to save England, its regret that no truly intelligent and benevolent
"governing class" or "Platonic guardians" are to be found, and its
weekly disparagement of democracy do not offer much promise that it will
soon turn in the radical direction. On the contrary it predicts that the
firm possession of political power by the wealthy classes is foredoomed
to result, as in the Roman Empire, in the creation of two main classes,
each of which must become corrupt, "the one by wealth and the other by
poverty," and that finally the latter must become incapable of corporate
resistance. The familiar and scientifically demonstrated fact of the
physical and moral degeneration of a considerable part of the British
working people doubtless suggests to many persons such pessimistic
conclusions. "It is hopeless in our view," the _New Age_ concludes, "to
expect that the poor and ignorant, however desperate and however
numerous, will ever succeed in displacing their wealthy rulers. No slave
revolt in the history of the world has ever succeeded by its own power.
In these days, moreover, the chances of success are even smaller. One
machine gun is equal to a mob."[139]
Indeed the distrust of democracy is so universal among British
Socialists that Belloc, Chesterton and other Liberals accuse them
plausibly, but unjustly, of actually representing an aristocratic
standpoint. In an article entitled "Why I Am Not A Socialist," Mr.
Chesterton expresses a belief, which he says is almost unknown among the
Socialists of England, namely, a belief "in the masses of the common
people."[140] Mr. Belloc, in a debate against Bernard Shaw, predicted
that Socialism, if it comes in England, will probably be simply "another
of the infinite and perpetually renewed dodges of the English
aristocracy."
It may be well doubted if any of the more important of the world's
conservative, aristocratic, or reactionary forces (except the
doctrinaire Liberals) are opposed to Socialism as defined by the Fabian
Society, _i.e._ a gradual movement in the direction of collectivism. Not
only Czar and Kaiser but even the Catholic Church may be claimed as
Socialistic by this standard. Mr. Hubert Bland, one of the original
Fabian Essayists and a very influential member of the Society, himself a
Catholic, actually asserts that the Church never has attacked Fabian or
true Socialism. In view of the fact that the Church is at war with the
Socialist Parties of Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, the
United States, and every country where both the Church and the
Socialists are a political power, in view of the wholesale and most
explicit denunciations by Popes and high ecclesiastics, and the war
being waged against the Socialist Parties at every point, Mr. Eland's
argument has some interest.
Having defined Socialism as "the increase of State rights" and "the
tendency to limit the proprietary rights of the individual and to widen
the proprietary rights and activities of the community" or as the
"control of property by the State and municipality," Mr. Bland has, of
course, no difficulty in showing that the Catholic Church has never
opposed it--though many individualistic Catholics have done so.
"No fewer than two Popes," writes Mr. Bland, "are said to have condemned
Socialism in authoritative utterances, but when I examine and analyze
these condemnations, I find it is not Socialism in the sense I have
defined it here, that is condemned."[141] It is indeed true that few of
the most bitter and persistent enemies of the Socialist movement condemn
"Socialism" as defined by Mr. Bland and his "State Socialist"
associates.
This capitalistic collectivism promoted by the Fabian Society has
embodied itself practically in the movement towards "municipal
Socialism" of which so much was heard some years ago, first in Great
Britain and later in other countries. It is now from ten to twenty years
since many British cities, notably Glasgow, began municipal experiments
on a large scale that were branded by Socialists and non-Socialists
alike, as municipal Socialism. The first of these experiments included
not only the municipalization of street railways, electric light and
current, and so on, but even the provision of municipal slaughter
houses, bathing establishments, and outdoor amusements. The later stages
have developed in a somewhat different direction. The chief reforms
under discussion everywhere seem now to be the proposals that the
municipalities should provide housing accommodations for the poorer
elements of the population, and that the health of the children should
be looked after, even to the extent of providing free lunches in public
schools. If less had been heard of "municipal Socialism" in the last
year or two, this is merely because reforms on a national scale have for
the moment received the greater share of public attention. This does not
necessarily mean that the national reforms are more important than the
municipal, but only that the latter came first because they were easier
to inaugurate, though perhaps more difficult to carry to a successful
conclusion.
But the first popularity of the municipal reform movement, both in Great
Britain and in other countries, has received at least a temporary
setback as the relations between this "municipal Socialism" and taxation
were recognized. Both the non-taxpaying working people and the small
taxpaying middle class saw that the profits of the new municipal
enterprises went to a considerable extent towards decreasing the
taxation of the well-to-do instead of conferring benefits on the
majority. This might appear strange, since under universal suffrage the
non-taxpaying and non-landowning majority would be expected to dominate.
But in Great Britain, as well as elsewhere, central governments, in the
firm control of taxpayers and landowners, exercise a strict control over
the municipalities, so that this kind of reform will prove advantageous
chiefly to the landlords, by enabling them to raise rents in proportion
to the benefits gained by tenants; and to the taxpaying minority, by
making it possible to use the profits of municipal undertakings for the
purpose of reducing taxes.
The tendency toward the extension of municipal enterprises to be noted
in all the important cities of the world, is hastened by the public
belief that there is no other possible means of preventing the
exploitation of all classes, and consequent widespread injury to trade,
building, and industry in general, by public service corporations. But
it must be observed that whatever municipalization there is will
continue to be under the control of the taxpayers, landowners, and
business men and largely in their interest as long as national
governments remain in capitalist hands.
The national social reform administrations that are coming into power in
so many countries are encouraging various forms of taxpayers' "municipal
Socialism." The ultraconservative governments of Germany, Austria, and
Belgium all permit the cities to engage even in the public feeding of
school children, while the reactionary national government of Hungary
has undertaken to provide for the housing of 25,000 working people at
Budapest. The conservative _London Daily Mail_ cries out that the
Hungarian minister, Dr. Wekerle has "stolen a march on the Socialists,"
but that it is the "right sort of Socialism," and that "it has been left
to the leader of the privileged Parliament [the Hungarian Parliament
representing not the small capitalists, but the landed nobility and
gentry] to make the first start." And there is little doubt that both
the provision of houses for the working people and the public feeding of
school children rest on precisely the same principles as the social
reforms now being undertaken by national governments, such as that of
Great Britain, and are, indeed, the "right sort of Socialism" from the
capitalist standpoint.
Taking the municipal reformer as a type of the so-called Socialist, Mr.
Belloc, a prominent Liberal Member of Parliament and an anti-Socialist,
says that "in the atmosphere in which he works and as regards the
susceptibilities which he fears to offend," that the municipal Socialist
is entirely of the capitalist class. "You cannot make revolutions
without revolutionaries," he continues, "and anything less revolutionary
than your municipal reformer never trod the earth. The very conception
is alien to this class of persons; usually he is desperately frightened
as well. Yet it is quite certain that so vast a change as Socialism
presupposes cannot be carried out without hitting. When one sees it
verbally advocated (and in practice shirked) by men who have never hit
anything in their lives, and who are even afraid of a scene with a
waiter in a restaurant, one is not inclined to believe in the reality of
the creed." Mr. Belloc concludes finally that all that this kind of
Socialism has done during its moments of greatest activity has tended
merely to recognize the capitalist more and more and to stereotype the
gulf between him and the other classes.[142]
And just as Mr. Belloc has reproached the Socialists for their
conservatism, so the _New Age_ and other mouthpieces of Socialism
condemn the non-Socialist radicals who constitute one of the chief
elements among the supporters of the present government (including Mr.
Belloc) as being too radical. In the literature of the Fabian Society
also, the accusation against the Liberals of being too revolutionary is
quite frequent. Years ago Mr. Sidney Webb accused them of having "the
revolutionary tradition in their bones," of conceiving society as "a
struggle of warring interests," and said that they would reform
_nothing_ "unless it be done at the expense of their enemies." While
this latter accusation is scarcely true, either of the British Liberals
or of the revolutionary Socialists of the Continent, it is obvious that
the _most important_ reforms of the Socialists, those to which greatest
efforts must necessarily be given, those which alone must be fought for,
are precisely the ones that must be brought about "at the expense of the
enemy."
In no other country has public opinion either within the Socialist
movement or outside of it so completely despaired of democracy and the
people. In none has the spirit of popular revolt and militant radicalism
been so long dormant. Yet, there can be little doubt that the British
masses, encouraged by those of France, Germany, and other countries,
will one day recover that self-confidence and self-assertion they seem
to have lost since the times of the "Levellers" of the Commonwealth, two
hundred and fifty years ago. It may take years before this new
revolutionary movement gains the momentum it already possesses in
Germany and France. But the great strikes of 1910, 1911, and 1912 (see
Part III, Chapter VI) and the changes in politics that have accompanied
these strikes show that this movement has already begun. There is
already a strong division of opinion within the Socialistic "Independent
Labour Party," and this organization has also taken issue on several
important matters with the non-Socialist Labour Party, of which,
however, it is still a part.
After the unsatisfactory results of the elections of 1910 the conflict
within the Independent Labour Party became more acute than ever. Mr.
Barnes, then chairman of the Labour Party itself, and Mr. Keir Hardie,
the chief figure in its Socialistic (_Independent Labour Party_)
section, criticized severely the tactics that had been followed by the
majority, _led also by two members of the same "Socialistic" section_,
Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Snowden. It is true that the difference was not
very fundamental, but it is interesting to note that MacDonald and
Snowden and their avowed non-Socialist trade-union allies were accused
of giving so much to the Liberals as even to weaken the position of the
Labour Party itself to say nothing of the still greater inconsistency
of such compromises with anything approaching Socialism. Mr. Barnes and
Mr. Hardie pointed out that the timid tactics pursued had endangered not
only the fight against the House of Lords, but also the effort to keep
down the naval budget and the proposed solution of the unemployment
question that was to have acknowledged "the right to work." That is, Mr.
MacDonald and Mr. Snowden had been so anxious to please the Liberal
government, that they had risked even these moderate reforms, which were
favored by many anti-Socialistic Radicals.
At the "Independents'" 1911 conference at Birmingham, again, a motion
was proposed by the radical element, Hall, MacLachlan, and others, which
demanded that this Party should cease voting perpetually for the
government merely because the government claimed that every question
required a vote of confidence, and that they should put their own issues
in the foreground, and vote on all others according to their merits.
This very consistent resolution, in complete accord with the position of
Socialist Parties the world over, was however voted down by the
"Independents," as it had been shortly previously at the conference of
the non-Socialist Labour Party of which they are a section. The
executive committee brought in an amendment in the contrary sense to
that of the radical resolution, and this amendment was ably supported by
MacDonald. Hardie and Barnes, however, persuaded the Congress to vote
down both resolution and amendment on the ground that the "Independents"
in Parliament _ought to support the Liberal and Radical government,
except in certain crises_--as illustrations of which Barnes mentioned
the Labourites' opposition to armaments and their demand for the right
to work. Keir Hardie also declared that he was not satisfied with the
conduct of the Labour Party in Parliament; his motion condemning the
government's action in the Welsh coal strike, for example, had secured
only seventeen of their forty votes. He claimed that the influence of
the Liberals over the party was due, not to their social reform program,
but to their passing of the trade-union law permitting picketing after
the elections of 1906, and that he feared them more than he did the
Conservatives. However, he thought that this Liberal influence was now
on the decline, and said that if the Liberals attempted to strengthen
the House of Lords, as suggested in the preamble to their resolution,
abolishing its veto power, the Labour Party would be ready to vote
against the government.
The Labourites did, as a matter of fact, vote against this preamble, and
the government was saved only because Balfour and the Conservatives lent
it their support. It still remains to be seen if the Labourites will
detach themselves from the Liberals on a really crucial question, one on
which they know the Conservatives will remain in the opposition--in
other words, whether they will do the only thing that can possibly show
any real independence or make them a factor of first importance in the
nation's politics, that is, overturn a government. Doubtless this day
will come, but it does not seem to be at hand.
This discussion was much intensified by the decision of the executive of
the Labour Party (in order to retain the legal right to use trade-union
funds for political purposes) to relieve Labour members of Parliament of
their pledge to follow a common policy. This decision again was opposed
by the majority of the "Independent" section including Hardie and
Barnes, but favored by a minority, led by MacDonald. With the aid of the
non-Socialistic element, however, it was carried by a large majority at
the Labour Party's conference in 1911. Thus while one element is growing
more radical another is growing more conservative and the breach between
the Independents and the other Labourites is widening.
Perhaps the closest and most active associate of Mr. MacDonald at nearly
every point has been Mr. Philip Snowden. Even Mr. Snowden finally
declared that a recent action of the Labour Party, when all but half a
dozen of its members voted with the Liberals, against what Mr. Snowden
states to have been the instructions of the Party conference, "finally
completes their identity with official Liberalism." Mr. Snowden asserted
that if the "Independents" would stand this they would stand anything,
that the time had come to choose between principle and party, and that
he was not ready to sacrifice the former for the latter.
Shortly after this incident, which Mr. MacDonald attributed to a
misunderstanding, came the great railway strike and its settlement, in
which he and Mr. Lloyd George were the leading factors. Received with
enthusiasm by the Liberal press, this settlement was bitterly denounced
by the _Labour Leader_, the official organ of the "Independents." Mr.
MacDonald on the other hand expressed in the House of Commons deep
satisfaction with the final attitude of the government and predicted
that if it was maintained no such trouble need arise again in a
generation. No statement could have been more foreign to the existing
feeling among the workers, a part of whom it will be remembered failed
to return to work for several days after the settlement. The
"Independents" as the political representatives of the more radical of
the unionists, naturally embody this discontent, while the Labour Party,
being partly responsible for the settlement, becomes more than ever the
semi-official labor representative of the government--a divergence that
can scarcely fail to lead to an open breach.
It was as a result of all of these critical situations, especially the
great railway strike and its sequels, that an effort has been made to
form a "British Socialist Party" to embrace all Socialist factions, and
to free them from dependence on the Labour Party. It has succeeded in
uniting all, except the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society,
and includes even a number of local branches (though only a small
minority of the total number) of the former organization. This Party has
issued an outright revolutionary declaration of principles. Mr. Quelch,
editor of the Social Democratic organ, _Justice_, had proposed the
following declaration of principles, which was far in advance of the
present position of the Independent Labour Party, if somewhat ambiguous
in the clause printed in italics:--
"The Socialist Party is the political expression of the
working-class movement, acting in the closest coöperation with
industrial organizations for the socialization of the means of
production and distribution--that is to say, the transformation of
capitalist society into a collective or communist society. Alike in
its object, its ideals, and in the means employed, the Socialist
party, _though striving for the realization of immediate social
reforms demanded by the working class_, is not a reformist but a
revolutionary party, which recognizes that social freedom and
equality can only be won by fighting the class war through to the
finish, and thus abolishing forever all class distinctions."[143]
The phrase in italics was opposed by several of the revolutionary
representatives of Independent Labour Party branches who were present as
delegates and others, and by a narrow vote was expunged. The declaration
as it now stands is as radical as that of any Socialist Party in the
world. The new organization is already making some inroads among the
membership of the Independent Labour Party and there seems to be a
chance that it will succeed before many years in its attempt to free
that organization and British Socialism generally from their dependence
on the Labour and Liberal Parties.
Perhaps the contrast between "Labour" Party and Socialist Party methods
and aims comes out even more clearly in Australasia than in Great
Britain. A typical view of the New Zealand reforms as being steps
towards Socialism is given by Thomas Walsh, of the Auckland _Voice of
Labour_ (see _New York Call_, September 10, 1911).
After giving a list of things "already accomplished," including a
mention of universal suffrage, state operation of the post office,
prohibition of child labor, "free and compulsory secular education up to
the age of fourteen years," and "State-assisted public
hospitals"--besides the other more distinctively capitalist collectivist
reforms, such as government railways, mines, telegraphs, telephones,
parcel post, life and fire insurance, banks and old-age pensions and
municipal ownership, Mr. Walsh concludes:--
"These are some of the things already done: there is a long list
more. The revolutionary seize and hold group may label them
palliatives, may howl down as red herrings across the scent, may
declare that they obscure main issues, but I want to know which of
the reforms they want to see abolished, which of them are useless,
which of them are not necessary? _Contrary to the fond delusion of
the revolutionary group, the defenders of the present system don't
and won't hand out anything; everything obtained is wrenched from
them_; and in the political arena, armed with the ballot box and
the knowledge of its use, there is nothing that labor cannot
obtain.
"Have the reforms secured blurred the main issue, have we lost
sight of the goal? The objective of the New Zealand Labour Party
to-day is the 'securing to all of the full value of their labour
power by the gradual public ownership of all the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.' Contrary to your critic's
opinion, what has already been done has but whetted the appetite
for more, and to-day New Zealand labour is marshaling its forces
for further assaults on the fortress of the privileged.
"_Every reform we have secured has been a step toward the goal_;
every step taken means one step less to take. The progressive
legislation has not sidetracked the movement--it has cleared the
road for further advancement.
"In New Zealand the enumerated reforms are law--_made law in
defiance of the wealth-owning class_. At the moment labour does
not possess the power to administer the laws, but far from that
being an argument to abandon the law, it has convinced New Zealand
labor that the administrative control must be got possession of,
and through the ballot box New Zealand labour will march to get
that control. _Given control of the national and local government,
the food supplies can be nationalized and more competitive
State-owned industries established. And by labour administration of
the arbitration court the prices and wages can be so adjusted that
the worker can buy out of the market all that his labor put into
it._
"To the brothers in America I say, Go on. Don't waste time arguing
about economic dogma. Get a unified labor movement and _throw the
whole industrial force into the political arena_. Anything less
than the whole force means delay. The whole force means victory. We
have progressed. We have experimented. We have proved. Yours it is
but to imitate--and improve."
I have put in italics the most important of Mr. Walsh's conclusions that
are contradicted by the evidence I have given in this chapter and
elsewhere in the present volume. The Socialist view of the last two
statements may be best shown by a quotation from Mr. Charles Edward
Russell, who is the critic referred to by Mr. Walsh, and has undertaken
with great success to uproot among the Socialists of this country the
fanciful pictures and fallacies concerning Australasia that date in this
country from the time of the radical and fearless but uncritical and
optimistic books of Henry D. Lloyd ("A Country Without Strikes," etc.).
Mr. Russell shows that a Labor Party as in Australia may gain control of
the forms of government, without actually gaining the sovereignty over
society or industry. (See the _International Socialist Review_,
September, 1911.) In an article that has made a greater sensation in the
American movement than any that has yet appeared (with the exception of
Debs's "Danger Ahead," quoted in the next chapter), Mr. Russell
writes:--
"A proletarian movement can have no part, however slight, in the
game of politics. The moment it takes a seat at that grimy board is
the moment it dies within. After that, it may for a time maintain a
semblance of life and motion, but in truth it is only a corpse.
"This has been proved many times. It is being proved to-day in
Great Britain. It has been proved recently and most convincingly in
the experience of Australia and New Zealand.
"In Australia the proletarian movement that began eighteen years
ago has achieved an absolute triumph--in politics. Under the name
of the Labor Party it has won all that any political combination
can possibly win anywhere. It has played the political game to the
limit and taken all the stakes in sight. The whole national
government is in its hands. It has attained in fullest measure to
the political success at which it aimed. It not merely influences
the government; it is the government.
"To make the situation clear by an American analogy, let us suppose
the Socialists of America to join hands with the progressive
element in the labor unions and with the different groups of
advanced radicals. Let us suppose a coalition party to be formed
called the Labor Party. Let us suppose this to have entered the
State and national campaigns, winning at each successive election
more seats in Congress, and finally, after sixteen years of
conflict, electing its candidate for President and a clear majority
of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This would be
admitted to be the summit of such a party's aims and to mean great
and notable success; and it would closely parallel the situation in
Australia.
"Exactly such a Labor Party has administered the affairs of
Australia since April, 1910. Its triumph was the political success
of a proletarian movement that was steered into the political game.
What has resulted?
"This has resulted, that the Labor Party of Australia is now
exactly like any other political party and means no more to the
working class except its name. Constituted as the political party
of that class, it has been swept into power by working-class votes,
and after almost a year and a half of control of national affairs,
it can show nothing more accomplished for working-class interests
than any other party has accomplished. The working class under the
Labor Party is in essentially the same condition that it has been
in under all the other administrations, nor is there the slightest
prospect that its condition will be changed.
"In other words, the whole machine runs on exactly as before, the
vast elaborated machine by which toilers are exploited and
parasites are fed. Once in power, the Labor Party proceeded to do
such things as other parties had done for the purpose of keeping in
power, and it is these things that maintain the machine.
"On the night of the election, when the returns began to indicate
the result, the gentleman that is now Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth was in the Labor Party headquarters, jumping up and
down with uncontrollable glee.
"'We're in!' he shouted. 'We're in! We're in!'
"That was an excellent phrase and neatly expressed the whole
situation. The Labor Party was in; it had won the offices and the
places of power and honor; it had defeated the opponents that had
often defeated it. It was 'in.' The next thing was to keep in, and
this is the object that it has assiduously pursued ever since. 'We
are in; now let us stay in. We have the offices; let us keep the
offices.'
"The first thing it does is to increase its strength with the
bourgeoisie and the great middle class always allied with its
enemies. To its opponents in the campaigns the handiest weapon and
most effective was always the charge that the Labor Party was not
patriotic, that it did not love the dear old flag of Great Britain
with the proper degree of fervor and ecstasy; that it was wobbly on
the subject of war and held strange, erratic notions in favor of
universal peace instead of yelling day and night for British
supremacy whether right or wrong--which is well known to be the
duty of the true and pure patriot. This argument was continually
used and had great effect.
"Naturally, as the Labor Party was now in and determined to stay
in, the wise play indicated in the game upon which it had embarked,
was to disprove all these damaging allegations and to show that the
Labor Party was just as patriotic as any other party could possibly
be. So its first move was to adopt a system of universal military
service, and the next to undertake vast schemes of national
defense. The attention and admiration of the country were directed
to the fact that the Labor administration was the first to build
small arms factories, to revise the military establishment so as to
secure the greatest efficiency and to prepare the nation for deeds
of valor on the battlefield.
"At the time this was done there was a crying need for new labor
legislation; the system or lack of system of arbitrating labor
disputes was badly in need of repairs; workingmen were being
imprisoned in some of the States for the crime of striking; the
power of government was often used to oppress and overawe strikers,
even when they had been perfectly orderly and their cause was
absolutely just. These with many other evils of the workingman's
condition were pushed aside in order to perfect the defense system
and get the small arms factories in good working order, for such
were the plain indications of the game that the Labor Party had
started out to play. 'We're in; let us stay in.'
"Meantime there remains this awkward fact about the condition of
the working class. It is no less exploited than before. It is as
far, apparently, from the day of justice under the rule of the
Labor Party as it was under the rule of the Liberal Party. What are
you going to do about that? Why, there is nothing to be done about
that as yet. The country, you see, is not ready for any radical
measures on that subject. If we undertook to make any great changes
in fundamental conditions, we should be defeated at the next
election and then we should not be in, but should be out. True, the
cost of living is steadily increasing, and that means that the
state of the working class is inevitably declining. True, under the
present system, power is steadily accumulating in the hands of the
exploiters, so that if we are afraid to offend them now, we shall
be still more afraid to offend them next year and the next. But the
main thing is to keep in. We're in; let us stay in.
"Hence, also, the Labor administration has been very careful not
to offend the great money interests and powerful corporations that
are growing up in the country. These influences are too powerful in
elections. Nothing has been done that could in the least disturb
the currents of sacred business. It was recognized as not good
politics to antagonize business interests. Let the administration
keep along with the solid business interests of the country,
reassuring them for the sake of the general prosperity and helping
them to go on in the same, safe, sane, and conservative way as
before. It was essential that business men should feel that
business was just as secure under the Labor administration as under
any other. Nothing that can in the least upset business, you know.
True, this sacred business consists of schemes to exploit and rob
the working class, and true, the longer it is allowed to go upon
its way the more powerful it becomes and the greater are its
exploitations and profits. But if we do anything that upsets
business or tends to disturb business confidence, that will be bad
for us at the next election. Very likely we shall not be able to
keep in. We are in now; let us stay in, and have the offices and
the power.
"Therefore, it is with the greatest pride that the Labor people
point out that under the Labor administration the volume of
business has not decreased, but increased; the operations of the
banks have shown no falling off; they are still engaged as
profitably as of yore in skinning the public; the clearings are in
an eminently satisfactory condition; profits have suffered no
decline; all is well in our marts of trade. The old machine goes on
so well you would never know there had been any change in the
administration. Business men have confidence in our Party. They
know that we will do the right thing by them, and when in the next
campaign the wicked orators of the opposition arise and say that
the Labor Party is a party of disturbers and revolutionists, we can
point to these facts and overwhelm them. And that will be a good
thing, because otherwise we might not be able to keep in. We're in;
let us stay in.
"If the capitalists had designed the very best way in which to
perpetuate their power, they could not have hit upon anything
better for themselves than this. It keeps the working class
occupied, it diverts their minds from the real questions that
pertain to their condition; it appeals to their sporting instincts;
we want to win, we want to cheer our own victory, we want to stay
in; this is the way to these results. And meantime the capitalists
rake off the profits and are happy. We are infinitely better off in
the United States. The Labor Party of Australia has killed the pure
proletarian movement there. At least we have the beginnings of one
here. If there had been no Labor Party, there would now be in
Australia a promising working-class movement headed towards
industrial emancipation. Having a Labor Party, there is no such
movement in sight....
"You say: Surely it was something gained in New Zealand to secure
limited hours of employment, to have sanitary factories, clean
luncheon rooms, old-age pensions, workingmen's compensation. Surely
all these things represented progress and an advance toward the
true ideal.
"Yes. But every one of these things has been magnified, distorted
and exaggerated for the purpose and with the result of keeping the
workingman quiet about more vital things. How say you to that?
Every pretended release from his chains has been in fact a new form
of tether on his limbs. What about that? I should think meanly of
myself if I did not rejoice every time a workingman's hours are
reduced or the place wherein he is condemned to toil is made more
nearly tolerable. But what shall we conclude when these things are
deliberately employed to distract his thoughts from fundamental
conditions and when all this state of stagnation is wrought by the
alluring game of politics?
"I cannot help thinking that all this has or ought to have a lesson
for the Socialist movement in America. If it be desired to kill
that movement, the most effective way would be to get it entangled
in some form of practical politics. Then the real and true aim of
the movement can at once be lost sight of and this party can go the
way of every other proletarian party down to the pit. I should not
think that was a very good way to go.
"When we come to reason of it calmly, what can be gained by
electing any human being to any office beneath the skies? To get in
and keep in does not seem any sort of an object to any one that
will contemplate the possibilities of the Coöperative Commonwealth.
How shall it profit the working class to have Mr. Smith made
sheriff or Mr. Jones become the coroner? Something else surely is
the goal of this magnificent inspiration. In England the radicals
have all gone mad on the subject of a successful parliamentary
party, the winning of the government, the filling of offices, and
the like. I am told that the leaders of the coalition movement have
already picked out their prime minister against the day when they
shall carry the country and be in. In the meantime they, too, must
play this game carefully, being constantly on their guard against
doing anything that would alarm or antagonize the bourgeoisie and
sacred businesses and telling the workers to wait until we get in.
I do not see that all this relieves the situation in Whitechapel or
that any fewer men and women live in misery because we have a
prospect of getting in.
"Furthermore, to speak quite frankly, I do not see where there is a
particle of inspiration for Americans in any of these
English-speaking countries. So far as I can make out the whole of
mankind that dwells under the British flag is more or less mad
about political success, Parliament and getting in. They say in New
Zealand that the government can make a conservative of any radical,
if he threatens to become dangerous, by giving him some tin-horn
honor or a place in the upper chamber. In England we have seen too
often that the same kind of influences can silence a radical by
inviting him to the king's garden party or allowing him to shake
hands with a lord. I do not believe we have anything to learn from
these countries except what to avoid."
FOOTNOTES:
[108] Quoted by John Graham Brooks, in article above cited.
[109] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 60.
[110] Philip Snowden, "A Socialist Budget."
[111] Speech in Carnegie Hall, New York, Jan. 13, 1909.
[112] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 36.
[113] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 1.
[114] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 114.
[115] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 116.
[116] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 130.
[117] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 91.
[118] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 4.
[119] Report on Fabian Policy, p. 13.
[120] The _Socialist Review_, January, 1909, p. 888.
[121] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 46.
[122] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 6.
[123] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 133.
[124] Editorial in the _Socialist Review_ (London), May, 1910.
[125] "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 12.
[126] Andrew Carnegie, "Problems of To-day," pp. 123 ff.
[127] The _New Age_, Nov. 4, 1909.
[128] "Fabian Essays," p. 180.
[129] "Fabian Essays," p. 187.
[130] "Fabian Essays," p. 184.
[131] "Fabianism and the Empire," p. 5.
[132] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.
[133] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.
[134] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," pp. 116, 132.
[135] H. G. Wells, "First and Last Things," p. 242.
[136] The _New Age_ (London), June 23, 1910.
[137] The _New Age_, June 2, 1910.
[138] The _New Age_, Dec. 23, 1909.
[139] The _New Age_, Jan. 4, 1908.
[140] The _New Age_, June 23, 1910.
[141] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22 and 29, 1911.
[142] The _New Age_, March 26, 1910.
[143] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22, 1911.
CHAPTER IV
"REFORMISM" IN THE UNITED STATES
Because of our greater European immigration and more advanced economic
development, the Socialist movement in this country, as has been
remarked by many of those who have studied it, is more closely
affiliated with that of the continent of Europe than with that of Great
Britain.
The American public has been grievously misinformed as to the
development of revolutionary Socialism in this country. A typical
example is the widely noticed article by Prof. Robert F. Hoxie,
entitled, "The Rising Tide of Socialism."
After analyzing the Socialist vote into several contradictory elements,
Professor Hoxie concludes:--
"There seems to be a definite law of the development of Socialism
which applies both to the individual and to the group. The law is
this: The creedalism and immoderateness of Socialism, other things
being equal, vary inversely with its age and responsibility. The
average Socialist recruit begins as a theoretical impossibilist and
develops gradually into a constructive opportunist. Add a taste of
real responsibility and he is hard to distinguish from a liberal
reformer."[144]
On the contrary, the "theoretical impossibilists," however obstructive,
have never been more than a handful, and the revolutionists, in spite of
the very considerable and steady influx of reformers into the movement,
have increased still more rapidly. That is, revolutionary Socialism is
growing in this country--as elsewhere--and a very large and increasing
number of the Socialists are become more and more revolutionary. From
the beginning the American movement has been radical and the
"reformists" have been heavily outvoted in every Congress of the present
Party--in 1901, 1904, 1908, and 1910, while the most prominent
revolutionist, Eugene V. Debs, has been its nominee for President at
each Presidential election, since its foundation (1900, 1904, and
1908).[145]
Aside from a brief experience with the so-called municipal Socialism in
Massachusetts in 1900 and 1902, the national movement gave little
attention to the effort to secure the actual enactment of immediate
reforms until the success of the Milwaukee Socialists (in 1910) in
capturing the city government and electing one of its two Congressmen.
There had always been a program of reforms indorsed by the Socialists.
But this program had been misnamed "Immediate Demands," as the Party had
concentrated its attention _almost exclusively_ on its one great demand,
the overthrow of capitalist government.
In the fall elections of 1910 it was observed for the first time that
certain Socialist candidates in various parts of the country ran far
ahead of the rest of the Socialist ticket, and that some of those
elected to legislatures and local offices owed their election to this
fact. This appeared to indicate that these candidates had bid for and
obtained a large share of the non-Socialist vote. A cry of alarm was
thereupon raised by many American Socialists. The statement issued by
Mr. Eugene V. Debs on this occasion, entitled "Danger Ahead," was
undoubtedly representative of the views of the majority. As Mr. Debs has
been, on three occasions, the unanimous choice of the Socialist Party of
the United States as its candidate for the Presidency, he remains
unquestionably the most influential member of the Party. I, therefore,
quote his statement at length, as the most competent estimate obtainable
of the present situation as regards reformism in the American Socialist
movement:--
"The danger I see ahead," wrote Mr. Debs, "is that the Socialist
Party at this stage, and under existing conditions, is apt to
attract elements which it cannot assimilate, and that it may be
either weighted down, or torn asunder with internal strife, or that
it may become permeated and corrupted with the spirit of bourgeois
reform to an extent that will practically destroy its virility and
efficiency as a revolutionary organization.
"To my mind the working-class character and the revolutionary
integrity of the Socialist Party are of the first importance. _All
the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to
be a revolutionary party or became only incidentally so, while
yielding_ more and more to the pressure to modify the principles
and program of the Party for the sake of swelling the vote and
hastening the day of its expected triumph.... The truth is that we
have not a few members who regard vote getting as of supreme
importance, no matter by what method the votes may be secured, and
this leads them to hold out inducements and make representations
which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncompromising
principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the
Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give
offense to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for
votes rather than as a means of education, and _votes thus secured
do not properly belong to us and do injustice to our Party as well
as those who cast them_.... The election of legislative and
administrative officers, here and there where the Party is still in
a crude state and the members economically unprepared and
politically unfit to assume the responsibilities thrust upon them
as the result of popular discontent, will inevitably bring trouble
and set the Party back, instead of advancing it, and while this is
to be expected and is to an extent unavoidable, we should court no
more of that kind of experience than is necessary to avoid a
repetition of it. The Socialist Party has already achieved some
victories of this kind which proved to be defeats, crushing and
humiliating, and from which the party has not even now, after many
years, entirely recovered [referring, doubtless, to Haverhill and
Brockton.--W. E. W.].
"Voting for Socialism is not Socialism any more than a menu is a
meal....
"The votes will come rapidly enough from now on without seeking
them, and we should make it clear that the Socialist Party wants
the votes only of those who want Socialism, and that, above all, as
a revolutionary party of the working class, it discountenances vote
seeking for the sake of votes and holds in contempt office seeking
for the sake of office. These belong entirely to capitalist parties
with their bosses and their boodle and have no place in a party
whose shibboleth is emancipation."[146] (My italics.)
After Mr. Debs, Mr. Charles Edward Russell is now, perhaps, the most
trusted of American Socialists. His statement, made a few months later
(see the _International Socialist Review_ for March, 1912), reaches
identical conclusions. As it is made from the entirely independent
standpoint of the observations of a practical journalist as to political
methods, it strongly reënforces and supplements Mr. Debs's conclusions,
drawn chiefly from labor union experience. As I have already quoted Mr.
Russell at length in the previous chapter, a few paragraphs will give a
sufficient idea of this important declaration:--
"Let us suppose in this country," writes Mr. Russell, "a political
party with a program that proposes a great and radical
transformation of the existing system of society, and proposes it
upon lofty grounds of the highest welfare of mankind. Let us
suppose that it is based upon vital and enduring truth, and that
the success of its ideals would mean the emancipation of the race.
"If such a party should go into the dirty game of practical
politics, seeking success by compromise and bargain, striving to
put men into office, dealing for place and recognition, concerned
about the good opinion of its enemies, elated when men spoke well
of it, depressed by evil report, tacking and shifting, taking
advantage of a local issue here and of a temporary unrest there,
intent upon the goal of this office or that, it would inevitably
fall into the pit that has engulfed all other parties. Nothing on
earth could save it.
"But suppose a party that kept forever in full sight the ultimate
goal, and never once varied from it. Suppose that it strove to
increase its vote for this object and for none other.... Suppose it
regarded its vote as the index of its converts, and sought for such
votes and for none others. Suppose the entire body was convinced of
the party's full program, aims, and philosophy. Suppose that all
other men knew that this growing party was thus convinced and thus
determined, and that its growth menaced every day more and more the
existing structure of society, menaced it with overthrow and a new
structure. What then?
"Such a party would be the greatest political power that ever
existed in this or any other country. It would drive the other
parties before it like sand before a wind. They would be compelled
to adopt one after another the expedients of reform to head off the
increasing threat of this one party's progress towards the
revolutionary ideal. But this one party would have no more need to
waste its time upon palliative measures than it would have to soil
itself with the dirt of practical politics and the bargain counter.
The other parties would do all that and do it well. The one party
would be concerned with nothing but making converts to its
philosophy and preparing for the revolution that its steadfast
course would render inevitable. Such a party would represent the
highest possible efficiency in politics, the greatest force in the
State, and the ultimate triumph of its full philosophy would be
beyond question."
Thus we see that in America reformism is regarded as a dangerous
innovation, and that, before it had finished its second prosperous year,
it had been abjured by those who have the best claim to speak for the
American Party. Nevertheless it still persists and, indeed, continues
to develop rapidly--if less rapidly than the opposite, or revolutionary,
policy--and deserves the most careful consideration.
While "reformism" only became a practical issue in the American Party in
_1910_, it had its beginnings much earlier. The Milwaukee Socialists had
set on the "reformist" course even before the formation of the present
national party (in 1900). Even at this early time they had developed
what the other Socialists had sought to avoid, a "leader"--in the
person of Mr. Victor Berger. At first editor of the local German
Socialist organ, the _Vorwaerts_, then of the _Social-Democratic
Herald_, acknowledged leader at the time of the municipal victory in the
spring of 1910, and now the American Party's first member of Congress,
Mr. Berger has not merely been the Milwaukee organization's chief
spokesman, organizer, and candidate throughout this period, but he has
come to be the chief spokesman of the present reformist wing of the
American Party. His editorials and speeches as Congressman, and the
policies of the Milwaukee municipal administration, now so much in the
public eye, will afford a fairly correct idea of the main features both
of the Socialism that has so far prevailed in Milwaukee, and of American
"reformism" in general.
"Socialism is an epoch of human history which will no doubt last many
hundred years, possibly a thousand years," wrote Mr. Berger,
editorially, in 1910. "Certainly a movement whose aims are spread out
over a period like that need have no terrors for the most conservative,"
commented Senator La Follette, with perhaps justifiable humor.
If Socialism is to become positive, said Mr. Berger again, it must
"conduct the everyday fight for the practical revolution of every day."
Like the word "Socialism," Mr. Berger retains the word "revolution," but
practically it comes to mean much the same as its antithesis, everyday
reform.
It has been Mr. Berger's declared purpose from the beginning to turn the
Milwaukee Party aside from the tactics of the International movement to
those of the "revisionist" minority that has been so thoroughly crushed
at the German and International Congresses. (See Chapter VII.) "The
tactics of the American Socialist Party," he wrote editorially in 1901,
"if that party is to live and succeed--can only be the much abused and
much misunderstood Bernstein doctrine."
"In America for the first time in history," he added, "we find an
oppressed class with the same fundamental rights as the ruling
class--the right of universal suffrage...."[147]
It was the impression of many of the earlier German Socialists in this
country that political democracy already existed in America and that it
was only necessary to make use of it to establish a new social order.
The devices the framers of our Constitution employed to prevent such an
outcome, the widespread distribution of property, especially of farms,
disfranchisement in the South and elsewhere, etc., were all considered
as small matters compared to the difficulties Socialists faced in
Germany and other countries. Many have come more recently to recognize,
with Mr. Louis Boudin, that the movement "will have to learn that in
this country, as in Germany or other alien lands, the fight is on not
only for the use of its power by the working class, but for the
possession of real political power by the masses of the people." Neither
in this country nor in any other does the oppressed class have "the same
fundamental rights as the ruling class." In America the working class
have not even an approximately equal right to the ballot, because of
local property, literacy, residence, and other qualifications, as
alluded to in an earlier chapter, and it is at least doubtful whether
the workers are in a more favorable position here than elsewhere to gain
final and effective control of the government without physical
revolution (as Mr. Berger himself has admitted; see Chapter VI).
In explanation of what he meant by the Bernstein doctrine, Mr. Berger
wrote in 1902: "Others condemn every reform which is to precede the
'Great Revolution.' ... Nothing can be more absurd.... Progress is not
attained by simply waiting for a majority of people, for the general
reconstruction, for the promised hour of deliverance.... We wicked
'opportunists' want action.... We want to reconstruct society, and we
must go to work without delay, and work ceaselessly for the coöperative
Commonwealth, the ideal of the future. But we want to change conditions
now. We stand for scientific Socialism."[148]
It is quite true that there was a Socialist Party in this country before
1900, a large part of which ridiculed every reform that can come before
the expected revolution, but these "Impossibilists" are now a dwindling
handful. Nearly every Socialist now advocates all progressive reforms,
but different views obtain as to which of these reforms do, and which
of them do not, properly come within the Socialists' sphere of action.
Mr. Berger's opinion is that the Socialists should take the lead in
practically all immediate reform activities, and belittles all other
reformers. No sooner had Senator La Follette appeared on the political
horizon in 1904 than Mr. Berger classed him with Mr. Bryan, as
"visionary."[149] And after Senator La Follette had become recognized as
perhaps the most effective radical the country has produced, Mr. Berger
still persisted in referring to him as "personally honest, but
politically dishonest," and was quoted as saying, with particular
reference to the Senator and his ideas of reform, and to the great
satisfaction of the reactionary press: "An insurgent is 60 per cent of
old disgruntled politician, 30 per cent clear hypocrisy, 9 per cent
nothing, and 1 per cent Socialism. Put in a bottle and shake well before
using and you will have a so-called 'progressive.'"[150]
Let us see how the Socialist platform in Wisconsin differs from that of
the insurgent Republicans and Democrats. It begins with the statement
that the movement aims at "better food, better houses, sufficient sleep,
more leisure, more education, and more culture." All progressive and
honest reform movements stand for all these things and, as I have shown,
promise gradually to get them. Under capitalism per capita wealth and
income are increased rapidly and the capitalists can well afford to
grant to the workers more and more of all the things mentioned, not out
of fear of Socialism, but to provide in the future for that steady
increase of industrial efficiency which is destined to be the greatest
source of future profits.
The platform goes on to state that "the final aim of the
Social-Democratic Party is the emancipation of the producers and the
abolition of the capitalist system" and describes the list of reforms it
proposes as "mere palliatives, capable of being carried out even under
present conditions." But it also suggests that these measures are in
part, though not all, Socialistic, whereas a careful comparison with the
Democratic and Republican platforms, especially the latter, shows that
they are practically all adopted by the capitalist parties (not only in
Wisconsin, but in States where the Socialists have no representation
whatever). If the Social-Democrats of Wisconsin demand more government
ownership and labor legislation, the Republicans are somewhat more
insistent on certain extensions of political democracy--as in the demand
for less partisan primaries.
The New York Socialist platform makes very similar demands to that of
Wisconsin, but precedes them by the long explanation (see Chapter VI) of
the Socialist view of the class struggle, which the Wisconsin platform
barely mentions, while containing declarations that might be interpreted
as contradicting it. _The Wisconsin idea is that a Socialist minority in
the nation has actual power to obtain reforms that will advance us
towards Socialism and that would not otherwise be obtained. The New York
idea is that a Socialist minority can have no other reforming power than
any honest reform minority, unless Socialism has actually won or is
about to win a majority._
The legislature of Wisconsin has doubtless gone somewhat faster than
those of other "progressive" States, on account of the presence of the
"Social-Democrats." It has passed the latters' resolutions, for example,
calling for the government ownership of coal mines and of such railroad,
telegraph, telephone, and express companies as pass into the hands of
receivers, and also to apply incomes from natural resources to old-age
pensions as well as other resolutions already mentioned. But an
inspection of the resolutions of the legislatures of other States where
there are no Socialist legislators and only a relatively small per cent
of Socialists shows action almost if not quite as radical. This and the
fact that a very radical tendency appeared in Wisconsin when Mr. La
Follette was governor and before Socialism had any apparent power in
that State, suggests that the influence of the latter has been entirely
secondary.
The _Social-Democratic Herald_ complains significantly, at a later date,
of "the cowardly and hypocritical Socialistic platforms of the two older
parties," while Mr. Berger was lately predicting that Senator La
Follette would be "told to get out" of the Republican Party. The
reformer who was so recently "retrogressive" had now become a rival in
reform. Mr. Berger, however, claims that he does not object when
reformers "steal the Socialist thunder." If both are striving after the
"immediately attainable," how indeed could there be any lasting
conflict, or serious difference of opinion? Or if there is to be any
difference at all between Socialists and "Insurgents," is it not clear
that the Socialists must reject, absolutely, Berger's principles, and
follow Bebel's advice (quoted below), _i.e. concentrate their attention
exclusively on "thunder" which the enemy will not and cannot steal_?
But perhaps an even more striking indication of the nature of Milwaukee
Socialism is shown by the very general welcome it has received among
capitalist organs of all parties, from the _Outlook, Collier's Weekly_,
the _Saturday Evening Post_, and the _American Magazine_, to the _New
York Journal_, the _New York World_, the _Chicago Tribune_, the
_Milwaukee Journal_, and other capitalist papers all over the country.
The _New York Journal_ stated editorially after the municipal election
of 1910, that won Milwaukee for the Socialists of the Berger School,
that the men of Milwaukee who have accumulated millions show no signs of
fear and that "before the election many of the biggest Milwaukee
business men (including at least two of the brewers) had expressed
themselves privately in admiration of Mr. Berger and his character _and
his purposes_." (My italics.)[151]
_La Follette's Weekly_ on this occasion quoted from an editorial of Mr.
Berger in which he had written: "We must show the people of Milwaukee
that the philosophy of international Socialism can be applied and will
be applied to the local situation, and that it can be applied with
advantage to any American city of the present day.... It is our duty to
give this city the best kind of an administration that _a modern city
can get under the present system, and the present laws_." (My italics.)
La Follette's repeats the phrase in italics and adds that this policy
contains "nothing to arouse fear on the part of the business interests
that is tangible enough to be felt or genuine enough to be contagious,"
that the people want "new blood in the city offices," "had confidence in
the Socialist candidates," and "are not afraid of a name."
I have mentioned Liebknecht's remark that the enemy's praise is a sign
of failure. Debs in this country is reported as saying, "When the
political or economic leaders of the wage worker are recommended for
their good sense and wise action by capitalists, it is proof that they
have become misleaders and cannot be trusted."
It may be imagined that the revolutionary Socialists have never approved
these tactics of Mr. Berger's and do so less to-day than ever. His
anti-immigration proposals were defeated by a large majority at the last
Socialist congress and some of the best-known Socialists and organs of
Socialist opinion have definitely repudiated his policy. Mr. J. G.
Phelps Stokes, formerly a member of the National Executive Committee,
declared publicly, after the Milwaukee victory of 1910, that the
Milwaukee Socialists "had compromised with capitalism" by their campaign
utterances, and in certain instances had acted as "mere reformers, not
as Socialists at all." It is not surprising that the anti-Socialist
reform press thereupon took up the cudgels in behalf of Mr. Berger,
including the _New York World_, the _Chicago Tribune_, and _Milwaukee
Journal_. The last-named paper very curiously claimed that, wherever
Socialists "have been intrusted with the powers of the government," they
have taken a similar course to that of Mr. Berger. This is that very
obvious truth of which I have spoken in preceding chapters, namely, that
when Socialists have allowed themselves to be saddled with the
responsibilities of some department or local branch of government,
_without having the sovereign power_ needed to apply _Socialist
principles_, they have frequently found themselves in an untenable
situation. The Socialists have been the first to recognize this, and for
this reason oppose any entrance of Socialists into capitalist
governments, _i.e._ their acceptance of minority positions in national
cabinets or councils of State. (See Chapters II, VI, and VII.)
Expressing the belief of the overwhelming majority of those who are
watching the progress of affairs in Milwaukee, the _Journal_ of that
city stated, "What they [the Socialists] are doing [in Milwaukee] is not
essentially Socialistic, though some of the reforms they propose are
Socialistic in tendency." This need not be taken to mean that the
Milwaukee reforms are supposed to tend to Socialism as Socialists in
general understand it, but rather to that capitalistic collectivism to
which Mr. Taft refers when he says that in the present regulation of the
railroads "we have gone a long way in the direction of State Socialism."
Mr. Stokes's comment upon many widely published defenses of the
Milwaukee Socialists by anti-Socialists was published in a letter to the
_New York World_ which sums up admirably the International standpoint:
"It is surely public opinion out of office and not the party in office,"
wrote Mr. Stokes, "that does the most for progress in this country, and
it seems to me exceedingly doubtful whether any party in power has ever
led public opinion effectively at any time. I share with very many
Socialists the view that it is entirely fallacious to suppose that more
can be done at this stage of the world's progress through politics, than
through 'education, agitation, and perpetual criticism.'"
I have referred to Mr. Berger as a "reformist" to distinguish his
policies from the professed opportunism of some of the British
Socialists. But I have also noted that his tactics and philosophy, as
both he and they have publicly acknowledged, are alike at many points.
For example, his views, like theirs, often seem less democratic than
those of many non-Socialist radicals, or even of the average American.
Years after the labor unions and the farmers of most of the States had
indorsed direct legislation, and in a year when it was already becoming
the law of several States, Mr. Berger, looking out for the interests of
what he and his associates frankly call the "political machine" of the
Wisconsin Party, damned it by faint praise, though it was an element of
his own platform; and he had claimed credit for having first proposed it
in Wisconsin. He acknowledged that the Initiative and Referendum _make
towards_ Socialism and are the surest way in the end, but urged that
they are "also the longest way," and wrote in the _Social-Democratic
Herald_:--
"The real class conscious proletariat is still in a minority, and
liable to stay so for a time to come. It can only show results by
fighting as a well-organized, compact mass.
"But the initiative, the referendum, and the right to recall have a
tendency to destroy parties and loosen tightly knit political
organizations.
"Therefore, while the Socialist Party stands for direct legislation
as a democratic measure, we are well aware that the working class
will be helped very little by getting it. We are well aware that
the proletariat, before all things, must get more economic and
political, strength--more education and more wisdom. That, besides
teaching coöperation, we must build _political machines_."[152] (My
italics.)
On the question of Woman Suffrage, also, Mr. Berger long showed a
similarly hesitating attitude, saying that intelligent women "have
always exercised great political power" even without the ballot;
doubting whether women's vote would help the advance of humanity "in the
coming time of transition," saying this is a question of fact on which
Socialists may honestly differ, and urging that "no one will deny that
the great majority of the women of the present day--_and that is the
only point we can view now_, are illiberal, unprogressive, and
reactionary to a greater extent than the men of the same stratum of
society." (The italics are mine.) Finally, Mr. Berger concluded as
follows, twice throwing the balance of his opinion from one scale into
another:--
"Now, if all this is correct, female suffrage, for generations to
come, will simply mean the deliberate doubting of the strength of a
certain church,--will mean a great addition to the forces of
ignorance and reaction....
"However, we have woman suffrage in our platform, and we should
stand by it. Because in the end it will help to interest the other
half of humanity in social and political affairs, and it will be of
great educational value on both women and men....
"Nevertheless, it is asking a great deal of the proletariat when we
are requested to delay the efficiency of our movement _for
generations_ on that count. And we surely ought not to lay such
stress on this one point as to injure the progress of the general
political and economic movement--the success of which is bound to
help the women as much as the men."[153] (The italics are mine.)
It is no wonder, with such a lukewarm advocacy of its own platform by
the Party's organ and its chief spokesman, that some of the lesser
figures in the Milwaukee movement--such as certain Socialist
aldermen--seem to have lost the road altogether until even Mr. Berger
has been forced to call a halt. For the leader of a "political machine,"
to use Mr. Berger's own expression, may allow himself certain liberties;
but when his followers do the same, disintegration is in sight. Witness
Mr. Berger's words, written only a few weeks after the Socialist victory
in Milwaukee; words which seem to indicate that the tendencies he
complains of were the direct result, not of slow degeneration, but of
the local Party's reformistic teachings and campaign methods:--
"The most dangerous part of the situation is that some of our
comrades seem to forget that we are a Socialist Party.
"They not only begin to imitate the ways and methods of the old
parties, but even their reasoning and their thoughts are getting to
be more bourgeois and less proletarian. To some of these men the
holding of the office--whatever the office may be--seems to be the
final aim of the Socialist Party. These poor sticks do not know
that there are many Socialists who deplore that the necessity of
electing and appointing officeholders will make it twice as hard to
keep the Socialist Party pure in this country, than in other
countries where the movement is relieved of this duty and danger.
"And even some of the aldermen seem to have lost their Socialist
class consciousness--if they ever had any."
It is difficult to see how Mr. Berger can expect to maintain respect for
principles that he teaches and applies so loosely himself. It is,
furthermore, difficult to understand how he expects submission to the
decisions of his organization when he himself has been on the verge of
revolt both against the national and international movement. He has
always avowed his profound disagreement with the methods of the
Socialists in practically every State but his own. He and his associates
were at one moment so far from the national and international principle
that they sought to support a non-Socialist candidate for judge--on the
specious ground that no Socialist was nominated. But the National
Congress condemned and forbade such action by an overwhelming majority.
Mr. Berger's unwillingness to act with his organization even went so far
at one point that he was punished by a temporary suspension from the
National Executive Committee. And, finally, he even threatened in
Socialist Berlin that if the American Party, which he claimed held his
views on immigration, was not allowed to have its way, it would pay no
attention to the decision of the International Congress; though at the
very time he was threatening rebellion the decision of the recent
Congress showed that two-thirds of the American Party stood, not with
him, but with the International Movement. Should he be surprised if
Milwaukee aldermen, like himself, interpret Socialism as they see fit,
and forget that they are a part of a Socialist Party?
But while Mr. Berger and the present policies that are guiding American
"reformist" Socialists differ profoundly from those of the International
movement, and resemble in some ways the policies of the non-Socialist
reformers of Wisconsin and other States, in other respects there is a
difference. The labor policy of the collectivist reformers and of the
"reformist" Socialists might be expected to differ somewhat--not in what
is ordinarily called the labor legislation, _i.e._ factory reform,
workingmen's compensation, old age pensions, etc., but in their attitude
to labor organizations and the labor struggle: strikes, boycotts, and
injunctions.
Senator La Follette's followers are in the overwhelming majority
farmers; the Wisconsin "Social-Democrats," as they call themselves, have
secured little more than one per cent of the vote of the State outside
of Milwaukee and a few other towns, and even less in the country. On the
other hand, the majority of the workingmen of Milwaukee and several
other towns vote for the Socialists, while those who do not are usually
not followers of Senator La Follette, but Catholics and Democrats. The
Wisconsin "Insurgents" have as yet by no means taken the usual
capitalist position in the struggle between employers and labor unions,
but they have shown repeatedly that they are conscious that they
represent primarily the small property holders and the business
community generally, including the small shareholders of the "trusts."
_La Follette's Weekly_, in an important article defending direct
legislation and the recall, says that the reason "we, the people," do
not give enough attention to public measures is that "we are so busy
with our private affairs," and continues: "Indeed, our success in our
private enterprises, nay even equality of opportunity to engage in
private enterprises, is coming more and more to depend upon the measure
of protection which we may receive through our government from the
unjust encroachments of the power of centralized Big Business." These
"State Socialist" radicals represent primarily small business men and
independent farmers, who are often employers, and their friendship to
employees will necessarily have to be subordinated whenever the two
interests come into conflict.
Mr. Berger and the Wisconsin Social-Democrats on the other hand
represent primarily the workingmen of the cities, especially those who
are so fortunate as to be members of labor unions. The "Social
Democrats" appeal, however, for the votes of the farmers, of "the small
business man," and of "the large business men who are decent employers";
they announce that the rights of corporations will be protected under
their administrations, declare that they who "take the risks of
business" are entitled "to a fair return"; and have convinced many that
they are not for the present anti-capitalistic in their policy, though
they have not as yet succeeded in getting very much capitalistic
support.
For many years, indeed, the struggle between employers and unions has
been less acute in Milwaukee than in many other large cities, while
wages and conditions are on the whole no better. The Milwaukee
Socialists have repeatedly called the attention of employers to this
relative industrial peace and have attributed it to their influence,
much to the disgust of the more militant Socialists, who claim that
strikes are the only indication of a fighting spirit on the part of the
workers. Mr. Berger, for example, has explained "the rare occurrence of
strikes in Milwaukee" as being due largely to the Social-Democrats of
that city who, he says, "have opposed almost every strike that has been
declared here."[154]
Certainly the attitude of the Socialists towards the employers in one of
the largest industries, brewing, has on the whole been exceptionally
friendly, as evidenced among other things by the Socialists' appointment
of one of a leading brewery manager (who was not even a Socialist) as
debt commissioner of the city, and their active campaign for the brewing
interests, including a denunciation of county option, though this
measure has already been indorsed by both of the capitalistic parties
even in the liquor-producing State of Kentucky, as well as elsewhere,
and is favored by very many Socialists, not as a means of advancing
prohibition, but as the fairest present way of settling the controversy.
But even relative peace between capital and labor is not lasting in our
present society and it will scarcely last in Milwaukee. Already there
are signs of what is likely to happen, and the business-men admirers of
Milwaukee Socialism are beginning to drop away. A few more strikes, and
Berger and his associates may be forced to abandon completely their
claim that it is to the interest of employers, with some exceptions, to
elect Socialists to office.
The situation after a recent strike in Milwaukee is thus summed up by
the _New York Volkszeitung_, a great admirer, on the whole, of the
Milwaukee movement:--
"The new measures which are taken for the betterment of the city
transportation system, for the preparation of better residence
conditions and parks for the poorer classes of the people," says
the _Volkszeitung_, "did not much disturb Milwaukee's 'Best
Society.' Rather the opposite. For all these things did not at the
bottom harm their interests, but were, on the contrary, quite to
their taste, in so far as they rather increased than injured the
pleasure of their own lives.
"But at last what had to happen, did happen. The moment a great
conflict between capital and labor broke out in the great community
of Milwaukee, the caliber of the city administration was bound to
show itself....
"The prohibition which Mayor Seidel issued to the police, not to
interfere for either side, his grounds and those of the city
council's presiding officer, Comrade Melms, their instructions to
the striking 'garment workers' how they should conduct the strike
in order to win a victory, the admonition that they might safely
call a scab a scab without official interference--all this is of
decisive importance, not only for its momentary effect on the
Milwaukee strike, but especially for the Socialist propaganda, for
the demonstration of the tremendous advantage the working people
can get even at the present moment by the election of Socialist
candidates....
"And now it is all over with the half well-disposed attitude that
had been assumed towards our comrades in the city administration.
With burning words the capitalistic and commercial authorities
protest against these official expressions, as being likely to
disturb 'law and order' and as having the object of stirring up the
class struggle and of undermining respect for the law.
"That came about which must come about, if our Milwaukee comrades
did their duty. And they have done it, at the right moment, and
without hesitation. And this must never be forgotten. But the real
battle between them and their capitalist opponent _begins now for
the first time_."
Here is the keynote of the situation. Only as more and more serious
strikes occur will the Milwaukee movement be forced to emphasize its
labor unionism rather than its reforms. It will then, in all
probability, be forced to take up an aggressive labor-union attitude
like that of the non-Socialist Labor Party in San Francisco. One action
at least of Mayor McCarthy in the latter city was decidedly more
threatening to the local employing interests than any taken in
Milwaukee, which after all had met the approval of one of the
capitalistic papers (_i.e._ the _Free Press_). The Bulletin of the
United Garment Workers, though grateful for the attitude of the mayor in
their Milwaukee strike, uses language just as laudatory concerning this
action of the anti-Socialist Labor mayor of San Francisco.[155]
The "reformist" Socialists lay much stress upon their loyalty to
existing labor unions. Some even favor the creation of a non-Socialist
Labor Party, more or less like those of San Francisco or Australia or
Great Britain. Indeed, the reformists have often acknowledged their
close kinship with the semi-Socialist wing of the British Labour Party,
and this relationship is recognized by the latter. All Socialists will
agree that even the reformists, as a rule, represent the interests of
the labor-union movement better than other parties; but the Socialist
Party is vastly more than a mere reformist trade-union party, and most
Socialists feel that to reduce it to this rôle would be to deprive it of
the larger part of its power even to help the unions.
In the statement of Mr. Debs already quoted in part in this chapter, he
also expresses the opposition of the Socialist majority to converting
the organization into a mere trade-union Party:--
"There is a disposition on the part of some to join hands with
reactionary trade unionists in local emergencies and in certain
temporary situations to effect some specific purpose, which may or
may not be in harmony with our revolutionary program. No possible
good can come of any kind of a political alliance, expressed or
implied, with trade unions or the leaders of trade unions who are
opposed to Socialism and only turn to it for use in some extremity,
the fruit of their own reactionary policy.
"Of course we want the support of trade unionists, but only of
those who believe in Socialism and are ready to vote and work with
us for the overthrow of capitalism."
It would seem from the expressions of Milwaukee Socialists that they, in
direct opposition to the policy of Mr. Debs, are working by opportunist
methods towards a trade union party, and that form of collectivism
advocated by the Labor Parties of Great Britain and Australia. But they
have been in power now in Milwaukee for nearly two years and have had a
strong contingent in the Wisconsin legislature, while their
representative in Congress has had time to define his attitude in a
series of bills and resolutions. We are in a position, then, to judge
their policy not by their words alone, but also by their acts.
Let us first examine their municipal policy. This assumes special
importance since the installation of Socialist officials in Berkeley
(California), Butte (Montana), Flint (Michigan), several smaller towns
in Kansas, Illinois, and other States, as a result of the elections of
April, 1911. To these victories have recently been added others (in
November, 1911) in Schenectady (New York), Lima and Lorain (Ohio),
Newcastle (Pennsylvania), besides very large votes or the election of
minor officials in many places in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Illinois,
Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Utah, California,
and other States.
While the officials elected received in nearly every case only a
plurality (this is true also of most of those elected in Milwaukee), and
local or temporary issues existed in many instances, which caused the
Socialist Party to be used largely for purposes of protest, a part of
the vote was undoubtedly cast for a type of municipal reform somewhat
more radical than other parties have, as a rule, been ready to offer in
this country; up to the present time, at least, a considerable part of
the vote is undoubtedly to be accredited to convinced Socialists.
Milwaukee being as yet the only important example of an important
American municipality that has rested in Socialist hands for any
considerable period, I shall confine myself largely to the discussion of
the movement in that city. Some of those already in office in other
places have, moreover, taken the Milwaukee policy as their model and
announced their intention to follow it. Mayor Seidel's statement after a
year in office, and the explanations of the Rev. Carl Thompson (the city
clerk) made about the same time, cover the essential points for the
present discussion.
Both the statement of the mayor and that of the city clerk are concerned
with matters that interest primarily the business man and taxpayer. Mr.
Thompson disclaims that there is anything essentially new even in the
Socialists' plans, to say nothing of their performances. He says of the
most discussed municipal projects under consideration by the Socialist
administration that all were advocated either by former administrations,
by one or both of the older parties or by some of their leading members.
He mentions the proposed river park, railway terminal station, and
electric lighting plans, as well as home rule for Milwaukee, as being
all strictly conservative projects (as they are). Other plans mentioned
by Mayor Seidel--harbor improvements, playgrounds, a sterilization
plant, and isolation hospital--are approved, if not by the conservatives
of Milwaukee, at least by those of many other cities. Some minor and
less expensive proposals, a child welfare commission, a board of
recreation, and municipal dances are somewhat more novel. These are all
the social reforms mentioned by the mayor, as planned or accomplished,
with the exception of those that have to do primarily with efficiency or
economy in municipal administration, such as improvement in street
cleaning, sanitary inspection and inspection of weights and measures,
which all conservative reform administration seek to bring about; many
cities, especially abroad, having been eminently successful in this
direction.
To secure the political support of taxpayers and business men, further
evidence was required to show that the administration is neither doing
nor likely to do anything unprecedented. They want a safe and sane
business policy, and assurances that new sources of income will, if
possible, be secured and applied to the reduction of taxation; or that,
in case taxes are raised, municipal reforms will so improve business and
rental values, as to bring into their pockets more than the increased
taxation has cost them.
Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson presented entirely satisfactory
evidences on all these points. Business methods have been introduced, a
"complete inventory" of the property of the city is being made, "blanket
appropriations" are done away with, "a new system of voucher bills has
been installed," all the departments are being brought on "a uniform
accounting basis." Finally, taxable property is being listed that was
formerly overlooked, and the city is more careful in settling financial
claims against it. Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson both promise
that taxes will not be increased; the former points to the new resources
from property that had escaped taxation and to the future rise in value
of land the city intends to purchase, the latter refers to
"revenue-producing enterprises which will relieve the burden of taxation
rather than increase it." Neither goes so far as to suggest any plan,
like the present law of Great Britain, introduced by a capitalist
government, according to which not only are the taxes of the wealthy
raised, but one fifth of the future increase of value of city lands, as
being due to the community, accrues to the public treasury. It is true
that such measures would have to be approved by the State of Wisconsin,
but this would not prevent them being made the one prominent issue in
the city campaign, and insistently demanded until they are obtained. The
mayor's attitude on this tax question, which underlies all others, far
from being Socialistic, is not even radical.
The tendency seems to have been widespread in the municipal
campaigns undertaken by the Socialists in the fall of 1911, to
abandon even radical, though capitalistic, municipal reformers'
policy of raising new taxes to pay for reforms that bring modest
benefits to the workers, but chiefly raise realty values and
promote the interests of "business," and to substitute for this the
conservative policy of reducing taxes. Thus the _Bridgeport
Socialist_ advised the voters:--
"Municipal ownership means cheaper water, cheaper light, cheaper
gas, cheaper electricity, and a steady revenue into the city
treasury _which would reduce taxes_." (Italics mine.)[156]
One might infer that the masses of Bridgeport were already
sufficiently supplied with schools, parks, and all the free
services a municipality can give.
Of course it is true that a considerable part of the wage earners
in our small cities own their own homes (subject often to heavy
mortgages) and, _other things remaining as they are_, would like to
have taxes reduced. But two facts are indisputable: the average
taxes paid by the wage earners are insignificant compared with
those of the wealthier classes, and the wage earner gets, at first
at least, an equal share in the benefits of most municipal
expenditures. The Socialists know that most of the economic
benefits are later absorbed by increasing rents; and that
capitalist judges and State governments will see to it that only
such expenditures are allowed as have this result, or such as have
the effect, through improving efficiency, of increasing profits
faster than wages. Socialists recognize, however, that at least
municipal collectivism is in the line of capitalist progress, with
some incidental benefits to labor, while the policy of decreasing
taxes on the unearned increment of land is nothing less than
reaction.
The only popular ground on which such a policy could be defended is
the fallacy that landlords transmit to tenants the fluctuations in
taxes, in the form of increased or diminished rents. Even if this
were true, the tenants would be as likely as not to profit by
enlarged municipal expenditures (_i.e._ in spite of paying for a
_minor_ part of their cost). But in the large cities, as a matter
of fact, 90 per cent of the wage earners, who are tenants, and not
home owners, do not feel these fluctuations at all. Increased land
taxes do not as a rule cause an increase in average rents.
Increased land taxes force unimproved land upon the market, and
compel its improvement, to escape loss in holding it unimproved and
idle. The resulting increased competition for tenants operates on
the average to _reduce_ rents, not to increase them. The taxes are
paid at the cost of _reduced profits_ for the landlord--until
population begins to increase more rapidly than taxes. The
capitalist leaders perceive the truth as regards this plainly
enough. Thus, in their anxiety to get both landlord and capitalist
support in the last municipal campaign in New York City, various
allied real estate interests claimed credit for their work in
keeping taxes down. Commenting upon the subject, the _New York
Times_ said: "Rents do not rise with taxes. If they did, the owner
would merely need to pass the taxes along to the renter and be rid
of the subject."[157] The next day Mayor Gaynor in a letter to the
_Times_ quoted a message he had sent to the city council in the
previous year in which he had said: "Every landlord knows that he
cannot add the taxes to rents. If he could, he would not care how
high taxes grew. He would simply throw them on his tenants."
It is difficult, therefore, to see why the tenants of New York City
or Bridgeport should favor lower taxes, so long as they and their
children are in need of further public advantages that increased
taxes would enable the municipalities to supply. To favor reduced
taxes, while private ownership of land prevails, is not Socialism,
or even progressive capitalism. It is, as I have said, _reaction_.
The _New York Volkszeitung_ expresses in a few words the correct
Socialist attitude on municipal expenditures. After showing the need of
more money for schools, hygienic measures, etc., it concludes:--
"These increased expenditures of municipalities are thus absolutely
necessary if a Socialist city government is to fulfill its tasks.
Since the municipal expenditures must be raised through taxation,
it is evident that a good Socialist city government must raise the
taxes if it is up to the level of its duties. Provided that--as
just remarked--the raising of the taxes is so managed that the
possessing classes are hit by it and not the poor and the
workingmen.
"Most of the Socialist municipal administrations have been
shattered hitherto by the tax question; that has been especially
evident in France, where the Socialists lost the towns captured by
them because their administration appeared to be more costly than
those of their capitalist predecessors. That has happened
especially wherever the small capitalist element played a rôle in
the Socialist movement.
"We shall undoubtedly have this experience in America, also, if we
do not make it clear to the masses of workingmen that good city
government for them means a more expensive city government, and
that they are interested in this increase of the cost of the city
administration."[158]
If the Socialists promise much and perform comparatively little, they
have as a valid reason the fact that the city does not have the
authority. But opponents can also say, as does the Milwaukee _Journal_,
that "the administration would not dare to carry out its promises to
engage in municipal Socialism if it had the authority." For while
municipal "Socialism" or public ownership is perfectly good capitalism,
it is not always good politics in a community where the small taxpayers
dominate.
While the plans for municipal wood and coal yards and plumbing shops
were doubtless abandoned in Milwaukee by reason of legal limitations,
and not merely to please the small traders, as some have contended, no
Socialist reason can be given for the practical abandonment years ago of
the proposed plan for municipal ownership of street railways. If the
charter prohibited such an important measure as this, all efforts should
have been concentrated on changing the charter. Socialists do not
usually allow their world-wide policy, or even their present demands to
be shaped by a city charter.
If Mr. Berger had announced earlier and more clearly, and if he had
repeated with sufficient frequency, his recent declaration that
_Milwaukee is administered by Socialists but does not have a Socialist
administration_, he would have avoided a world of misunderstanding. In
fact, if he had enunciated this principle with sufficient emphasis
before the municipal election of 1910, it is highly probable that the
Socialists would not yet have won the city, and would never have felt
obligated to claim, as they often do now, that Socialists, who must
direct part of their energies towards future results, are more efficient
as practical reformers than non-Socialists, who are ready to sacrifice
every ultimate principle, if they have any, for immediate achievements.
The whole question between reformists and revolutionaries refers not so
much to the policy of Socialists in control of municipalities, which is
often beyond criticism, as to the value of municipal activity generally
for Socialist purposes. None deny that it has value, but reformists and
revolutionaries ascribe to it different rôles.
There are two reasons why Socialism _cannot_ yet be applied on a
municipal scale--one economic and one political. I do not refer here, of
course, to municipal ownership, often called "municipal Socialism," a
typical manifestation of "State Socialism," but to a policy that
attempts to make use of the municipality against the capitalist class.
Such a policy is economically impossible to-day because it would
gradually drive capital to other cities and so indirectly injure the
whole population including the non-capitalists. Indeed, Mayor Seidel
especially denies that he will allow any "hardship on capital," and City
Clerk Thompson gives nearly a newspaper column of statistics to show
that "the business of Milwaukee has continued to expand" since the
Socialists came into power, remarking that "there have been no serious
strikes or labor troubles in Milwaukee for years"--surely a condition
which employers will appreciate. Nothing could prove more finally than
such statements, how municipal governments at present feel bound to
serve the business interests.
The political limitations of the situation are similar. Prof. Anton
Menger says of Socialism as applied to municipalities, that "it is
necessarily deferred to the time when the Socialist party will be strong
enough to take into its hands the political power in the whole state or
the larger part of it." It is obviously impossible to force the hands of
an intelligent ruling majority merely by capturing one branch or one
local division of the government. As such branches are captured they
will be prevented from doing anything of importance, or forced to act
only within the limits fixed by the ruling class.
This is especially true in the United States. We have elaborate forms
and external symbols of local self-government, and it may really
exist--as long as the municipalities are used for capitalistic purposes.
When it is proposed to use local self-government for Socialist ends,
however, it instantly disappears. Not only do the States interfere, with
the national government ready behind them, but the centralized
judiciary, state and national, is always at hand to intervene. _This is
potential centralization, and for the purposes of preventing radical or
Socialist measures the government of the United States is as centralized
as that of any civilized nation on earth._
Moreover, the semblance of local power given by municipal victories
brings a second difficulty to the Socialists--it means the election of
administrators and judges. Now even under the system of potential
centralization through the courts, _legislators_ are useful, for they
cannot be forced to serve capitalism. But government must be carried on
and mayors and judges are practically under the control of higher
authorities--in the new commission plan of government, they even do the
legislating. In the words of the _New York Daily Call_:--
"The Socialist Legislator finds his task a comparatively easy and
simple one. He proposes or supports every measure of advantage to
the working class in particular and to the great majority of the
people in general, barring such as are of a reactionary character.
But the Socialist executive and the Socialist judge find themselves
in no such simple situation. Their activities are circumscribed by
superior and hostile powers, and by written constitutions adopted
at the dictation of the capitalist class. How to harmonize their
activities with the just demands of the working class for the
immediate betterment of its conditions, as well as with the
Socialist program which has for its goal the ultimate overthrow of
the capitalist social order, and yet not come into such conflict
with the superior and hostile powers as would result in their own
removal from office--this question is bound to assume a gravity not
yet perhaps dreamed of by the majority of American Socialists.
"And yet even now, while our political power is still small, the
charge of opportunism, or the neglect of principle in pursuit of
some practical advantage, is continually being raised, sometimes
justly, sometimes unjustly."
The following from the _New York Evening Post_, illustrates both the
political and the economic difficulty of enacting Socialistic or even
radical measures in municipalities. It is taken from a special article
on the situation in Schenectady, where a Socialist, Dr. George R. Lunn
had just been elected mayor:--
"Schenectady is trying hard to take its dose of Socialism
philosophically. Its most staid and respectable citizens, who have
been staid and respectable Republicans and Democrats all their
life, console themselves with the thought that, after all, Old Dorp
is Old Dorp--Old Dorp being the affectionate way of referring to
Schenectady--and that her best citizens are still her best
citizens, and that Rev. George R. Lunn and all his Socialist crew
can't do a great amount of harm in two years to a city that
possesses such an ironclad charter as that with which Horace White,
when he was a Senator, endowed every city of the second class in
the Empire State. The conservative element in town back that
charter against all the reforms that the minister who is to be
mayor and his following of machinists, plumbers, coachmen, and
armature winders from the General Electric Works, who are going to
be common councillors and other things, can hope to introduce....
"The General Electric works--as everybody agrees--'made'
Schenectady. Census figures show it and statistics of one sort or
another show it. The concern employs more than 16,000 men and
women--as many persons as there are voters in the whole town. It
owns 275 acres of land, and of this about 60 acres are occupied
with shops and buildings. Its capital stock is valued at
$80,000,000. The General Electric, or as it is called up here, the
'G. E.,' has given work to thousands, has brought a lot of business
into town, has made real estate in hitherto deserted districts
valuable. On the tax assessors' books its property is assessed at
$4,500,000. It is safe to say that this is less than 25 per cent of
its true value.
"If Dr. Lunn should attempt to meddle with the 'G. E.'s'
assessment, Schenectady knows very well what would happen. The
General Electric Company would pack up and move away to some other
town that is pining for a nice big factory and does not care much
how small taxes it pays. That is the situation. Of course everybody
agrees that the company ought to be paying more, but when it comes
to a question of leaving well enough alone or losing the company
entirely, Schenectady says leave well enough alone, by all means.
The loss of the 'G. E.' works would be a disaster, from which the
Old Dorp would never recover. Why, even now the company has just
opened a brand new plant in Erie, Philadelphia, and if Schenectady
does not behave, what is to prevent the 'G. E.' from moving all its
belongings to Erie?
"Dr. Lunn has not had much to say regarding this phase of his
taxation reforms. The day after his election he issued a statement,
however, which showed that he did not intend to do anything
extremely radical:--
"'In the matter of taxation we have had something to say during the
campaign, but we Socialists are too good economists not to know
that the burdening of our local industries in the way of taxation
above that placed upon them in other cities would be foolhardy.
Under the present system, to which we are opposed, manufacturing
concerns have their rights, and any special burden placed upon them
by one community above that which is placed upon them in other
communities would inevitably and of necessity, from the standpoint
of economics, hinder their progress. We are not in favor of
hindering their progress. We stand for the greatest progress along
every line. We will not only encourage industries in every way
consistent with our principles, but will endeavor to bring new
industries to Schenectady, and furthermore, we will succeed in
doing it.'"[159]
The newly elected mayor is quoted by _Collier's Weekly_, as saying: "We
are only trying to conduct the city's business in the same honest way
we should run our own business." _Collier's_ says that the Socialists
generally "make their impression by mere business honesty and
efficiency," distinguishes this from what it calls the "harmful kind of
Socialism," and concludes that, "watching the actual performances of
those who choose to call themselves Socialists, we are thus far unable
to be filled with terror."[160]
Nearly all the comment at the time of the Socialist municipal victories
in the fall of 1911 pointed out, in similar terms, the contrast between
the very restricted opportunities they offer for the revolutionary
program of Socialism. The editorial in the _Saturday Evening Post_ is
typical:--
"Theoretically Socialism is the most ambitious of political
programs, involving nothing short of a whole-nation-wide or
world-wide revolution; but, except a solitary Congressman and
seventeen members of State legislatures, Socialists so far have
been elected only to local offices, and those usually of an
_administrative_ rather than legislative nature--elected, that is,
not to bring in a brand-new, all-embracing revolutionary program,
but to work the lumbering old bourgeois machine in a little
honester, more intelligent, kindlier manner perhaps than some
Republican or Democrat would work it.
"Designing a new world is more fascinating than scrubbing off some
small particular dirt spot on the old one--but less practical." (My
italics.)[161]
Even where _revolutionary_ Socialists carry a municipality, as they did
recently in Newcastle, Pennsylvania, the benefit to the labor movement
is probably only temporary. There the Socialist administration dismissed
the whole police force and filled their places with Socialists. The
result will undoubtedly be that the State will either make the police
irremovable, except by some complicated process, or will still further
extend the functions of the State constabulary in times of strike. The
moral effect of the victory in Newcastle, like that in Schenectady,
after the bitter labor struggles of recent years, cannot be questioned,
and this, together with temporary relief from petty persecution by local
authorities, is doubtless worth all the efforts that have been put
forth--provided the Socialists have not promised themselves and their
supporters any larger or more lasting results.
It is in view of difficulties such as these, which exist to some degree
in all countries, that in proportion as Socialists gain experience in
municipal action, they subordinate it to other forms of activity. Only
such "reformists" as are ready to abandon the last vestiges of their
Socialism persist in emphasizing a form of action that has a constant
tendency to compel all those involved to give more and more of their
time and energy to serving capitalism. Among the first Socialist
municipalities were those of Lille and Roubaix in France--which fell a
number of years ago into the hands of Guesdists, the revolutionary or
orthodox wing of the party. Rappoport reports their present position on
this question as presented at the recent Congress at St. Quentin, 1911.
"Among the Guesdists there are no municipal theorists but a great many
practical municipal men, former or present mayors: Delory (Lille), Paul
Constans (Montucon), Compère-Morel, Hubert (Nîmes), only to mention
those present at the Congress. _Through experience they have learned
that what is called municipal Socialism, is good local government, but
in no sense Socialism._ Free meals for school children, weekly subsidies
for child-bearing women, etc., are useful to the working people; this is
not Socialism, but 'collective philanthropy' according to Compère-Morel.
Reforms are good, but the main thing is Socialism. The Guesdists are no
adherents of the doctrine, 'all or nothing,' but they are also no
admirers of the new doctrine of municipal Socialism."
There can be little doubt that a few years of experience in this country
will persuade those American Socialists who are now concentrating so
much of their attention on municipalities, to give more of their
energies to State legislatures and to Congress. The present efforts will
not be lost, as they can be easily turned into a new direction. And
whatever political reaction may seem to take place, after certain
illusions have been shattered, will be a seeming reaction only, and due
to the desertion from the ranks of the supporters of the Socialist
ticket of municipal reformers who never pretended to be Socialists, but
who voted for that Party merely because no equally reliable
non-Socialist reformers were in the field, or had so good a chance of
election. Such separation of the sheep from the goats will be specially
rapid when some variation of the so-called commission form of government
will have been gradually introduced, particularly where it is
accompanied by direct legislation and the recall. For then municipal
Socialists will be deprived of all opportunity of claiming this, that,
and the other reform as having some peculiar relation to Socialism. And
this day is near at hand.
All municipal reforms that interest property owners and non-property
owners alike will then be enacted with comparative ease and rapidity,
while all political parties, and all prolonged political struggles, will
center around the conflict between employers and employees. State and
national governments will see to it that no municipality in the hands of
the working class is allowed to retain any power that it could use to
injure or weaken capitalism. And this specific limitation of the powers
of municipalities that escape local capitalist control, will be so
frequent and open that all the world will see that Socialists are going
to achieve comparatively little by "capturing" local offices.
I have already mentioned in a general way the position of the Milwaukee
Socialists in the Wisconsin legislature. Let me return now to their
representative in Congress. Mr. Berger had differentiated himself from
previous trade union Congressmen largely by proposing a series of
radical _political_ reforms: the abolition of the Senate, of the
President's veto, and of the power of the Supreme Court over the
legislation of Congress, and a call for a national constitutional
convention. Radical as they are, it is probable that these reforms are
only a foreshadowing of the position rapidly being assumed by a large
part of the collectivist but anti-Socialist "insurgents," and
"progressives." Even Mr. Roosevelt and Justice Harlan, it will be
recalled, protest in the strongest terms against the power of the
Supreme Court over legislation, and the Wisconsin legislature, by no
means under Socialist control, has initiated a call for a national
constitutional convention.
In proposing his "old-age pension" bill, Mr. Berger appended a clause
which asserted that the measure should not be subject to the
interpretation of the Supreme Court, and showed that Congress had added
a similar clause to its Reconstruction Act in 1868 and that it had later
been recognized by the Supreme Court. Later the _Outlook_ suggested that
this was a remedy less radical than the widely popular recall of judges,
and remarked that it would only be to follow the constitution of most
other countries.[162] Also Senator Owen, on the same day on which Mr.
Berger introduced his bill, spoke for the recall of federal judges on
the floor of the United States Senate. It is impossible, then, to make
any important distinction between Mr. Berger's proposed _political_
reforms, sweeping as they are, and those of other radicals of the day.
The attitude of many of the "Insurgents" and "Progressives" of the
West, is also about all that mere trade unionists could ask for. A large
majority of this element in both parties favors the repeal of the
Sherman law as applied to labor union boycotts, and Senator La Follette
and others stand even for the right of government employees to organize
labor unions. The adoption of the recall of judges, owing largely to
non-Socialist efforts in Oregon, California, and Arizona, will make
anti-union injunctions in strikes and boycotts improbable in the courts
of those States, and the widely accepted proposal for the direct
election of the federal judiciary would have a similar effect in the
federal courts. It may be many years before these measures become
general or effective, but there can be no question that they are
demanded by a large, sincere, and well-organized body of opinion outside
of the Socialist Party. The Wisconsin legislature and most other
progressive bodies have so far failed to limit injunctions. But this has
been done in the constitution of Oklahoma, and I have suggested reasons
for believing that this prohibition may soon be favored by
"Progressives" generally.
In the first Socialist speech ever made in Congress, Mr. Berger laid
bare his economic philosophy and program. The subject was the reduction
of the tariff on wool and its manufactures, and Mr. Berger defined his
position on the tariff as well as still larger issues. He declared
himself practically a free trader, though of course he did not consider
free trade as a panacea, and his speech, according to the Socialist as
well as other reports, was received with a storm of
applause--especially, of course, from free-trade Democrats.
He pointed out that the manufacturer, having thoroughly mastered the
home market, had found that tariff wars were shutting him out from the
foreign markets he now needs. He might have added, as evidenced by the
nature of the proposed reciprocity treaty with Canada, that many
manufacturers are more interested in cheap raw material and cheap food
for their workers (cheap food making low wages possible, as in
free-trade Great Britain) than they are in a high tariff, and this even
in some instances where they have a certain need for protection for the
finished product and where no great export trade is in view.
Mr. Berger forgot England when he said that the tariff falls on the poor
man's head, for England has shown that the abolition of the tariff does
not benefit the poor man in the slightest degree. Poverty is far more
widespread there than here. He pointed to the fact that the importation
of goods into the United States was restricted, while that of labor was
not. He forgot that where both are restricted, as in Australia, the
workers are no better off than here.
The arguments employed in Mr. Berger's speech, in so far as they
referred to the tariff, were for the most part not to be distinguished
from those used by the Democrats in behalf of important capitalistic
elements of the population, and hence the welcome with which they were
received by the Democratic Congress and press. The Socialist matter in
the speech relating only indirectly to the tariff was, of course, less
favorably commented upon.
Mr. Berger's second speech before Congress was also significant. It was
in support of governmental old-age pensions, a very radical departure
for the United States and difficult of enactment because of our federal
system--but already, as Mr. Berger said, in force in Great Britain,
France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Since the legislatures in all these countries are controlled by
opponents of Socialism, it is evident that such measures have been
adopted from other than Socialist motives. In fact they have no
necessary relation to Socialism at all, but, on the contrary, have been
widely enacted for capitalistic reasons without regard to the demands or
power of the workers.
Mr. Berger is reported to have said a few days after this speech: "The
idea will in five years have been incorporated into law. Both of the old
parties within that time will have incorporated the theory into their
platforms. Both the old parties to-day are approaching Socialistic
ideas, and appropriating our ideas to save themselves from the coming
overthrow."[163] The idea of governmental old-age pensions, on the
contrary, has always been popular in certain anti-Socialist circles and
is entirely in accord with any intelligent system of purely capitalistic
collectivism. Its common adoption by progressive capitalists would seem
to indicate that they consider it as being either directly or indirectly
conducive to their own interests. It is unnecessary to assume that they
adopt it from fear of Socialism. Few if any capitalists consider the
overthrow of capitalism as imminent, or feel that Socialism is likely
for many years to furnish them with a really acute political problem. A
combination of Republicans and Democrats, for example, with a full vote,
would easily overwhelm Mr. Berger, the sole Socialist Congressman in
his own Congressional district. If present political successes continue,
it will still take years for Socialism to send a score of
representatives to Congress, and when it does do so, they will be as
impotent as ever to overthrow the capitalist order.
For any independent representative without political power or
responsibility to propose radical reforms in advance of the larger
parties is a very simple matter. Statesmen with actual power cannot
afford to take up such reforms until the time is _politically_ ripe for
their practical consideration. When such a measure is passed, for the
individual or group that first proposed it to claim the credit for the
change would be absurd. These reforms, when conditions have suitably
evolved, become the order of the day, and are urged by all or nearly all
the forces of the time. The radical British old-age pension bill, it
will be remembered, was passed almost unanimously, although in the
Parliament that passed it there were only about 40 Socialist or
semi-Socialist representatives out of a total of 670 members.
What, then, could be more fatuous than such a view as the following,
expressed recently by a well-known Socialist:--
"Do you not think that the whole country should be apprised that this
(Berger's Old-age Pension bill) is a Socialist measure, introduced by a
Socialist Representative, and backed by the Socialist Party--before the
Republicans and Democrats realize the advisability of stealing our
thunder. In England the working-class political movement is stagnant
because the Liberal Party has out-generaled the Socialists by
voluntarily enacting great social reforms."[164]
In his anxiety to prepare a bill that capitalist legislators would
indorse and pass in the near future, Mr. Berger aroused great criticism
within the Party. The _New York Volkszeitung_ pointed out that in
limiting the benefit of the law to those who had been naturalized
citizens of the United States for sixteen years, he was requiring a
residence of twenty-one years in this country, a provision which
involved an excessively heavy discrimination against a very large
proportion of our foreign-born workers. Mr. Berger's project, moreover,
demanded that those convicted of felonies should also be excluded.
Socialists, as is well known, have always asserted that the larger part
of crimes and criminals were due to injustices of the existing social
order, for which the "criminals" were in no sense to blame. Mr. Berger's
secretary, Mr. W. J. Ghent, vigorously defended this clause, on the
typical "State Socialist" ground that the future Society would deal
_more severely_ with criminals than the present one.
Mr. Berger's bill was objected to by New York Socialists on the ground
that the old parties could be expected to give a more liberal bill in
the near future, and that it would then be difficult to explain the
narrower Socialist position. Mr. Ghent answered that nowhere had such a
liberal measure been enacted. To this the _Volkszeitung_ remarked that
there is a tremendous difference between a bill that owes its origin to
a capitalist government and one that comes from a Socialist
representative of the working class: "The former sets up a minimum while
the latter must demand the maximum." Finally, the _New York Local_ of
the Socialist Party resolved: "That we request the National Executive
Committee to resolve that Comrade Berger shall, before introducing any
bill, submit it to secure its approval by the National Executive
Committee."
Mr. Berger's maiden speech also summed up excellently the general policy
of Socialist "reformism."
"When the white man is sick or when he dies," he said, "the employer
usually loses nothing." Mr. Berger does not understand that, in modern
countries, _employers as a class_ are seeing that the _laborers as a
class_ are, after all, their chief asset: and are therefore organizing
to care for them through governmental action, as working animals, even
more systematically and infinitely more scientifically than slaves were
ever cared for. He is exhausting his efforts to persuade, or perhaps he
would say to compel, the government to the very action that the
interests of its capitalist masters most strongly demand.
Curiously enough, Mr. Berger expressed the "reformist," the
revolutionary, and the State capitalist principle in this same speech,
without being in the least troubled with the contradictions. He spoke of
industrial crises, irregular employment and unemployment as if they were
permanent features of capitalism:--
"These new inventions, machines, improvements, and labor devices,
displace human labor and steadily increase the army of unemployed,
who, starved and frantic, are ever ready to take the places of
those who have work, thereby still further depressing the labor
market."
The collectivist capitalists have already set themselves aggressively
to work to abolish unemployment, to make employment regular, to connect
the worker that needs a job with the job that needs a worker, and to put
an end to industrial crises, and with every promise of success.
Immediately afterward, Mr. Berger made a correct statement of the
Socialist position:--
"The average of wages, the certainty of employment, the social
privileges, and the independence of the wage-earning and
agricultural population, _when compared with the increase of wealth
and social production_, are steadily and rapidly decreasing."
The Socialist indictment is not that unemployment, irregularity of
employment, or any other social evil is increasing absolutely, or that
it is beyond the reach of capitalist reform; but that _the share of the
constantly increasing total of wealth and prosperity that goes to the
laborers is constantly growing less_.
A few minutes later in the same speech, Mr. Berger indorsed pure "State
Socialism." Legislation, he said, that does not tend to _an increased
measure of control on the part of society as a whole_ is not in line
with the trend of economic evolution and cannot last. This formulates
capitalistic collectivism with absolute distinctness. What it demands is
not a new order, but more order. What it opposes is not so much the rule
of capitalists, as the disorder of capitalism--which capitalists
themselves are effectively remedying. It is not only our present
government that is capitalistic but our present society, also. Increased
control over industry, over legislation and government, on the part of
the present society _as a whole_, would be but a step toward the
achievement of _State capitalism_. The purpose of Socialism is to
overcome and eliminate the power of capitalism whether in society or in
government, and not to establish it more firmly. Increased control by
society as a whole, far from being a Socialist principle, is not
necessarily even radical or progressive. In fact _the most far-seeing
conservatives_ to-day demand it, for "_control by society as a whole_"
means, for the present, _control by society_ as it is.
Finally, in reply to questions asked on the floor of Congress after this
same speech, Mr. Berger said: "Any interference by the government with
the rights of private property is Socialistic in tendency," that is,
that every step in collectivism is a step in Socialism. Yet this demand
for the restriction of the rights of private property by a conservative
government is the identical principle advocated by progressives who will
have nothing to do with Socialism. (See Part I, Chapter III.)
Mr. Berger and the large minority of Socialist Party members that vote
with him in Party Congresses and referendums may be said to represent a
combination of trade unionism of the conservative kind, and "State
Socialism," together with opportunistic methods more or less in
contradiction with the usual tactics of the international movement.
These methods and the indiscriminate support of conservative unionism
have been repeatedly rejected by the Socialists in this country. But
very many Socialists who repudiate all compromise and will have nothing
of Australian or British Labor Party tactics in the United States are in
entire accord with Mr. Berger on "State Socialist" reform. It is thus a
modified form of "State Socialism" and not Laborism that now confronts
the organization and creates its greatest problem.
Mr. Charles Edward Russell, for example, says that "we are not striving
for ourselves alone, but for our children," that "our aim is not merely
for one country, but for all the world," that "we stand here immutably
resolved against the whole of capitalism."[165] And Mr. Russell will
hear nothing either of compromise or of a Labor Party. But when we come
to examine the only question of practical moment, how his ideal is to be
applied, we are astounded to read that, "every time a government
acquires a railroad, it practices Socialism."[166]