent, and the Home Rule parties of Ireland, attempts to blend the principles of progress and reaction – now blatantly declaring for political freedom, now vigorously defending economic slavery. Therefore the Socialists uniformly seek the discomfiture of Liberalism, regarding it as a buffer between the contending forces of tyranny and freedom; and hence the clear-sighted workmen of the Continent have already reduced that once formidable party to a mere cypher in politics, and win ore long completely wipe it out of existence.

The fact is not without its lesson to us here in Ireland. We too have so-called parties of reform – Home Rule in all its phases is now but a cloak for the designs of the middle class desirous of making terms with the Imperial Government it pretends to dislike. It is but capitalist Liberalism, speaking with an Irish accent. As such it is the enemy of every effort at working-class emancipation, and if the workers of Ireland as are alive to the interests of their class as are their brethren on the Continent, they will help build up that Socialist Party which is destined to march over the grave of Home Rule Liberalism to the final assault and destruction of the strongholds of oppression.

[Starry Messenger]

7. k