Even peaceful countries like Belgium and Switzerland, Great Britain,

and the United States, are developing and changing their military

systems so rapidly as to make it almost certain that they would take

similar measures if occasion should arise.

The agitation for universal conscription in England may succeed before

many years, and the plans for reorganizing the militia in the United

States will also make of it a force that can be far more useful in

breaking strikes than the present one, and more ready to be used in case

of a nation-wide strike crisis. Indeed, the Dick military law made every

possible provision for the use of the military in internal disturbances,

up to the point of enlisting every citizen and making a dictator of the

President.

Similar tendencies exist on the Continent of Europe. Formerly the

militia of Switzerland was quite democratically organized, and each man

kept his gun and ammunition at home, but the government is gradually

doing away with this system and modeling the army every year more

closely on that of the larger and less democratic European powers. In

Belgium a similar movement can be seen in the creation of a Citizens'

Guard, entirely for use at home and especially against strikers.

Here, then, is a situation to which every Socialist is forced to give

constant thought, no matter how peace-loving and law-abiding he may be.

What is there in modern systems of government to prevent these large

military forces already employed so successfully for the ominous

function of strike breaking, from being used for other reactionary and

tyrannical purposes--for putting an end to democratic government, when

it is attempted to apply it to property and industry? So everywhere

Socialists and labor unions are giving special attention to agitation

against militarism. Years ago even the most conservative unions began

forbidding their members to join the militia, and the practice has

become general, while the Boy Scout movement is everywhere denounced and

repudiated. Not only is every effort being made by the Socialists, in

connection with other democratic elements, to cut off the financial

supplies for the army and navy, but they also sought to inspire all the

youth, and particularly the children of the workers, with a spirit of

revolt against armies, war, and aggressive patriotism, as well as the

spirit of servile obedience, the ignorance, and the brutality that

invariably accompany them.[280]

For a number of years the fight against militarism, and incidentally

against possible wars, has occupied the chief attention of international

Socialist congresses. While the Stuttgart Congress (1907) did not accept

the proposal of the French delegates that in case of war an

international strike and insurrection should be declared, the closing

part of the resolution adopted was definitely intended to suggest such

action by rehearsing with approval the various cases where the working

people had already made steps in that direction, and by advising still

more revolutionary action in the future, as indicated in the words

italicized.

"The International," it said, "is unable to prescribe one set mode

of action to the working classes; this must of necessity be

different in different lands, varying with time and place. But it

is clearly its duty to encourage the working classes everywhere in

their opposition to militarism. As a matter of fact, since the last

International Congress, the working classes have adopted various

ways of fighting militarism, by refusing grants for military and

naval armaments, and by striving to organize armies on democratic

lines. They have been successful in preventing outbreaks of war, or

in putting an end to existing war, or the rumor of war. We may

mention the agreement entered into between the English and French

trade-unions after the Fashoda incident, for the purpose of

maintaining peace and for reëstablishing friendly relations between

England and France; the policy of the Social-Democratic parties in

the French and German Parliaments during the Morocco crisis, and

the peaceful declarations which the Socialists in both countries

sent each other; the common action of the Austrian and Italian

Socialists, gathered at Trieste, with a view to avoiding a conflict

between the two powers; the great efforts made by the Socialists of

Sweden to prevent an attack on Norway; and lastly, the heroic

sacrifices made by the Socialist workers and peasants of Russia and

Poland in the struggle against the war demon let loose by the Czar,

in their efforts to put an end to their ravages, and at the same

time _to utilize the crisis_ for the liberation of the country and

its workers.

"All efforts bear testimony to the growing power of the proletariat

and to its absolute determination to do all it can in order to

obtain peace. The action of the working classes in this direction

will be even more successful when public opinion is influenced to a

greater degree than at present, and _when the workingmen's parties

in different lands are directed and instructed by the

International_." And finally it was decided _to try to take

advantage of_ the profound disturbances caused by every war to

_hasten the abolition of capitalist rule_.

The International Congress of 1910 referred back to the Socialist

parties of the various countries for further consideration a resolution

proposed by the French and English delegates which declared: "Among the

means to be used in order to prevent and hinder war, the Congress

considers as particularly efficacious the general strike, especially in

the industries that supply war with its implements (arms and ammunition,

transport, etc.), as well as propaganda and popular action in their

active forms."

This resolution is now under discussion. In referring it to the national

parties, the International Socialist Bureau reminded them that the

practical measure the authors of the amendment had principally in view

was "the strike of workingmen who were employed in delivering war

material." The Germans opposed the resolution on the ground that a

strike of this kind, guarded against by the government, would have to

become general, and that during the martial law of war times it would

necessarily mean tremendous violence. They contended that a more

effective means of preventing war, _until the Socialists are stronger_,

is to vote down all taxes and appropriations for armies and navies. And

they accused the British Labourites who supported this resolution of

having failed to vote against war supplies, while the Germans and their

supporters had. This accusation was true, as against the British

Labourites, but did not apply against the French and other Socialists

who were for the resolution.

We can obtain a key to this situation only by examining the varying

motives of reformists and revolutionaries. The French reformists,

followers of Jaurès, are so anxious for peace, that, notwithstanding the

fact that many capitalists, probably a majority, now also favor it, they

are ready to have the working people make the most terrible sacrifices

for this semi-capitalistic purpose. (See Part II, Chapter V.) The

Germans realize that the capitalists themselves have more and more

reasons for avoiding wars, and, being satisfied with their present

political prospects, do not propose to risk them--or their necks--for

any such object. The French _revolutionaries_, on the other hand, favor

extreme measures, not to preserve a capitalistic peace, but to develop

the general strike, to paralyze armies, and encourage their

demoralization and dissolution. They want to parallel all plans for

mobilization by plans for insurrection, and to force armies to disclose

their true purpose, which they believe is not war at all, but the

arbitrary and violent suppression of popular movements.

Whether capitalism or Socialism puts an end to _war_, Socialists

generally are agreed their success may ultimately depend on their

ability to find some way to put a check to _militarism_. The chief means

by which this is likely to be accomplished, they believe, is by the

spread of Socialism and the education of youth and even of children in

the principles of international working-class solidarity, _always to put

the humanity as a whole above one's country_, always to despise and

revolt against all kinds of government by violence. Karl Liebknecht

remarks that "it is already recognized that every Social-Democrat

educates his children to be Social-Democrats." But he says that this is

not sufficient. Social-Democratic parents do their best, but the

Socialist public must aid them to do better. In other words, the

greatest hope for Socialism, in its campaign against militarism as in

all else it undertakes, lies in education.

The Socialist movement, even if it becomes some day capable of forcing

concessions from the capitalists through their fear of a social

overturn, depends first, last, and always upon its ability to teach and

to train and to organize the masses of the people to solve their own

problems without governmental or capitalistic aid, and to understand

that, in order to solve them successfully, they must be able to take

broad and far-sighted views of all the political and economic problems

of the time.

Especially Socialists undertake to enlighten the masses on the part

played by war in history and in recent times--not because wars are

necessarily impending, but because the war talk is an excuse for armies

that really serve another purpose. For Socialists believe that the rule

of society by economic classes, and rule by war or brute force, in the

Socialist view, are one and the same thing. No Socialist has expressed

this view more clearly or forcefully than Mr. George R. Kirkpatrick, in

his recent book, "War--What For?" Addressed to the heart as well as to

the head, and based upon all the most important of the previous attacks

on militarism war, whether Socialist or not, it may be doubted whether

any non-Socialist could have presented as powerful an argument. Mr.

Kirkpatrick gives the following interesting outline of the typical

Socialist view of the development of primitive warfare into modern

militarism and of slavery into the present industrial system (here

abbreviated):--

"For a long time in these intertribal wars it was the practice to

take no prisoners (except the younger women), but to kill, kill,

kill, because the conquerors had no use for the captive men. When,

however, society had developed industrially to a stage enabling the

victors to make use of live men as work animals, _that new

industrial condition produced a new idea_--one of the greatest and

most revolutionary ideas that ever flashed into the human brain;

and that idea was simply this: A live man is worth more than a dead

one, if you can make use of him as a _work animal_. When

industrially it became practicable for the conquerors to make use

of live men captured in war, it rapidly became the custom to take

prisoners, save them alive, beat them into submission--tame

them--and thus have them for work animals, human work animals.

"Here the human ox, yoked to the burdens of the world, started

through the centuries, centuries wet with tears and red with blood

and fire.

"Thus originated a _class_ of workers, the _working class_.

"Thus also originated the _ruling_ class. Thus originated the

'leading citizens.'

"Thus originally, in war, the workers fell into the bottomless gulf

of misery. It was thus that war opened wide the devouring jaws of

hell for the workers.

"Thus was human society long ago divided into industrial

classes--into _two_ industrial classes.

"Of course the interests of these two classes were in fundamental

conflict, and thus originated the class struggle.

"Of course the ruling class were in complete possession and control

of all the powers of government--and of course they had _sense

enough to use the powers of government to defend their own class

interests_.

"Of course the ruling class made all the laws and controlled all

institutions in the interests of the ruling class--naturally."[281]

With all other international and revolutionary Socialists, Mr.

Kirkpatrick believes that when the masses are educated to see the truth

of this view and have learned the true nature of modern industry, class

government, and armies, they will put an end to them. He concludes:--

"The working class men _inside_ and _outside_ the _army_ are

confused.

"They do not understand.

"But they will understand.

"AND WHEN THEY DO UNDERSTAND, their class loyalty and class pride

will astonish the world. They will stand erect in their vast class

strength and defend--THEMSELVES. They will cease to coax and tease;

they will make _demands_--unitedly. They will desert the armory;

they will spike every cannon on earth; they will scorn the

commander; they will never club nor bayonet another striker; and

in the legislatures of the world they will shear the fatted

parasites from the political and industrial body of society."[282]

Here we have both the Socialist point of view and a glimpse of the

passionate feeling that accompanies it. "War--What For?" has been

circulated by scores of thousands among the working people and in the

army and navy.

In countries like America and England, where there is no compulsory

service, the practical objective of such agitation is to prevent

enlistment. In France, Belgium, and Italy, where there is compulsory

service, the Socialists for years have been preaching openly desertion

and insubordination.

Complaint against this anti-military propaganda is general in United

States army and navy circles. Recently a general in Southern California

was said by the press to have reported to Washington that the

distribution of one circular had dissuaded many men from joining the

army. The circular, which was published, was attributed, whether rightly

or not we do not know, to Jack London. It ran in part:--

"Young men, the lowest aim in your life is to be a soldier. The

good soldier never tries to distinguish right from wrong. He never

thinks; he never reasons; he only obeys. If he is ordered to fire

on his fellow citizens, on his friends, on his neighbors, on his

relatives, he obeys without hesitation. If he is ordered to fire

down a crowded street when the poor are clamoring for bread, he

obeys, and sees the gray hair of age stained with blood and the

life tide gushing from the breast of women, feeling neither remorse

nor sympathy. If he is ordered off as one of a firing squad to

execute a hero or benefactor, he fires without hesitation, though

he knows that the bullet will pierce the noblest heart that ever

beat in a human breast.

"A good soldier is a blind, heartless, soulless, murderous machine.

He is not a man. He is not even a brute, for brutes only kill in

self-defense. All that is human in him, all that is divine in him,

all that constitutes the man, has been sworn away when he took the

enlistment roll. His mind, conscience, aye, his very soul, is in

the keeping of his officer."

This language will appeal to many as extremely violent, yet it is no

stronger than that of Tolstoi, while Bernard Shaw used almost identical

expressions in his Preface to "John Bull's Other Island," without

anybody suggesting that they were treasonable.

"The soldier," said Shaw, "is an anachronism of which we must get

rid. Among people who are proof against the suggestions of romantic

fiction there can no longer be any question of the fact that

military service produces moral imbecility, ferocity, and

cowardice.... For permanent work the soldier is worse than useless;

such efficiency as he has is the result of dehumanization and

disablement. His whole training tends to make him a weakling. He

has the easiest of lives; he has no freedom and no responsibility.

He is politically and socially a child, with rations instead of

rights, treated like a child, punished like a child, dressed

prettily and washed and combed like a child, excused for outbreaks

like a child, forbidden to marry like a child, and called Tommy

like a child. He has no real work to keep him from going mad except

housemaid's work."

Mr. Shaw's words are identical with those that are preached by

Socialists every day, especially on the Continent.

"No soldier is asked to think for himself," he says, "to judge for

himself, to consult his own honor and manhood, to dread any

consequence except the consequence of punishment to his own person.

The rules are plain and simple; the ceremonies of respect and

submission are as easy and mechanical as a prayer wheel, the orders

are always to be obeyed thoughtlessly, however inept or

dishonorable they may be.... No doubt this weakness is just what

the military system aims at, its ideal soldier being, not a

complete man, but a docile unit or cannon fodder which can be

trusted to respond promptly and certainly to the external stimulus

of a shouted order, and is intimidated to the pitch of being afraid

to run away from a battle."

Nor is Mr. Shaw less sparing to the officer, and he represents in this

case also the most unanimous Socialist view:--

"If he [the officer] calls his men dogs," says Shaw, "and perverts

a musketry drill order to make them kneel to him as an act of

personal humiliation, and thereby provokes a mutiny among men not

yet thoroughly broken in to the abjectness of the military

condition, he is not, as might be expected, shot, but, at the

worst, reprimanded, whilst the leader of the mutiny, instead of

getting the Victoria Cross and a public testimonial, is condemned

to five years' penal servitude by Lynch Law (technically called

martial law) administered by a trade union of officers."

Like all Socialists, Mr. Shaw recognizes that the evils of militarism

rest even more heavily on subject peoples than on the soldiers,

citizens, or taxpayers of the dominating races. He says of the officer

he has been describing, who is humane and intelligent in civil life,

that in his military capacity he will frantically declare that "he dare

not walk about in a foreign country unless every crime of violence

against an Englishman in uniform is punished by the bombardment and

destruction of a whole village, or the wholesale flogging and execution

of every native in the neighborhood; and also that unless he and his

fellow officers have power, without the intervention of a jury, to

punish the slightest self-assertion or hesitation to obey orders,

however grossly insulting or disastrous those orders may be, with

sentences which are reserved in civil life for the worst crimes, he

cannot secure the obedience and respect of his men, and the country

would accordingly lose all of its colonies and dependencies, and be

helplessly conquered in the German invasion which he confidently expects

to occur in the course of a fortnight or so."

"That is to say," Mr. Shaw continues, "in so far as he is an

ordinary gentleman he behaves sensibly and courageously; and in so

far as he is a military man he gives way without shame to the

grossest folly, cruelty, and poltroonery. If any other profession

in the world had been stained by those vices and by false witness,

forgery, swindling, torture, compulsion of men's families to attend

their executions, digging up and mutilation of dead enemies, all of

which is only added to the devastation proper to its own business,

as the military profession has been within recent memory in

England, France, and the United States of America (to mention no

other countries), it would be very difficult to induce men of

capacity and character to enter it. And in England, it is, in fact,

largely dependent for its recruits on the refuse of industrial

life, and for its officers on the aristocratic and plutocratic

refuse of political and diplomatic life, who join the army and pay

for their positions in the more or less fashionable clubs which the

regimental messes provide them with--clubs, which, by the way,

occasionally figure in ragging scandals as circles of extremely

coarse moral character."[283]

It is not surprising that those who view armies in this light preach

desertion and insubordination. A recent cable dispatch sums up some of

the results of the activity in this direction of the French Federation

of Labor with its million members, and of the Socialist Party with its

still larger following:--

"Last year there were 13,500 desertions and 53,000 who refused to

answer their call to military service. Loss to France in 1910, two

army corps. These figures are given by _La France Militaire_, a

soldiers' newspaper. In a fund called '_le sou du soldat et des

insoumis_,' the idea was to develop antimilitarism and

antipatriotism. Five per cent, on the subscriptions of the

workmen, belonging to the labor unions, was ordered to be set apart

for this fund. The conscripts before departing were requested to

leave the name of their regiment and their number so that sums of

money might be sent to them for antimilitary propaganda in the

barracks. For eight years that sort of thing has been going on, but

things never reached to the extent they do now.

"'The comrades of the workshop count on them to spread among those

around ideas of revolt and rebellion,' is an extract from a letter

read by M. Georges Berry in Parliament, and he added that he had a

score of such letters emanating from the unions. In M. Jaurès's

organ, _L Humanité_, there appeared an article on December 22,

1910, inviting all the conscripts of the Labor Federation to send

in their names so that financial aid might be sent to help them in

organizing 'insubordination and desertion.'"

When the Caillaux Ministry came into power in 1911, a large number of

the most prominent leaders of the Federation of Labor were arrested for

participation in this agitation. But for every arrest many other

unionists signed declarations favoring identical principles, and as the

whole Federation is wedded to this propaganda, it is more than doubtful

if the whole million can be arrested and the propaganda done away with.

This agitation is not directed primarily against possible war, or even

exclusively against compulsory military service. Just as the

preparations for an insurrectionary general strike in case of war tend

to break down the power and prestige of the army, even if war is never

declared, so the teaching of insubordination and desertion have the same

effect, even if the compulsory armies are replaced by a compulsory

militia, having only a few weeks of drill every year, as in Australia,

or by a voluntary militia, as in this country. The Socialist world

accepts the word of the American Socialists that a militia, if less

burdensome, and less obnoxious in many ways than a standing army, may be

just as thoroughly reactionary, and quite as hostile to the working

class. The French Socialists and unionists encourage all general and

organized movements among common soldiers. And their ideal in this

regard is reached when a whole body of soldiers, for any good cause,

revolts--especially at a time of popular demonstrations. During the wine

troubles in the south of France, a whole regiment refused to march--and

for years afterwards was toasted at Socialist gatherings.

"Military strikes" have also been frequent in Russia as well as in

France--and have received the unanimous approval of the Socialists of

all countries. No matter how small the causes, Socialists usually

justify them, because they consider military discipline in itself wholly

an evil--and the worst tyranny of capitalist government. They promote

military revolts in favor of great popular causes for a double reason,

and they also have a double motive for supporting purely military

revolts against militarism. For if Socialists are engaged in a class

war, which practically all of them believe may, and many believe must,

lead to revolution, it is as necessary to disarm the opposing classes as

it is to abolish military discipline because of its inherent evil. It is

this fact that explains the importance of all Socialist efforts against

imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, patriotism, war and armies--and

not the idea, common among Socialists, that Socialism alone can be

relied on to establish permanent international peace.

Moreover, the most successful attacks on existing governments in their

coercive and arbitrary aspects, as the Stuttgart resolution suggests

(see above), have been when there were threats of an unpopular war. The

Socialist attack is then not only leveled against war, but also against

armies. A good example is the sending of a delegation of workingmen to

Berlin by the French federation at the invitation of that of Germany at

the time of the Morocco affair (July, 1911). There the Secretary of the

associated labor councils of France, Yvetot, made a speech, the

importance of which was fully appreciated by the German government,

which ordered him to be immediately expelled. His remarks were also

appreciated by his German Socialist audience which responded to them by

stormy applause lasting several minutes. The sentiments so widely

appreciated were contained in the following remarks addressed to the

French and German governments:--

"Just try once, you blockheads, to stir up one people against the

other, to arm one people against the other, you will see if the

peoples won't make an entirely different use of the weapons you put

into their hands. Wait and see if the people don't go to war

against an entirely different enemy than you expect."

The significance of this declaration was not that it declared war

against war, but that, under a certain highly probable contingency of

the immediate future, it prepared the minds of the people for the

forceful overthrow of capitalist governments.

To the preparations of capitalist governments to revert to military rule

in the case of a successful nation-wide general strike, the Socialists

reply at present by plans for weakening and disintegrating armies. And

they do not hesitate to say that they will use more active measures if

capitalist governments persist in what seems to be their present

determination to resort to some form of military despotism when the

Socialists have won over a majority of the population to their views.

FOOTNOTES:

[277] Eugene V. Debs, "Life and Writings," p. 456.

[278] Tolstoi's Essay entitled, "Where is the Way Out?"--October, 1900.

[279] Dr. Karl Liebknecht, "Militarismus und Anti-Militarismus"

(brochure).

[280] Dr. Karl Liebknecht, "Militarismus und Anti-Militarismus",

(brochure).

[281] George R. Kirkpatrick, "War--What For?" pp. 318-325.

[282] George R. Kirkpatrick, "War--What For?" (Preface).

[283] Bernard Shaw, "John Bull's Other Island," pp. xxxix-xliv.

CHAPTER VIII

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION

"The legal constitution of every period," says Rosa Luxemburg, "is

solely a product of revolution. While revolution is the political _act

of creation_ of class history, legislation is the continued political

_growth_ of society. The work of legal reform has in itself no

independent driving force outside of the revolution; it moves during

each period of history only along that line and for that period of time

for which the impetus given to it during the last revolution continues,

or, to speak concretely, it moves only in the frame of that form of

society which was brought into the world through the last overturn....

Therefore, _the person who speaks for the method of legal reform instead

of the conquest of political power and the overthrow of_ [_present day_]

_society is not as a matter of fact seeking, in a quieter, safer, and

slower way, the same goal, but a different goal altogether_; namely,

instead of bringing about a new social order, merely the accomplishing

of unessential changes in the old one."[284]

It is not that Rosa Luxemburg or any other prominent Socialist

underestimates the importance to the Socialist movement of universal

suffrage, and of the utilization of our more or less democratic

governments for the purpose of reform. She realizes that such democracy

as we have to-day is useful to-day, and that in a future crisis it may

serve as a lever for overturning the present social order. "Democracy is

indispensable," she says, "not because it makes the conquest of

political power by the working class superfluous, but, on the contrary,

because it makes this seizure of power not only necessary, but the only

remaining alternative."

From Kautsky and Bebel, who have always been known as strong believers

in the possibilities of political action, to the somewhat skeptical

revolutionary Socialists of France, the ballot has thus far remained the

weapon of first practical importance, even for revolutionary purposes.

Bebel expects some day a great crisis which will go far beyond the

power of any merely political means to solve. Kautsky looks forward to

more than one great conflict, in which other means will have to be

employed, as does also his Socialist critic and opponent, Jaurès. But

for the present all these men are occupying themselves with politics.

Even those Socialists who are most skeptical of the revolutionary

possibilities of political action by no means turn their back upon it.

The French advocate of economic action and revolutionary labor unionism,

Lagardelle, who recently surprised some of his French comrades, as I

have already pointed out, by running as a candidate for the French

Chamber, claimed that he did this in entire consistency with his

principles. And even the arch-revolutionary, Gustave Hervé, has declared

that in spite of all the faults and limitations of political action,

revolutionary Socialists must cling to the Socialist Party. Hervé had

looked with a favorable eye on the formation of a revolutionary

organization which was to consist only in part of Socialists and in part

of revolutionary labor unionists, but he declared at the last moment

that such an organization ought to be only a group within the Socialist

Party. A bitter critic of Jaurès and also of the orthodox "center" of

the party on the ground that their methods are too timid to achieve

anything for Socialism in view of the ruthless aggressions of the

capitalists, Hervé nevertheless said that it was only very exceptional

circumstances that could justify revolutionary Socialists acting against

the party organization, even though it seemed to be doing so little

effective fighting against the capitalist enemy.

There could be no stronger evidence of the powerful hold of political

action even on the most revolutionary Socialists than the summary in

which Hervé reviews his reasons for this conclusion:--

"_First_: That the only manner of agitating for

anti-parliamentarism that succeeds, and is without danger, is

before and after electoral periods--showing constantly to the élite

of the proletariat the insufficiency and dangers of parliamentarism

in general and parliamentarist Socialism in particular;

"_Second_: During electoral periods all propaganda disparaging the

possibilities of politics unaided by other forms of action should

cease, 'in order not to embroil ourselves with the Socialist masses

who must be handled carefully at any cost, in the interest of the

revolutionary cause';

"_Third_: While the revolutionary Socialists' discontent with the

party's moderation and exclusive absorption in the details of

politics or reform ought not to lead them to oppose the

organization during election periods, it does not follow that

revolutionary Socialists can not even at such times continue to

preach their principles and proclaim their hatred to the

conservative parties and their attitude towards the Parliamentary

Socialist Party 'of sympathy mixed with distrust';

"_Fourth_: An exception should be made against certain Socialist

candidates who may have taken a scandalously conservative

anti-labor and anti-revolutionary position in the legislative

session just gone by, and that against the latter there should be a

fight to the finish, certain as we are of having with us almost the

entire support of the parliamentary Socialist Party."[285]

In a word, Hervé proves his democracy by respecting the opinion of the

majority of the Socialist Party, because he hopes and believes that it

will become revolutionary in his sense of the word. With a strong

preference for "direct action," strikes, "sabotage," boycotts, etc., he

yet allows his policies to be guided very largely by a political

organization.

But Socialist politics are not politics at all in the ordinary sense of

the word. They are directed primarily to prepare the people for a great

struggle to come. "Situations are approaching," said Bebel at the

Congress at Jena, in 1905, "which must of physical necessity lead to

catastrophes unless the working class develop so rapidly in power,

numbers, culture, and insight, that the bourgeoisie lose the desire for

catastrophes. We are not seeking a catastrophe,--what use would it be to

us? Catastrophes are brought about by the ruling classes." Bebel was

referring particularly to the possibility and even the probability that

the German government might try to destroy the Socialist Party by

limiting the right of suffrage or to crush the unions by limiting the

right of labor to organize. If he predicted a revolutionary crisis, it

was to come from a life-and-death struggle of the working people in

self-defense, in a desperate effort to protect economic and political

rights, but especially _political_ rights, which, as the labor unionist,

von Elm, said at this congress, were "the key to all." A revolutionary

conflict was anticipated, to be fought out by economic means, but only

as part of a political crisis--in which the majority of the people would

be on the side of the Socialists and the labor unions. Similarly, in

America, Mr. Victor Berger stated at the Socialist Convention of 1908

that he had no doubt that "in order to be able to shoot even, some day,

we must have the powers of the political government in our hands, at

least to a great extent."

While neither the political revolution involved in the capture of

government by Socialist voters, nor the economic revolution that would

follow a wholly successful general strike would lead necessarily to

revolution in its narrow sense of a great but relatively brief crisis,

or to revolutionary violence; while either political or economic

overturn, or both, combined in a single movement, might be accomplished

peacefully and by degrees, capitalist governments are just as likely to

seize the one as the other, as the occasion for attempts at violent

repression. A complete political victory would thus lead to the same

crisis and violence as a victorious general strike.

As Bebel says, Socialists are not trying to create a revolutionary

crisis. But they have little doubt that the capitalists themselves will

precipitate one as soon as Socialism becomes truly menacing, as may

happen within a few years in some countries. "The politicians of the

ruling class have reached a condition where they are ready to risk

everything upon a single throw of the dice," says Kautsky, on the

supposition that Socialism is _already_ a real menace in Germany. "They

would rather take their chances in a civil war than endure the fear of a

revolution," he continues. "The Socialists on the other hand, not only

have no reason to follow suit in this policy of desperation, but should

rather seek by every means in their power to postpone any such insane

uprising [of the capitalists] even if it be recognized as inevitable, to

a time when the proletariat will be so powerful as to be able at once to

whip the enraged [capitalist] mob, and to restrain it, so that the one

paroxysm shall be its last, and the destruction that it brings and the

sacrifice it costs shall be as small as possible."[286]

The majority of Socialists have no inclination towards violence of any

kind at the present time, whether domestic or foreign, and will avoid it

also for all time if they can. But they fear and expect that the present

ruling class will undertake violent measures of repression which will

inevitably result in a conflict of physical force.

The Civic Federation, of which so many conspicuous Americans have been

members (including Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, August Belmont,

Seth Low, Nicholas Murray Butler, and other prominent philanthropists,

educators, statesmen, publicists, and multimillionaires), had its

earliest origin, to the author's personal knowledge, partly in an effort

to divert the energies of the working people from Socialism and

revolutionary unionism to the conservative trade unionism of the older

British type. It was natural that this organization should give more and

more of its attention to an organized warfare against the Socialist

movement as the latter continued to grow, and this it has done. Its

members have attacked the movement from every quarter, accusing it of a

tendency to undermine religion, the family, and true patriotism. But the

most direct and important accusation it has made has been that the

Socialists are working toward revolutionary violence. In its official

organ it has quoted Mr. Debs as saying: "When the revolution comes we

will be prepared to take possession and assume control of every

industry." The quotation is fairly chosen, and represents the Socialist

standpoint, but if it is to be thoroughly understood it must be taken in

connection with other positions taken by the party. No revolution is

contemplated, other than one of the overwhelming majority of the people,

nor is any violence expected, other than such that may be instigated by

a privileged minority in order to prevent the majority from gaining

control of the government and industries of the country.

That the Civic Federation writers also understand that the violence may

come from above rather than from below is clearly shown in the context

of the article in question. The Federation organ also attacks Mrs. J. G.

Phelps Stokes for having said, at Barnard College, that the present

government would probably be overturned by the ballot. In answer to

this, the Federation's organ said, "Mrs. Stokes is a woman of

intelligence and doubtless knows that States are not overturned by

ballots." Here is a categorical denial on the part of an organ

representing the most powerful privileged element in the country, of the

possibility of _peaceful_ political revolution, which can only mean that

if a majority desires such a peaceful revolutionary change, the minority

now in power will use violence to prevent it. An article by one of the

Federation's officials, Ada C. Sweet, in the same number, makes still

further disclosures. Among the "fantastic projects and schemes of

Socialism," she says, are the demand "that the Constitution be made

amendable by a majority vote," and the demand for the abolition of that

feature of our government "which makes the Supreme Court the final

interpreter and guardian of the federal Constitution." These demands, of

course, are becoming common outside of the Socialist Party, and would

simply move the United States up to the semi-democratic level of

constitutions made during the last half century. Indeed, the judicial

precedents that have created an oligarchy of judges in this country,

though they have existed for a century, have never been imitated by any

country on earth, civilized or uncivilized, with the single exception of

Australia. It is these demands, which would not be held even as radical

in other countries, which Miss Sweet says cannot be accomplished without

violence. If this is so, it means that violence will come from above,

and the Socialists would be cowards indeed if they were not ready to

resist it.

Miss Sweet contends that "to bring about the first practical

experiments" demanded by Socialism "would start such a civil war as the

world has never yet seen in all its long history."[287] No doubt the

writer, who has held a responsible position with the Civic Federation

for years, represents the opinions of her associates. Her prediction may

be correct, and if so it would indicate that the people who at present

control this country and its government, and who have the power to

initiate such a civil war, are determined to do so.

While Socialists have no desire for revolutionary violence, being

convinced, as they are, that the present generation will see the

majority of the voters of every modern country in their ranks, and

Socialists by right in possession of the legal powers of government,

they nevertheless have never been blind to the readiness of the

plutocratic and militaristic forces in control of governments to proceed

to illegal _coups d'état_, to destroy all vestiges of democracy, if

thought necessary, and to use every form of violence, as soon as they

feel that they are beginning to lose their political power. The evidence

that this is already the intention is abundant.

There is no one who has recognized more clearly than the recent

"Socialistic" Prime Minister of France (Briand) that the ruling classes

force the people to fight for every great advance. In the French

Socialist Congress of Paris, in 1899, Briand said: "Now I must reply to

those of my friends who through an instinctive horror of every kind of

violence have been brought to hope that the transformation of society

can be the work of evolution alone.... Such certainly are beautiful

dreams, but they are only dreams.... In a general way, in every

instance, history demonstrates that the people have scarcely obtained

anything except what they have been able to take for themselves.... It

is not through a fad, and much less through the love of violence, that

our party is and must remain revolutionary, but by necessity, one might

say by destiny.... In our Congress we have even pointed out forms of

revolt, among the first of which are the general strike." In the

International Congress at Paris in 1900, Briand again advocated the

general strike on the ground that it was "necessary as a pressure on

capitalistic society, indispensable for obtaining continued

ameliorations of a political and economic kind, and also, under

propitious circumstances, for the purposes of social revolution." Nor

can there be any doubt as to the revolutionary meaning of Briand when he

advocated the general strike. In 1899 he had said, "One can discuss a

strike of soldiers, one can even try to make ready for it ... our young

military Socialists busy themselves in making the workingman who is

going to quit his shop, and the peasant who is going to desert his

fields to go into the barracks, understand that there are duties higher

than those discipline would like to impose upon them." I have already

quoted his recommendation, made on this occasion, that in the case of a

social crisis the soldiers might fire, but need not necessarily fire in

the direction suggested by the officers. As late as 1903 he took up the

defense of Gustave Hervé, when the latter was accused of

anti-militarism, and said before the court: "I am glad to declare that I

am not led here by a chance client, I am not here to-day as an advocate

pleading for his clients. I am here in a complete and full community of

ideas with friends, for whom it is less important that I should defend

their liberty, than that I should explain and justify their thought and

their writings."

There can be no question that the opinions expressed by Briand at this

time are approximately those of the majority of the European Socialists

to-day. Some of the leading spokesmen of the Socialists are no doubt

somewhat more cautious of the form of their statements. But the

modifications they would make in Briand's statement would be due, not to

any objection in principle, but to expediency and the practical

limitations of such measures as he advocates in each given case.

The great majority of Socialists feel that a premature revolutionary

crisis at the present moment would endanger or postpone the success of a

political revolution, peaceful or otherwise, when the time for it is

ripe. The position of Kautsky will show how very cautious the most

influential are. The movement has become so strong in Germany that it

might be supposed that the German Socialists would no longer fear a test

of strength. But this is not the case. They feel, on the contrary that

every delay is in their favor, as they are making colossal strides in

their organization and propaganda, while the political situation is

becoming more and more critical.

"Our recruiting ground," says Kautsky, "to-day includes fully three

fourths of the population, probably even more; the number of votes

that are given to us do not equal one third of all the voters and

not one fourth of all those entitled to vote. But the rate of

progress increases with a leap when the revolutionary spirit is

abroad. It is almost inconceivable with what rapidity the mass of

the people reach a clear consciousness of their class interests at

such a time. Not alone their courage and their belligerency, but

their political interest as well, is spurred on in the highest

degree through the consciousness that the hour has at last come for

them to burst out of the darkness of night into the glory of the

full glare of the sun. Even the laziest become industrious, even

the most cowardly become brave, and even the most narrow gains a

wider view. In such times a single year will accomplish an

education of the masses that would otherwise have required a

generation."[288]

Kautsky's conception of the probable struggle of the future shows that,

together with the millions of Socialists he represents, he expects the

great crisis to develop gradually out of the present-day struggle. He

does not expect a precipitate and comparatively brief struggle like the

French Revolution, but rather "long-drawn-out civil wars, if one does

not necessarily give to these words the idea of actual slaughter and

battles."

"We are revolutionists," Kautsky concludes, "and this is not in the

sense that a steam engine is a revolutionist. The social transformation

for which we are striving can be attained only through a political

revolution, by means of the conquest of political power by the fighting

proletariat. The only form of the State in which Socialism can be

realized is that of a republic, and a thoroughly democratic republic at

that.

"The Socialist Party is a revolutionary party, but not a

revolution-making party. We know that our goal can be obtained only

through a revolution. We also know that it is just as little in our

power to create this revolution as it is in the power of our opponents

to prevent it."[289]

The influential French Socialist, Guesde, agrees with Kautsky that a

peaceful solution is highly improbable, and that the revolution must be

one of an overwhelming majority of the people, not artificially created,

but brought about by the ruling classes themselves.

Of course a peaceful revolution might be accomplished gradually and by

the most orderly means. If, however, these peaceful and legal means are

later made illegal, or widely interfered with, if the ballot is

qualified or political democracy otherwise thwarted, or if the peaceful

acts of labor organizations, with the extension of government ownership,

are looked upon as mutiny or treason,--then undoubtedly the working

people will regard as enemies those who attempt to legalize such

reaction, and will employ all available means to overthrow a

"government" of such a kind.

From Marx and Bebel none of the most prominent spokesmen of the

international movement have doubted that the capitalists would use such

violent and extreme measures as to create a world-wide

counter-revolution, and began to make their preparations accordingly.

This is why, half a century ago, they passed beyond mere "revolutionary

talk," to "revolutionary action." This practical "revolutionary

evolution," as he called it, was described by Marx (in resigning from a

communist society) in 1851: "We say to the working people, 'You will

have to go through ten, fifteen, fifty years of _civil wars and wars

between nations_ not only to change existing conditions, but to _change

yourselves and to make yourselves worthy of political power_.'" (My

italics.)

"Revolutionary evolution" means that Socialists expect, not a single

crisis, but a long-drawn-out series of revolutionary, political, civil,

and industrial conflicts. If we substitute for the insurrectionary civil

wars of Marx's time, _i.e._ of the periods of 1848 and 1870, the

_industrial_ civil wars to-day, _i.e._ the more and more widespread and

successful, the more and more general, strikes that we have been

witnessing since 1900, in countries so widely separated and

representative as France, England, Sweden, Portugal, and Russia and

Argentine Republic, Marx's view is that of the overwhelming majority of

Socialists to-day.[290]

The suppression of such widespread strikes will become especially costly

as "State Socialism" brings a larger and larger proportion of the wage

earners under its policy of "efficiency wages," so that their incomes

will be considerably above the mere subsistence level. A large part of

these increased wages can and doubtless will be used against capitalism.

Socialists believe that strikes will become more and more extended and

protracted, until the capitalists will be forced, sooner or later,

either to repressive violence, or to begin to make vital economic or

political concessions that will finally insure their unconditional

surrender.

Already many non-Socialist observers have firmly grasped the meaning of

revolutionary Socialism. As a distinguished American editor recently

remarked, "Universal suffrage and universal education mean universal

revolution; _it may be--pray God it be not--a revolution of brutality

and crime_."[291] The ruling minority have put down revolutions in the

past by "brutality and crime" under the name of martial "law."

Socialists have new evidences every day that similar measures will be

used against them in the future, from the moment their power becomes

formidable.

FOOTNOTES:

[284] Rose Luxemburg, "Social-Reform oder Revolution."

[285] "La Guerre Sociale" (Paris), April 20, 1910.

[286] Kautsky, "The Road to Power," Chapter V.

[287] The organ of the Civic Federation, Nov. 15, 1909.

[288] "The Road to Power," Chapter VI.

[289] "The Road to Power," p. 50.

[290] A leading article of the official weekly of the German Socialist

Party on the eve of the elections of 1912 gives the strongest possible

evidence that the German Socialists regard the ballot primarily as a

means to revolution. The article is written by Franz Mehring, the

historian of the German movement, and its leading argument is to be

found in the following paragraphs:--

"The more votes the Social-Democracy obtains in these elections, the

more difficult it will be for the Reaction to carry out exceptional laws

[referring to Bismarck's legislation practically outlawing the

Socialists], and the more this miserable weapon will become for them a

two-edged sword. Certainly it will come to that [anti-Socialist

legislation] in the end, for no one in possession of his five senses

believes that, when universal suffrage sends a Social-Democratic

majority to the Reichstag, the ruling classes will say with a polite

bow: 'Go ahead, Messrs. Workingmen; you have won, now please proceed as

you think best.' Sooner or later the possessing classes will begin a

desperate game, and it is as necessary for the working classes to be

prepared for this event as it would be madness for them to strengthen

the position of their enemies by laying down their arms. It can only be

to their advantage to gather more numerous fighting forces under their

banner, even if by this means they hasten the historical process [the

day when anti-Socialist laws will be passed], and indeed precisely

because of this.

"La Salle used to say to his followers in confidential talks: 'When I

speak of universal suffrage you must always understand that I mean

revolution.' And the Party has always conceived of universal suffrage as

a means of revolutionary recruiting" (_Die Neue Zeit_, December 16,

1911).

[291] From a press interview with Mr. Henry Watterson in 1909; verified

by a private letter to the author.

CHAPTER IX

THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM

The Socialist policy requires so complete a reversal of the policy of

collectivist capitalism, that no government has taken any steps whatever

in that direction. No governments and no political parties, except the

Socialists, have any such steps under discussion, and finally, no

governments or capitalist parties are sufficiently alarmed or confused

by the menace of Socialism to be hurried or driven into a policy which

would carry them a stage nearer to the very thing they are most anxious

to avoid.

If we are moving towards Socialism it is due to entirely different

causes: to the numerical increase, and the improved education and

organization of the non-capitalist classes, to their training in the

Socialist parties and labor unions for the definite purpose of turning

the capitalists (as such) out of industry and government, to the

experience they have gained in political and economic struggles against

overwhelmingly superior forces, to the fact that the enemy, though he

can prevent them at present from gaining even a partial control over

industry or government, or from seizing any strategic point of the first

importance, is utterly unable to crush them, notwithstanding his greater

and greater efforts to do so, and cannot prevent them from gaining on

him constantly in numbers and superiority of organization.

If we are advancing towards Socialism, it is not because the

non-capitalist classes, when compared with the capitalists, are

gradually gaining a greater share of wealth or more power in society. It

is because they are gradually gaining that capacity for organized

political and economic action which, though useless except for defensive

purposes to-day, will enable them to take possession of industry and

government _when their organization has become stronger than that of the

capitalists_.

The overwhelming majority of Socialists and labor unionists are occupied

either with purely defensive measures or with preparations for

aggressive action in the future. This does not mean that no economic or

political reforms of benefit or importance can be expected until the

Socialists have conquered capitalism or forced it to recognize their

power; I have shown that, on the contrary, a colossal program of such

reforms is either impending or in actual process of execution. It means

only that for every advance allotted to labor, a greater advance will be

gained by the capitalist class which is promoting these reforms, that

their most important effect is to increase the _relative power_ of the

capitalists.

The first governmental step towards Socialism will have been taken when

the Socialist organizations are able to say: _During this administration

the position of the non-capitalist classes has improved faster than that

of the capitalists._ But even such a governmental step towards Socialism

does not mean that Socialism is being installed. It may be followed by a

step in the opposite direction. _No advance can be permanently held

until the organizations of non-capitalists have become superior to or at

least as powerful as those of the capitalists._ An actual step _in_

Socialism, moreover, as distinct from such an insecure political step

_towards_ Socialism, depends in no degree upon the action of

non-Socialist governments (and still less on local Socialist

administrations subject to higher non-Socialist control) unless such

governments are already practically vanquished, and so forced to obey

Socialist orders. An actual installment of Socialism awaits, first, a

certain development of Socialist parties and labor unions, and second,

on these organizations securing control of a sovereign and independent

government (if there be any such), or of a group of industries that

dominates it. And if the governments of the various capitalistic

countries are as interdependent as they seem, a number of them will have

to be captured before the possession of any is secure.

_The essential problem before the Socialists under State capitalism,

with every reform now under serious discussion already in force, will be

fundamentally the same as it is under the private capitalism of to-day._

The capitalists will be even more powerful than they are, the _relative_

position of the non-capitalists in government and industry still more

inferior than it now is. However, with better health, more means,

greater leisure, superior education, with a better organized and more

easily comprehended social system, with the enemy more united and more

clearly defined, Socialists believe that the conditions for the

successful solution of this problem will be far more favorable.

The evolution of industry and government under capitalism sets the

problems and furnishes the conditions necessary for the solution, but

the solution, if it comes at all, must come from the Socialists

themselves. I have shown what the Socialists are doing to-day to gain

supreme control over governments. What do they expect to do when they

have obtained that power? I have given little attention to the steps

they will probably take at that time because the question belongs to the

future, and has not yet been practically confronted. It is impossible to

tell how any body of men will answer any question until it is before

them and they know their answer must be at once translated into acts.

Yet a few concrete statements as to what Socialists expect and intend

for the future--especially in those matters where there is practical

unanimity among them, may be justified, and may help to define their

present aims. There are certain matters where Socialists have as yet had

no opportunity to show their position in acts, and yet where their

present activities, supported by their statements, indicate what their

course will be.

First, how do Socialists expect to proceed during the transitional

period, when they have won supreme power, but have not yet had time to

put any of their more far-reaching principles into execution? The first

of these transitional problems is: What shall be done with those

particular forms of private property or privilege which stand in the way

of an economic democracy? How far shall existing vested rights be

compensated?

"And as for taking such property from the owners," asks Mr. H. G.

Wells, "why shouldn't we? The world has not only in the past taken

slaves from their owners, with no compensation or with meager

compensation; but in the history of mankind, dark as it is, there

are innumerable cases of slave owners resigning their inhuman

rights.... There are, no doubt, a number of dull, base, rich people

who hate and dread Socialism for purely selfish reasons; but it is

quite possible to be a property owner and yet be anxious to see

Socialism come into its own.... Though I deny the right to

compensation, I do not deny its probable advisability. So far as

the question of method goes it is quite conceivable that we may

partially compensate the property owners and make all sorts of

mitigating arrangements to avoid cruelty to them in our attempt to

end the wider cruelties of to-day."[292]

Socialists are, of course, quite determined that either the vested

interests of all persons dependent on small unearned incomes and unable

otherwise to earn their living shall be protected, or that they shall be

equally well provided for by other means. No practical Socialist has

ever proposed, during this transitional period, to interfere in any way

either with savings bank accounts or with life insurance policies on a

reasonable scale, or with widows and orphans who are using incomes from

very small pieces of property for identical purposes.

As to the compensation of the wealthier classes, this becomes entirely a

secondary question, a matter of pure expediency. The great British

scientist and Socialist, Alfred Russell Wallace, and the moderate

Socialist, Professor Anton Menger of Vienna, propose almost identical

plans of compromise with the wealthy classes,--compromises which would

perhaps result in a saving to a Socialist government and might therefore

be advisable, aside from any sentimental question of protecting or

abolishing vested "rights." Professor Wallace, objects to "continuing

any payments of interests beyond the lives of the present receivers and

their direct heirs [now living], who may have been brought up to expect

such inheritance." For if we were to compensate any others, Wallace

points out that we would be "actually robbing the present generation to

the enrichment and supposed advantage of certain unborn individuals, who

in most instances, as we now know, are much more likely to be injured

than benefited."[293] Professor Menger proposes that, in exchange for

property taken by the government from owners of large fortunes, there

should be allotted to them, and their descendants now living, a modest

annuity "sufficient to satisfy their legitimate needs," as being more

reasonable than Wallace's plan of such an income as they were "brought

up to expect."[294] But in the long run the difference between the two

methods would be immaterial--and the one chosen would doubtless depend

on the social or anti-social attitude assumed by the wealthy. In either

case there would be no unearned incomes in any generation not yet born.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that a Socialist Party which

had seized the reins of political power might, through motives of

caution and self-protection, use greater severity against those of the

capitalists whom they thought had played an unfair part in the welfare

against the installation of the new government. It is scarcely to be

doubted, for instance, that those capitalists who tried to embroil us in

foreign wars in order to prevent the establishment of social democracy

would probably be exiled and their property confiscated. Certainly these

measures would be employed against all such persons as had counseled or

participated in the suspension of civil government or other violent

measures.

But where will the money come from even for the payment of such limited

compensation as the Socialists decide upon? Assuming that the stocks and

bonds of the railways and other large businesses were paid for at the

cost of reproduction, or, let us say, at 50 per cent their present

market value, a vast amount would still be required. The Socialist

answer to this question is very brightly given by America's most popular

and influential Socialist organ, the _Appeal to Reason_. It reminds us

that the Socialists, once having the reins of political power, will then

be the possessors of all the credit of the government.

"How much money," asks the _Appeal_, "did Morgan need in order to

buy up all the independent steel companies for the steel trust?"

And it answers: "Not a penny. Rather than needing money, he issued

stock in the new concern in payment for the old independent mills,

and after all was done proceeded to almost double his stock! In

other words, instead of needing money, he acquired a vast sum in

the transaction. One who is familiar with the way the railroads

have been built and the vast fortunes erected understands that

there was almost no investment. It all came through a series of

tricks. Those tricks, as honest in the reversal as when the

capitalist played them, can be reversed. Hardly a corporation but

has forfeited its charter. With the charter cancelled stocks would

tumble and the water would speedily go. Socialists are not fools

that they should merely fall into the hands of men who think that

they can unload on them in such a manner as to saddle a perpetual

debt on the people. If the steel trust, after organizing and buying

up smaller concerns, could still issue vast series of stocks and

bonds, why could not the Socialists issue all the money they needed

to accomplish the same things? And would not the money based on

lands and mills be as good security as the money we now have based

on nothing under the sun but inflated railroad and trust stocks

[securities]?"

Undoubtedly some such method will be followed--with those essential

industries that will not already have become collective property under

capitalism.

In so far as "State Socialism" or collectivist capitalism will have

paved the way, by extensive government ownership, the problem of

confiscation or compensation becomes much simplified. Kautsky has very

ably summarized the prevailing Socialist plan for dealing with it at

this point:--

"As soon as all capitalist wealth had taken the form of

(government) bonds, it would be possible to raise a progressive

income, property and inheritance tax, to a height which until then

was impossible.

"It is one of our demands at the present time that such a tax shall

be substituted for all others, especially for the indirect tax.

"But even if we had to-day the power to carry through such a

measure with the support of the other parties, which is plainly

impossible, because no bourgeois party would go so far, we would at

once find ourselves in the presence of great difficulties.

"It is a well-known fact that the higher the tax the greater the

efforts at tax dodging.

"But when a condition exists where any concealment of income and

property is impossible, even then we would not be in a position to

force the income and property tax as high as we wish, because the

capitalists, if the tax on their income or property pressed them

too closely, would simply leave the State.

"Above a certain measure such taxes cannot rise to-day even if we

had the political power.

"_The situation is completely changed, however, when capitalist

property takes the form of public debts._

"The property to-day that is so hard to find then lies in broad

day-light.

"It would then only be necessary to declare that all bonds must be

public, and it would be known exactly what was the value of every

property and every capitalist income.

"_The tax would then be raised as high as desired_ without the

possibility of tax frauds.

"It would then also be impossible to escape taxation by emigration,

for the tax could simply be taken from the interest before it was

paid out. [A similar tax exists in France to-day.]

"_If necessary it might be put so high as to be equivalent, or

nearly so, to a confiscation of the great properties._

"It might be well to ask what is the advantage of this round-about

way of confiscation over that of taking the direct road?

"The difference between the two methods is not so trifling as at

first appears.

"Direct confiscation of all capitalists would strike all, the small

and the great, those utterly useless to labor, in the same manner.

"It is difficult, often impossible, in this method to separate the

large possession from the small, when these are united in the form

of money capital in the same undertaking.

"Direct confiscation would complete this quickly, often at one

stroke, while _confiscation through taxation permits the

disappearance of capitalists' property through a long-drawn-out

process, proceeding in the exact degree in which the new order is

established and its benevolent influence made perceptible._

"Confiscation in this way loses its harshness and becomes more

acceptable and less painful.

"The more peaceable the conquest of political power by the

proletariat, and the more firmly organized and enlightened it is,

the more we can expect that the primitive forms of confiscation

will be softened." (My italics.)[295]

Nor are any of the more influential Socialists anxious to make a clean

sweep of private enterprise in industry. It is only the more important

and fundamental industries, those which underlie all the processes of

manufacturing, or furnish the sheer necessities of the people, that must

necessarily be directly controlled by a Socialist society. "It may be

granted," says Kautsky, "that small establishments will have a definite

position in the future in many branches of industry that produce

directly for human consumption, for machines manufacture essentially

only products in bulk, while many purchasers desire that their personal

taste shall be considered. It is easily possible that under a

proletarian régime the number of small businesses may increase as the

well-being of the masses increases." Of such industries Kautsky says

that they can produce for private customers or even for the open market.

As to-day, he insists, so also in the future, it will be open to the

working people to employ themselves either in public or private

industry.

"A seamstress, for example," he says, "can occupy herself for a

time in a national factory, and at another time make dresses for

private customers at home, then again she can sew for another

customer in her own house, and finally she may, with a few

comrades, unite in a coöperative for the manufacture of clothing

for sale.

"The most manifold forms of property in the means of

production--national, municipal, coöperatives of consumption and

production and private industry can exist beside each other in a

Socialist society--the most diverse forms of industrial

organization, bureaucratic, trades union, coöperative and

individual; the most diverse forms of remunerative labor, fixed

wages, time wages, piece wages, profit sharing in the economies in

raw material, machinery, etc., profit sharing in the results of

intensive labor; the most diverse forms of distribution of

products, like contract by purchase from the warehouses of the

State, from municipalities, from coöperatives of production, from

producers themselves, etc., etc. _The same manifold character of

economic mechanism that exists to-day is possible in a Socialistic

society._ Only the hunting and the hunted, the struggling and the

resisting, the annihilating and being annihilated of the present

competitive struggle are excluded, and therewith the contrast

between exploiter and exploited." (Italics mine.)[296]

Equally important, or more important, than private coöperative

industries in the Socialist State, it is expected, will be the increase

of private _organizations of other kinds_, especially in the fields of

publications, education, etc., by what Kautsky calls free associations,

which will serve art and science and public life and advance production

in these spheres in the most diverse ways, or undertake it directly, as

the associations which to-day bring out plays, publish newspapers,

purchase artistic works, publish writings, fit out scientific

expeditions. _He expects such private organizations to play an even more

important rôle than the government_, for "it is their destiny to enter

into the place now occupied by capital and individual production and _to

organize and to lead mankind as a social being_."[297] (Italics mine.)

"The utmost restriction of private property under Socialism," Mrs.

Gilman says, "leaves us still every article of personal use and

pleasure. One may still 'own' land by paying the government for it

as now; with such taxation, however, as would make it very

expensive to own too much! One may own one's house and all that is

in it: one's clothes and tools and decorations; one's horses,

carriages and automobiles; one's flying machines--presently. All

'personal property' remains in our personal hands.

"But no man or group of men could own the country's coal and decide

how much the public can have, and what we must pay for it. Private

holding of public property would be abolished."[298]

It can never be too often repeated or too strongly emphasized that, with

some unfortunate exceptions, from the time of Marx to the present,

Socialists have opposed not private property, but capitalism. It is the

domination of society by the capitalists, _i.e._ "capitalism" or the

capitalist system, that is to be done away with.

"The distinguishing feature of Communism," wrote Marx, using this

word instead of Socialism, "is not the abolition of property

generally, but the abolition of capitalist property. But modern

capitalist property is the final and most complete expression of

that system of producing and appropriating products that is based

on class antagonism, on the expropriation of the many by the

few."[299]

In seeking the better organization of industry and leaving the most

perfect freedom to individuals and to private organizations, what the

Socialists are really aiming at is really to restrict the government to

_a government of things rather than to a government of men_; and this

phrase is in common use among them. It is sought not to increase the

power of higher officials over government employees and citizens, but,

on the contrary, to limit their powers to the necessities of industry

itself, and to leave the most perfect and complete freedom to the

individual _in every other sphere_, as well as in industry, so far as

the physical conditions themselves allow. There is no doubt, for

instance, that whole departments of restrictive legislation directed

against individual liberty would at once be repealed by any Socialist

government (though not by a government of so-called "State Socialists").

Perhaps the idea is best expressed by the Belgian Socialist,

Vandervelde:--

"The capitalist State has as an end the government of men; it needs

centralized power, ministers ready to employ force, functionaries

blindly obeying the least sign. Enlarge its domain [_i.e._

institute 'State Socialism.'--W.] and you will create a vast

barracks, you will institute a republic of scoundrels.

"The Socialist State, on the contrary, will have for its end an

administration of things; it will need a decentralized

organization, practical men of science, industrial forces over

which spontaneity and initiative will be required above every other

quality."[300]

Surely such a State does not resemble in any way the paternalistic,

bureaucratic capitalism or "State Socialism" towards which we are at

present tending.

"It is quite as possible," says Mr. Spargo, "for a government to

exploit the workers in the interests of a privileged class as it is

for private individuals, or quasi-private corporations, to do so.

Germany with her State-owned railroads, or Austria-Hungary and

Russia with their great government monopolies, are not more

Socialistic, but less so than the United States, where these things

are owned by individuals or corporations. The United States is

nearer Socialism for the reason that its political institutions

have developed farther towards pure democracy than those of the

other countries named.... The real _motif_ of Socialism is not

merely to change the form of industrial organization and ownership,

but to eliminate exploitation.... Every abuse of capitalism calls

forth a fresh installment of legislation restrictive of personal

liberty, with an army of prying officials. Legislators keep busy

making laws, judges keep busy interpreting and enforcing them, and

a swarm of petty officials are kept busy attending to this

intricate machine of popular government. In sober truth, it must be

said that capitalism has created, and could not exist without, the

very bureaucracy it charges Socialism with attempting to foist upon

the nation."[301]

The Socialists are as far from proposing anything resembling a system of

mechanical and absolute equality as they are from attacking personal or

industrial liberty. Ninety-nine and one half per cent of the product of

the men of the different social classes, says Edward Bellamy, "is due in

every case to advantages afforded by modern civilization."[302] So that

if one man is twice as capable as another, it merely raises the

proportion of the product due to his personal efforts from one half of

one per cent to one per cent. International Socialism realizes with

Bellamy that the product is social in far greater proportion than is at

present recognized, but it does not deny that there are cases in which

the contribution of the individual is more important even than

everything that can be attributed to his social advantages. It does not

propose, therefore, to level incomes. It is true that this communist

principle of Bellamy's has a wide practical application both in the

Socialist scheme of things and in present-day society, as, for example,

in free schools and parks, and in the "State Socialist" program. But the

extension of such communism, the distribution of services to the general

public without charge, is due to-day, not to any acceptance of the

general principle, but to the fact that it is inconvenient or impossible

to attempt to distribute the cost of many services among individuals in

proportion as they take advantage of them.

Kautsky expresses the prevailing Socialist view when he says that the

_principle_ of equality, if distinguished from mere _artificial

leveling_, will play a certain rôle in a Socialist society. Without any

definite legislation in that direction the natural economic forces of

such a society will tend to raise low wages, and at the same time, by

the increase of competition for higher positions, to lower somewhat the

highest salaries. For if Socialists are opposed to any kind of

artificial equality or leveling, they are still more opposed to

artificial inequality, and all the initial advantages that arise out of

the possession of wealth or privileges in education will be done away

with.[303]

On the supposition that Socialism proposes a communistic leveling of

income, it has been stated very often by Socialists that it would be

necessary to abolish wages, but there is no authority for this either

from Karl Marx or from any of his most prominent successors. It is "wage

slavery" or "the wage system" that is to be abolished. In his letter on

the Gotha Program written in 1875 Marx said that there will be applied

to wages "the principle which at present governs the exchange or

merchandise to that degree in which identical values are being

exchanged"; that is to say, supply and demand, when it operates

_freely_, will give us a standard also in a Socialist system. There will

be no starvation wages, no inflated salaries, no "rent" of educational

advantages, no unearned income and no monopoly prices, but automatically

adjustable prices and wages will continue. In 1896 Jules Guesde, perhaps

the best known disciple of Marx in France, expressed nearly the same

idea in the Chamber of Deputies--"The play of supply and demand," he

said, "will have sufficed to determine without any arbitrary or violent

act, that problem of distribution which had seemed insoluble to you

before."

Here again we see that Socialism, in its aversion to all artificial

systems and every restriction of personal liberty is far more akin to

the individualism of Herbert Spencer than it is to the "State Socialism"

of Plato. Socialists expect their children to be far wiser and more

fortunate than themselves, and do not intend to attempt to decide

anything for them that can well be left undecided. They intend only that

these children shall have the freedom and power necessary to direct

society as they think best. The few principles I have mentioned are

perhaps the most important of those they believe to be the irreducible

minimum needed to insure this result.

FOOTNOTES:

[292] H. G. Wells, "This Misery of Boots," pp. 29-32.

[293] Alfred Russell Wallace, "The Railways and the Nation," the

_Arena_, January, 1907.

[294] Anton Menger, "L'État Socialiste" (Paris, 1904), p. 348.

[295] Karl Kautsky, "The Social Revolution," pp. 121-123.

[296] Karl Kautsky, "The Social Revolution," pp. 165-167.

[297] Karl Kautsky, "The Social Revolution," p. 179.

[298] Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman in the _Forerunner_ (1910).

[299] The Communist Manifesto.

[300] Émile Vandervelde, "Collectivism," p. 126.

[301] John Spargo, "Socialism."

[302] Edward Bellamy, "Equality," p. 89.

[303] Karl Kautsky, "Das Erfurter Programm," pp. 161-162.

INDEX

Abbot, Lyman, 33, 36, 97, 283, 284.

AGRICULTURE, 7, 85, 96, 300-323.

America, _see_ United States.

_American Federation of Labor_, _see_ United States Labor Unions.

Amsterdam, _see_ International Congresses.

André, 381.

_Appeal to Reason, The_, 321, 430.

Asquith, Herbert, 153, 362.

Augagneur, 132, 134, 398.

Australasia, the Labour Parties of, 85, 86, 92-94, 128, 146, 151,

168, 174.

Australasia, "States Socialism" in:

the labor policy, 53, 86;

agrarian and land policy, 85, 88, 89;

government ownership, 84, 85, 89-91.

Austria, the Socialist Party of, 239, 247, 252, 259, 347.

Baden, 256-264.

Baker, Ray Stannard, 32.

Barnes, George, 164, 165.

Bauer, Otto, 239, 247.

Bebel, August:

on reformism, 117, 123, 126, 130, 131;

on revolutionary politics, 232;

on the revolutionary trend, 251, 252, 254, 255, 258-264;

on the class struggle, 281;

on the agricultural problem, 301;

on the general strike, 390, 391;

on revolution, 416, 418, 419.

Belgium, the Socialist Party of, 139, 141, 146, 252.

Bellamy, Edward, 435.

Belloc, Hilaire, 160, 161, 163.

Berger, Victor:

and the "State Socialist" labor policy, 63;

on reformism, 126, 211;

as leader of Milwaukee Socialists, 178, 189, 195, 202-207;

on revolutionary politics, 240-242;

on the agricultural and land question, 317, 318;

on political revolution, 418.

Bernstein, Edward, 1, 99, 179, 180, 240, 285, 286, 331.

Bismarck, 43, 403, 404.

Bissolati, 140-144.

Bland, Hubert, 161.

Bohn, Frank, 373-375.

_Boston Herald, The_, 379.

Boudin, Louis, 180.

Bowling, Peter, 69, 70.

Brandeis, Louis, 60.

Briand, Aristide, 126, 132-134, 137, 388, 394-398, 421, 422.

_Bridgeport Socialist, The_, 193.

Brisbane, Arthur, 33-35,

see also _New York Journal_.

Brooks, John Graham, x.

Brousse, Paul, 135.

Bryan, William Jennings, 30, 180, 341.

Burns, John, 251, 357.

Butler, Nicholas Murray, 392.

_Call, New York, The_, 198, 272, 399.

Canada, compulsory arbitration in, 78-80.

Canada, the Socialist Party of, 288.

Carnegie, Andrew, 63, 97, 151, 152.

CATHOLIC CHURCH, 87, 258.

Chesterton, G. K., 160.

Churchill, Winston:

and the Social reform program, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12;

and the politics of state capitalism, 42;

and the state capitalist labor policy, 50, 54, 55, 57-59;

and compulsory arbitration, 82;

and the Labor Party, 151, 152;

and the class struggle, 280, 298;

and labor unions, 348, 360, 361, 363.

_Civic Federation, The_, 343, 344, 419-421.

Clark, Professor John Bates, 124, 236, 237.

Clark, Victor S., 66, 69, 79, 80, 90.

CLASS STRUGGLE, THE, 33-36, 135-136, 245-247, 276-287, 297-299, 347;

_see also_ REVOLUTION.

_Collier's Weekly_, xi, 199, 397.

Compère-Morel, 201, 309, 315.

Davenport, Daniel, 68.

Debs, Eugene V.:

on "State Socialism," 83;

on reformism, 175-177, 191;

on labor unions, 335, 343-345;

on syndicalism, 366, 372, 375;

on revolution, 401.

DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, 31-45, 148-150, 155, 184, 217-230, 378, 379.

Denmark, 259, 260.

De Toqueville, Alexander, 130.

Devine, Edward, 61.

Dreher, W. C., 94, 269.

Duchez, Louis, 332, 369.

EDUCATION, _see_ PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Eliot, Charles W., 51, 79, 80, 100-105.

Elm, von, 391.

Engels, Friedrich, 112-115, 231-233.

Fabian Society, _see_ Great Britain.

Ferri, Enrico, 132.

Fischer, Richard, 263.

Fisher, Irving, 53.

Fisher, Premier, 85.

Flexner, Abraham, 52.

France, labor unions in, 366, 377-384, 388, 394-398, 412, 414.

France, the Socialist Party of:

reformism in, 135-139, 200, 240, 244, 247, 274;

on the land and agricultural question, 309, 315-318;

on labor unions (_see_ France, labor unions);

the revolution, 390, 414, 417, 418, 421, 422, 424.

Frank, 257, 259, 262.

_Frankfurter Zeitung_, 256.

Garment Workers, United, 190, 350.

Gary, Judge, 16, 29.

Gaynor, William J., 195, 283.

George, Henry, 13, 14, 97, 320, 323.

Germany, "labor unions" in, 68, 336, 346, 347, 352, 384, 385.

Germany, the Socialist Party of:

position on reformism in, 125, 128, 217-235, 245-247;

its revolutionary trend, 248-270;

position on class struggle, 280, 284, 285, 288-291, 327-331;

the agricultural question in, 300-304, 307, 309, 312, 317, 318;

the revolution in, 389-391, 403, 404, 407, 414, 419, 423, 424.

Germany, "State Socialism" in, 2, 4, 43, 51, 52, 55-57, 94-96;

_see also_ Bismarck.

Ghent, W. J., 205, 210.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 433.

Gompers, Samuel, 121, 336-338, 341-343, 345-347, 349.

GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP, 4, 14, 16, 17, 24, 85, 90, 111, 112, 126,

146-147, 207-209, 233-234.

Grayson, Victor, 122.

Great Britain, labor unions:

compulsory arbitration, 68;

attitude to class struggle, 341, 348;

the new unionism, 354, 355-366, 371, 372.

Great Britain, the Labour and Socialist parties of

(_see also_ MacDonald, Shaw, Wells, Webb, Hardie, etc.):

The Labour Party, 1, 44, 123, 146-151, 164-168, 173, 174;

The Fabian Society, 2, 47, 62, 149, 152-157, 159-164, 410-412;

The Social-Democratic Party, 123;

The Independent Labour Party, 146, 147, 151-153, 164-167, 240;

The Socialist Party, 167, 168.

Great Britain, "State Socialism" in:

the Social reform program, 1-12;

the politics of the New Capitalism, 42-45;

the labor policy, 47-51, 53-59, 61, 62;

compulsory arbitration, 80-83;

the school question, 104;

"State Socialism" and the Socialists, 122, 123, 146, 147, 153.

Guerard, 381.

Guesde, Jules, 131, 137, 250, 318, 424, 436.

Hadley, President, 51.

Hanford, Benjamin, 211.

Hard, William, 60.

Hardie, James Keir, 146, 147, 164, 165.

Harlan, Justice, 202.

Hartshorn, Vernon, 355.

Haywood, William, 366, 371-376.

Hearst, William Randolph, 33, 215.

Herron, George D., 238, 335.

Hervé, Gustave, 138, 295, 372, 375, 382, 417, 418, 422.

Hillquit, Morris, 210, 213.

Hobson, John A., 50, 99, 150, 157, 158.

Holmes, George K., 97.

Howe, Frederick C., 15.

Hoxie, Professor Robert F., 175.

Hughes, Jessie Wallace, 41, 68, 176, 339, 390.

Hungary, 152, 163, 336, 345.

_Independent, The_, x, 124.

INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM, 354-386.

International Socialist Congresses:

Paris (1900), 139, 248, 249;

Amsterdam (1904), 137-139, 248-251;

Stuttgart (1907), 406.

_International Socialist Review, The_, 372.

Italy, the labor unions of, 376.

Italy, the Socialist Party of, 140-145, 398.

Jaurès, Jean:

on reformism, 132-139, 141, 144, 146;

on revolutionary politics, 242, 244;

on the revolutionary trend, 249-251;

on the general strike, 389, 390.

_Justice_, 123, 167.

Kautsky, Karl:

on the first step towards Socialism, 111, 112;

on reformism, 153;

on reform by menace of revolution, 217-227;

on revolutionary politics, 233-236, 244-247;

on the revolutionary trend, 248, 249, 253, 264-268, 273, 274;

on the class struggle, 290, 291, 296, 297, 299;

on the land and agricultural question, 300-304, 307, 312, 317, 318;

on the working class, 327-330;

on labor unions, 346;

on syndicalism, 384-385;

on political revolution, 416, 419, 423, 424;

on the transition to Socialism, 431-433, 435.

Kelly, Edmond, 63, 128, 357.

Kirkpatrick, George R., 408-410.

LABOR LEGISLATION, 46-96, 137, 339.

LABOR UNIONS, 66-84, 334-400.

Labour Party, _see_ Great Britain and Australasia.

Labriola, Arturo, 376.

Lafargue, Paul, 232, 247, 318.

La Follette, Robert M., 25, 26, 68, 179, 180, 182, 187, 277, 341, 393.

_La Follette's Weekly_, 1, 23, 188.

Lagardelle, Herbert, 376-382, 417.

LAND QUESTION, 3-6, 87-89, 92, 93, 96, 113, 234, 300-323.

La Salle, Ferdinand, 248, 425.

Ledebour, 254, 255.

Legien, Karl, 342, 347.

Le Rossignol and Stewart, 70-75, 89, 91.

Liebknecht, Karl, 258, 403, 404, 408.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, ix, 117, 125, 236, 248, 250, 288, 289, 327.

Lincoln, 278.

Lloyd George, David:

and the social reform program, 2, 7-11;

and the politics of State Capitalism, 42-44;

and the State capitalist labor policy, 48, 49, 56, 62;

and compulsory arbitration, 80;

and the Labor Party, 151;

and labor unions, 360, 386.

London, Jack, 410.

Louis, Paul, 225, 382, 383.

Lunn, George R., 198.

Luxemburg, Rosa, 416.

McCarthy, Mayor, 190, 332.

_McClure's Magazine_, 24, 98.

MacDonald, J. R.:

on the reformist policy, 1, 123, 273;

as spokesman for the Labor Party, 146-152, 164-167;

on syndicalism, 360, 365, 386.

Machinists, 349.

Maxwell, Superintendent, 105.

Mann, Tom, 357-359, 364, 365, 370-372.

Martin, John, 235.

Marx, Karl:

Socialism viewed as a movement, ix, x;

on "State Socialism," 111-115;

on Socialist political policy, 117, 118, 130, 212, 213, 231, 260;

on agriculture, 303;

on revolution, 424;

on Socialist labor union policy, 352, 356;

on the policy of a Socialist government, 433, 436;

on the class struggle, 279, 284-285, 327, 332.

Maurenbrecher, 246, 263, 264.

Mehring, Franz, 425.

Menger, Anton, 196, 232, 429.

Mill, John Stuart, 129.

Millerand, 122, 126, 132-134, 137, 248, 249, 393.

Milwaukee, 126, 176, 178-196;

_see also_ Berger and Thompson.

_Milwaukee Journal, The_, 183, 184, 196.

Miners, Western Federation of, 366-368.

Mine Workers, United, 349-351, 367.

Mitchell, John, 97, 336-338, 342-345, 357.

Modigliani, 142, 143.

Moody, John, 21.

Morgan, J. P., 18, 47.

Morley, Lord, 154.

Moyer, 368.

MUNICIPALIZATION, _see_ "MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM" and GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

"MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM," 161-163, 175, 176, 182-184, 188-201.

Musatti, 144.

NATIONALIZATION, _see_ GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

_New Age, The_, 1, 159, 160, 163.

_New Yorker Volkszeitung_, 189, 195, 331.

_New York Evening Journal, The_, 33-35, 183.

_New York Evening Post, The_, 198.

_New York Times, The_, 195.

_New York World, The_, 183, 184.

New Zealand, 168;

_see also_ Australasia.

Niel, 381.

Oklahoma, 319, 320.

_Outlook, The_, 202, 392, 397.

Owen, Senator, 202.

Panama Canal, 16, 17, 20.

Pannekoek, 292, 293.

Paris, _see_ International Congresses.

Patten, Simon, 50, 51.

Pelloutier, 377.

Perkins, George W., 18, 47.

_Philadelphia North American, The_, 347.

Podrecca, 144.

Post, Louis F., 13, 14.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 99-105.

Quelch, 167.

Quessel, 264.

Rappaport, 133, 201, 216.

Reeves, William Pember, 70.

REVOLUTION, 231-247, 387-425;

_see also_ CLASS STRUGGLE.

Rigola, 142.

Rockefeller, John D., 19, 63.

Roland-Holst, Henriette, 389-391.

Roosevelt, Theodore:

on the social reform program, 1;

and on the economics of the New Capitalism, 16, 18, 29-31;

on the politics of the New Capitalism, 36, 40;

on the "State Socialist" labor policy, 59, 63;

and compulsory arbitration, 79, 80, 82, 83;

on the class struggle, 281-284, 287;

on commission on Country Life, 309, 320;

on labor unions, 368, 373;

on government employees, 392, 396.

Root, Elihu, 18.

Rosebery, Lord, 10.

Ross, Edward A., 14, 36.

Russell, Charles Edward:

on compulsory arbitration, 76-78;

on the Labour Parties, 169-173;

on reformism, 177, 178;

on "State Socialism," 208-210.

Russia, 390, 414.

_Saturday Evening Post, The_, 97, 200.

Seidel, Mayor, 192, 193, 196.

Shaw, George Bernard:

on the social reform program, 2;

on the "State Socialist" labor policy, 47;

on Socialism and democracy, 154, 155;

on social classes, 325-327;

on militarism, 410-412.

Shibley, George, 341.

Simons, A. M., 119, 120, 310, 316-318, 322.

Singer, Paul, 255.

Sladden, Tom, 294, 332.

Snowden, Philip, 146, 152, 153, 164-166.

Sombart, Werner, 243.

Spargo, John, 213, 434.

Steffens, Lincoln, 19, 20.

Stokes, Mrs. J. G. Phelps, 420.

Stokes, J. G. Phelps, 183, 184.

Stuttgart, _see_ International Congresses.

_Survey, The_, 64.

Sweet, Ada C., 420, 421.

Taft, William H., 16, 68, 79, 81, 98, 393.

TAXATION, 8, 12, 96, 114;

_see also_ LAND QUESTION, MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM, and

GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

_Temps_ (Paris), 132.

Thompson, Carl D., 122, 192, 193, 196.

Thorne, Will, 365.

Tillet, Ben., 356, 359, 365.

Tolstoi, 358, 401, 402.

TRADE UNIONS, _see_ LABOR UNIONS.

Turati, 122, 140-145, 146.

UNEARNED INCREMENT, _see_ LAND QUESTION.

United States, labor unions in:

on compulsory arbitration, 81;

attitude to politics, 335-341;

attitude to class struggle, 341-347;

attitude to Socialist Party, 348-352;

and "industrial unionism," 355-358, 366-375.

United States, the Socialist Party of:

"State Socialism" in, 62, 83;

reformism in, 122, 123, 126, 175-209, 210-216, 238-242;

on social classes, 288, 298, 331-335;

on agricultural and land questions, 304-306, 309-323;

on labor unions, _see_ United States, labor unions in;

the revolution in, 399, 401, 405, 408-410, 418-420.

United States, "States Socialism" in:

the social reform program, 13-31;

the politics of the New Capitalism, 16-31;

The Politics of the New Capitalism, 32-42;

the labor policy, 47, 48, 50-53, 59-65;

compulsory arbitration, 67-69, 80-84;

equal "opportunity," 97-99;

the school question, 99-106;

"State Socialism" and the Socialist, 206-209.

Untermeyer, Samuel, 29.

Vaillant, Edouard, 138, 139.

Vandervelde, Émile:

on reformism, 139, 141, 146;

on agriculture, 301, 303, 317;

on the working class, 331;

on the policy of a Socialist government, 434.

Viviani, 133, 134, 398.

_Voice of Labour_ (Auckland, New Zealand), 168.

_Vorwaerts_ (Berlin), 10.

Walker, John, 350.

Wallace, Alfred Russell, 429.

Ward, Sir Joseph, 54.

Waterson, Henry, 425.

Webb, George H., 47.

Webb, Sidney:

on the social reform program, 2, 3;

on the "State Socialist" and labor policy, 61;

on Socialism and individualism, 153-155, 159, 164.

Wells, H. G.:

"Is Socialism a movement or an idea?" xi;

on the social reform program, 3;

on the "State Socialist" labor policy, 62;

on British Socialism, 155-157, 159;

on social classes, 296, 325;

on the transition, 428.

_Western Clarion, The_ (Vancouver), 332.

White, William Allen, 32.

Wilde, Oscar, 325.

Wilson, Stitt, 271.

Wilson, W. B., 67.

Wilson, Woodrow, 26-29, 31, 36, 40, 68, 283.

_The Worker_ (Brisbane, Australia), 128.

Yvetot, 414.

Printed in the United States of America.

End of Project Gutenberg's Socialism As It Is, by William English Walling