It was important from the start to introduce blind discipline into our meetings and establish absolutely the Chairman’s authority.
And we had dissentients at our meetings—followers of the Red Flag. They came often and often in solid masses, with a few agitators amongst them, and on every face one could read : “We mean to have it out with you to-night !” Often everything hung on a thread, and only the Chairman’s energy and rough handling by our hall guard baffled our adversaries’ intentions—the latter had every reason to be annoyed with us.
We chose red for our posters after exact and careful consideration ; our intention was to irritate the Left, get them into a rage and so induce them to come to our meetings—if only in order to break them up—so that we got a chance of talking to them.
Our opponents then proceeded to issue appeals to the “class-conscious proletariat” to go in masses to our meetings in order to strike at the “monarchist, reaction¬ ary agitation”, as represented by us, with the fist of the proletariat.
Our meetings were at once crammed with work¬ men three-quarters of an hour before the time of the meeting. They resembled a powder-cask ready to go off at any moment with the match at the touch-hole. But things always happened otherwise. The people came as enemies and went away, not perhaps prepared to join us, but anyhow in a reflective mood and ready to criticize and examine the correctness of our doctrines.
Then the word went out : “Proletarians ! Avoid the meetings of the Nationalist agitators !” Similar vacillating tactics were observable in the Red Press as well.
The people became curious. There was a sudden change of tactics, and for a period we were treated as true criminals against mankind. Article