THE IDEA OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
Social democrats form the extreme wing of the socialists, though, at
present, many of them are inclined to lay so much stress on equality
of enjoyment, regardless of the value of one’s labor, that they might,
perhaps, more properly be called communists. But as they are usually
known as social democrats, and as the name is not likely to lead to
misunderstanding, there is no reason why we should not adhere to the
ordinary appellation, especially as there are those among them who do not
favor equality. They ought scarcely to be called simply socialists.
They have two distinguishing characteristics. The vast majority of
them are laborers, and, as a rule, they expect the violent overthrow
of existing institutions by revolution to precede the introduction of
the socialistic state. I would not, by any means, say that they are all
revolutionists, but the most of them undoubtedly are. The tendency of
their popular writings is revolutionary. They are calculated to accustom
the thoughts to revolution, and to excite the feelings of laborers to
such a pitch as to prepare them for risking all in battle. If one of
their prominent organs, as, for example, _Their People’s Calendar_
(_Der arme Conrad_—“The Poor Conrad”) for 1878, is examined, one finds
revolution mentioned frequently, and invariably in such manner as to
popularize revolution as revolution. Even the most exceptionable doings
of the masses in the French Revolution, in the revolutions of 1848, and
in the insurrection of the commune in 1871, are glorified. Every fallen
laborer becomes a hero and a martyr. Hitherto the people—so the readers
of the _Arme Conrad_ are told—have fought for others, but the next time
they engage in battle it will be for themselves, and they will then
obtain their well-earned wages.
The most general demands of the social democrats are the following:
The state should exist exclusively for the laborers; land and capital
must become collective property, and production be carried on unitedly.
Private competition, in the ordinary sense of the term, is to cease.
Officers, especially charged with this function, are, by means of
carefully collected statistics, to regulate production according to
the needs of the people. Our present money is to be replaced by money
representing labor units; labor is to become the sole purchasing
power. One of the party programmes requires a distribution of products
according to the needs of each recipient. Some of the planks of the
social democratic platforms would find sympathy with the best people
in America and England. So, for example, their unceasing demand that
even the present state should forbid work on Sunday, the employment of
very young children, and labor injurious to the health and morality
of working-women. Social democrats have never failed to recognize the
advantages of education and the need of improved methods of instruction.
Their cry, as that of all popular leaders, is to increase the
appropriations for educational purposes. It is unfortunately significant
that while in America proposals to decrease the pitiable salaries of
school-teachers and otherwise diminish school expenses are often calmly
and favorably listened to by even the poorer people, in Germany no
popular politician or newspaper would dare advocate such measures. Every
project for increasing the school appropriations is there regarded with
favor by the great masses of the people.
Even now, despite the movement of the party, as a whole, towards
communism, many of the best educated and most intelligent of the social
democrats are, no doubt, socialistically, rather than communistically,
inclined. I am speaking here not of the professional agitators—those
who make the most noise. These classes control the social democratic
conventions, and since the death of Lassalle they have approached more
and more nearly to the purest communism. By those who are socialistically
inclined, I mean such members of the party as do not think of all as
occupying like positions in the socialistic state, but expect it will be
organized more on the plan of an army. It is, in fact, on this account
that so many social democrats look with complacency on the great standing
armies of modern times, which include every able-bodied man in their
service for a considerable period of his life. They are training-schools
for the future social organization. It will thus be seen that emulation
and rivalry are provided for, as at present in the army. Those who serve
society best will be promoted. The higher officers will receive larger
salaries than the lower, while the rank and file will correspond to the
laborers of to-day. Industry and intelligence will enable one to rise,
but there will be no heaping up of PRIVATE productive property from
generation to generation, for all the means of production will be in the
hands of the state—that is, of society collectively. Property which will
not enable one to avoid labor, as books, pictures, statuary, all sorts
of ornaments, household furniture, etc., will remain private property,
and be transmitted from father to son. The children of the higher orders
of society will, of course, still enjoy, to a certain extent, superior
advantages, inasmuch as they usually inherit greater talents, besides
receiving the inestimable advantage of the personal training of gifted
and highly educated parents. Fathers and mothers, it might be expected,
would take more care than at present in bringing up their children,
knowing that their social rank depended entirely on their ability to make
themselves useful to society.
In a state like Prussia, where there is now a splendid civil service,
the office-holders are often children of office-holding fathers—are,
in fact, not rarely descended from families which have held office for
generations.[190] The offices are open to universal competition, and
are kept in the same families only by the exertions of the children and
the self-denial of parents, in expending a large part of their incomes
in giving them the best possible advantages. This might be expected
to continue to a considerable extent in the ideal socialistic state.
No one could, however, leave his children much else than personal
talents and abilities well developed, save such articles of enjoyment
as have been mentioned—paintings, old family plate, etc. Houses, lands,
shops, machines, and everything which yields an income, belong to the
socialistic state. No one could be left in such a position as to avoid
exertion of some kind. All are thought of as workers, but not what we
call common laborers. There would be artists, writers, physicians, etc.,
as now. If any child of even the poorest member of society should give
satisfactory evidence of any special aptitude or talent which might be
developed so as to become useful to society, provision would be made for
his special training after leaving the common-school. Every one would
have an opportunity to attain the highest development of which he was
capable. Those who were meant by nature for wood-choppers would not lead
an idle life of dissipation, consuming the fruits of other people’s labor.
It is supposed that there would be no financial panics, with their
terrible consequences, in the socialistic state. Indeed, if the
socialistic ideas could be carried out, panics would be impossible.
Every new invention, every advance, would accrue to the benefit of all.
The greater the product, the greater the value of each day’s labor; and
each one would receive the full product of his labor, as no capitalist
would retain a part. Capital exists and increases, but always remains
common property. All could live better; since many fold as much would be
produced as now. At present the chief difficulty appears to be to avoid
over-production. Government appoints a committee in Prussia to inquire
into the cause of the late depression, and they report over-production;
in England, committees also investigate and report likewise; in
America, business companies and factory owners explain their distress
by over-production, and are obliged to enter into mutual agreements
to produce less. In the socialistic state over-production is an
impossibility. The great waste of competition, furthermore, would cease
with the competition itself. Two railroads would not be built to perform
the service which one could render as well, nor would six dry-goods
shops exist in a town where two would be amply sufficient. This saving
of capital, labor, energy, and talent would benefit all alike. Strikes,
then unheard-of save as a reminiscence of the past, would no longer be a
considerable element in the cost of production. Business failures would
cease to impoverish the widow and the orphan.
It is impossible at present to enter into a criticism of social democracy
and attempt to separate the true from the false. The comparison, however,
which social democrats make between the future organization of society
and that of the army is suggestive. It might be that we could afford
to put up with what that implies, if we attained thereby all that is
hoped; still it is terrible to think of army discipline extending itself
over society in all its ramifications. To many—to the majority—the
restraint would be a very great evil. Then it must be remembered that
army discipline is maintained at the cost of no inconsiderable amount
of actual, positive suffering. As Roscher pointedly remarks, there are
thirty offences punishable with death according to the military penal
code.
I have thus presented, in their most favorable aspect, the doctrines of
social democrats, apart from the agitators who now preach them. The next
chapter will afford an opportunity to judge whether or not the social
democratic leaders of the present are men of such a character that it
would be wise to give them despotic power over one’s life and actions.
Social democracy is not now precisely what it was when it lost
Ferdinand Lassalle, its greatest agitator. Nevertheless, he is still
its father. It is the product of his activity. Lassalle did not write
history: he created it. He accomplished certain facts which no power
can undo. He infused into the minds of German laborers new thoughts,
ideas, aspirations. German emigrants become missionaries, and carry
with them, as they believe, a gospel of hope and promise, wherever they
go. They hold, as Lassalle taught them, “that they are the state, that
all political power ought to be of and through and for them, that their
good and amelioration ought to be the aim of the state, that their
affair is the affair of mankind, that their personal interest moves and
beats with the pulse of history, with the living principle of moral
development.”[191]
Thus have new factors, for good or for bad, entered into the life of the
world, and with them we must deal.