A letter on Gambling

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, MARCH 30, 1895.

Open Column.

For the expression of social and economic opinions with which the “Worker” does not necessarily hold itself in complete accord.

Gambling and Unionism.

“Lucinda Sharpe's” letter, which appeared in the WORKER of the 9^th February, tallied so nearly with my opinions that I venture to round up a bit in the same direction – namely, that we are all very much inclined to advise others to sweep their doorsteps whilst leaving our own unswept.

* * *

Take for instance the gambling evil. I speak as a bushman. You will meet men who say they are Socialists and unionists, and who would, I firmly believe, go out and die for the cause if necessary. These same men will often gamble at the shed, hut or public-house, and gamble to win. That is to say, beat your man, fairly if possible, but beat him any way. The argument used in support of this is, if you don't take the other fellow down he'll take you down if he can, and therefore you want to know as much as possible, and use your knowledge at his expense.

* * *

This argument can be applied to anything. The cheating gambler's brother, the ordinary thief, can use it. If I steal from another it is because I have the opportunity, and he would probably do me if he could. Shallow reasoning, isn't it?

* * *

I don't say the majority of the men of whom I speak view “taking down” as stealing, or their manliness would prevent them from doing it. The fact is they knocked about and gaffed before unionism was introduced, and the gambling tendency of humanity developed in them. They have studied and fought for unionism since, because they felt convinced it was the only means of obtaining justice for their mates and themselves. They never think to ask themselves.“What sort of a unionist must I be to talk of employers sweating me when I am only too willing to take my mates down at gambling for the proceeds of their labour?”

* * *

I reckon we want to straighten ourselves up a big lot. There is plenty of room for it, we all know. Why should a man who says he is willing to die for a cause shirk the responsibility of for it, and that's what we do when we say the dishonest gambler is a good fellow, and keep cousins with him because we haven't the grit to stand the cold shoulder from him and his push. We tolerate him because others do, and others follow our example, and so we never get ahead. I opine that a man can't be a gambler and a true Socialist, because the Socialist believes in giving each the full produce of his labour, not getting at him for it. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, for, as I previously stated, there are many who have never looked at it in this light, but if anyone is so thin-skinned as to take offence at fair, straight criticism, I don't reckon him much, and his talk of what he will do for the cause I must consider as blatherumskite. Before we can hope to reform others we must do a bit of reform to ourselves. It is no use preaching straight running and countenancing cronk actions – the two won't go together. We want to raise humanity, then let us start on ourselves and we will have a good chance of success.

* * *

I hope this will lead to further discussion. If so, we may be able to wipe out one of our most serious blemishes – the gambling evil – and sweep the spieling habit away. Apologising for length of letter.

Jno. Moore Hon. Del. A.W.U.