WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN’T
Dear Mr. Smith,
Before beginning our investigation of Socialism, we must define our
subject. To talk intelligibly about Socialism, I must first know that
you understand what Socialism is and what it isn’t.
You may say that the soap-box orator has made all this very clear to
you, but you mustn’t be too certain about that. The soap-box orator
may know what Socialism really is, and what it proposes to accomplish,
and he may not. I have known soap-box orators who knew so little about
Socialism as to contend that it was nothing more than a political
movement which proposed to institute some much-needed reforms along
purely economic lines. And, there are other soap-box orators who, while
fully qualified to tell you all about Socialism, wouldn’t dream of
doing it for fear of frightening you.
It may be true that all Socialists agree to some extent upon a few
basic principles; but they disagree about so many things that it is
almost impossible to pin them down to anything definite. If a Socialist
is cornered in an argument, he will try to elude you by asserting that
Socialists are “not agreed” upon the answer to the question you have
asked, or that “the issue is purely a matter of private opinion.”
Have you noticed how cleverly Socialists can do this?
A Socialist agitator is out on a still hunt for converts. He meets John
Jones and asks him why he does not join the Socialist party.
“No,” says John, “I will not join the Socialist party, because it
stands for industrial unionism and I believe in the policy of the
American Federation of Labor.”
“That’s all right,” replies the Socialist agitator. “There are plenty
of prominent Socialists who are enthusiastic members of the A. F. of
L.,” and he reels off the names of a dozen or more. Of course, John
Jones is persuaded that he was mistaken in his opinion of the Socialist
party, and he joins.
Going a block or two further, the Socialist agitator meets Bill Brown,
and asks him why he does not carry a red card. Bill replies that he is
opposed to the Socialist party because of its friendliness for the A.
F. of L.
“I am opposed to violence, but I am an industrial unionist,” he
asserts, “and shall have nothing to do with an organization that stands
for craft unionism.”
What does the Socialist agitator do? From his pocket he extracts a
pamphlet written by Eugene V. Debs, in which Mr. Debs expounds the
doctrines of industrial unionism and shows that it is impossible for
a Socialist to be a conscientious craft unionist. So, realizing that,
as Socialism’s foremost advocate, Eugene V. Debs ought to know what
Socialism means, Bill Brown signs up.
A few moments later, our Socialist agitator comes face to face with Joe
Black.
“Come, Joe,” he says, as he grasps his hand, “you are a good Radical.
Why aren’t you in the Socialist party?”
But Joe shakes his head.
“Not for mine!” he asserts, emphatically. “I want nothing to do with a
party that is opposed to direct action. How is the worker to get what
he wants unless he takes it? I believe in _The Revolution_, but not in
the milk-and-water kind of revolution the Socialist party preaches.”
“That’s where you are mistaken, Joe,” replies the Socialist agitator.
“Why, some of our leading Socialists believe just exactly as you
do. Here”--and the agitator draws from his pocket a copy of the
Haywood-Bohn pamphlet on “Industrial Unionism”--“take this with you and
read it. It will show you how we Socialists stand on the question of
the industrial revolution.”
So Joe Black lines up, too.
I might continue in this strain indefinitely, for there is scarcely a
question at issue upon which Socialists do not disagree so widely that
those who preach Socialism can manage to be all things to all people.
But, you ask, what _does_ Socialism mean?
Let me answer your question by first telling you what Socialism does
not mean. In this way, we shall more quickly get to the real meaning of
the term.
I have met Socialists who told me that Socialism means absolutely
nothing but the promotion of a reform program: that it means shorter
hours and better pay, the elimination of child labor, the government
ownership of inter-state industry, the municipal ownership of municipal
utilities, and so on.
If you read the program of “Immediate Demands” in the Socialist
platform, you may get the idea that this definition of Socialism is a
correct one. But you would be mistaken. The “Immediate Demands” of the
Socialist party are not Socialism, and no real Socialist pretends that
they are. Indeed, in the platform of 1908, the Socialists themselves
repudiated this idea. Let me quote the closing paragraph of this
program:
“Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism
are but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole power of
government, in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole system
of industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance.”
Think the matter over calmly, John. Measures of relief that are nothing
more than “preparations” for an object cannot by any possibility be
that object itself--can they?
Then, too, there are plenty of Socialists who have not the slightest
use for a program of “Immediate Demands.” The Socialist party has
found these demands useful in persuading people to vote for its
candidates, and, for this reason, it goes right on talking about
“Immediate Demands,” as if these “sops” to social reform were
simon-pure Socialism.
The absurdity of this position is well pointed out by H. G. Wells:
“You cannot change the world and at the same time not change the
world,” he says. “You will find Socialists about, or at any rate those
calling themselves Socialists, who will pretend that this is not so,
who will assure you that some odd little jobbing about municipal gas
and water is Socialism.... You might as well call a gas jet in the
lobby of a meeting house the glory of God in heaven!”
If anybody should tell you that H. G. Wells is merely one Socialist out
of many millions, and that he does not know what he is talking about,
ask him if Wilhelm Liebknecht knew his Socialism any better. If your
Socialist is honest, he will have to admit that Wilhelm Liebknecht knew
what he was talking about, whether Wells does or not.
Assuming this to be true, listen to what Liebknecht says:
“The laboring class is exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class
and ... effectual reforms which will put an end to class government and
class exploitation are impossible” (quoted by Ejayh in _Weekly People_,
June 17, 1911).
If your Socialist still insists that Liebknecht is not sufficiently
good authority, you can refer him to Karl Marx himself, for it was he
who said:
“The working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate
working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that
they are fighting with effects; that they are retarding the downward
movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying
palliatives, not curing the malady.... Instead of the conservative
motto: ‘A fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage,’ they ought to
inscribe on their banners the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolish the
wages system’” (quoted in _Appeal to Reason_).
In brief, to quote Liebknecht again (_The Revolt_, May 6, 1911),
“pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition
of social injustice and the desire to remove it, ... condemnation of
wealth, and respect for poverty,” government ownership or municipal
ownership, an agitation for a shorter work-day, the demand for a more
equitable wage, an extension of the suffrage--not one, nor all of these
things is Socialism.
And if not, what _is_ Socialism?
Socialism is an indictment of the whole system of modern civilization,
a plan to overthrow it, and a scheme to set up in its place a system
of society in which all means of production, distribution and exchange
shall be owned collectively and operated collectively.
To attain this end--to effect the overthrow of all existing
institutions that the “more perfect” institutions of Socialism may take
their place--Socialists preach a gospel of class consciousness, by
which they hope to incite so strong a feeling of class hatred in the
heart of the worker that he will rise in revolt against his employer
and take from him all the means of production and distribution--by the
peaceful method of the ballot, if he can do it in that way; if not, by
violence and with bloodshed--the bloodshed Victor Berger threatened
when he advised the worker to “be prepared to back up his ballot with
his bullets.”
This is what Socialists mean when they talk about _The Revolution_.
This is the method by which they hope to attain their goal, the
Co-operative Commonwealth, in which, if the plan of Socialism does not
miscarry, there will be but one class--the working class--and all human
beings will actually love one another so much that they will dwell
together in peace and harmony ever after.
It is a beautiful picture--this idea of the lion and the lamb lying
down together. It is so enticing a promise that I might almost be
willing to go through a wee bit of a revolution myself in order to
attain it, if I could only believe that everything would work out in
the way Socialists predict that it will.
It is right here, John, that I am compelled to part company with the
Socialists for good and all. I am just as thoroughly enamoured peace
and harmony as Debs or Haywood or Hillquit. Not one of these gentlemen
would welcome a world without social evils and social miseries more
heartily than I. But, when I sit down and start to figure out
the problem logically, I find that the evidence against Socialism
accumulates rapidly. Between you and me, John, Socialism could not do
what it promises to accomplish even if it had the chance. You don’t see
why it couldn’t? Well, I’ll show you.