I am arguing that the security and value of the legislation is only assured by the power on the ground, by the organization of workers, to press for their enforcement and their preservation, in the same interests by which such legislation originally was demanded.

I specifically object to your earlier language, that the laws, or regulations, are “written in blood”. I think the metaphor is misleading.

If the masses begin resting easy the moment legislation is enacted, then no real victory has been achieved.

The same power from the ground must be maintained, and if possible, expanded, in order for the working class to have meaningfully advanced

For example, I would rather have strong unions and no legal rights for workers, compared to the inverse scenario, because unions can assert power in an absence of legal rights for workers, but legal rights simply may be retracted or ignored the moment the working class loses real power.

I am not arguing necessarily that no one should push for legal rights, only to avoid making them the locus of emphasis, and to avoid ascribing to them some special status.