THE REMEDY
My dear John,
As we have seen, it is not necessary that we should study life through
the smoked glasses of Socialism to realize that all is not well with
the world. Indeed, we have no need to look further than our own
everyday experiences to witness misery that is heart-rending, to see
evils that imperatively demand relief. That such conditions exist,
nobody can deny; and the Socialists have made good use of this fact
in shaping their appeal for “universal justice.” Certainly, it is an
argument that cannot fail to touch the human heart that is at all moved
to sympathy.
If such evil conditions exist, it is our duty to remedy them, and with
as little delay as possible. Sympathy is not enough. We must act and
act at once--but how? It is a question that we who are not Socialists
are frequently asked. “If the Socialists are wrong,” our friends
inquire, “what have you to offer as a substitute?”
One of the greatest weaknesses in the Socialist position is due to the
fact that it persists in looking at life from the wrong perspective.
Instead of finding the right point of view, it examines life’s canvas
from so close a range that it loses all sense of proportion. Assuming
this attitude toward current events, the abuses apparent are magnified
to such a degree as to make it appear that Marx was correct in
asserting that the capitalist system is rotten to the core, and that
the only hope for relief lies in collective ownership.
Are the Socialist contentions true? Is everything in this country
tending towards hopeless bankruptcy?
Fortunately there are facts in plenty which answer these questions.
There never was a period in the world’s history in which greater
progress was made toward modifying--if not actually eliminating--the
burdens that have caused so much misery to the poor. You must remember,
John, that the evils against which Socialists inveigh so bitterly are
not new evils. They had their origin generations ago; they have been
promoted by the sophistical theories of Economic Liberalism; and, if
they now seem more indefensible than they did to our grandfathers and
great-grandfathers, it is because our intenser conceptions of the
ideals of human brotherhood compel us to view life with closer scrutiny.
In truth, while the indictment of Socialism is warranted in one sense
of the word, it is by no means entirely justified. If we were doing
nothing to improve conditions for the workers and for the relief of the
poor, the outlook would be a hopeless one; but, when we realize that,
while Socialism itself is doing practically nothing but denouncing
and slandering society (where it does not actually oppose our reform
measures), we are working steadily toward the solution of our social
problems, we can see good reason to believe that our civilization is
far from being the failure it has been pictured.
No better evidence of the extent of the world’s material progress can
be found than in labor’s advancement during the past century. To-day,
there is still much to be done before we can attain the ideal embodied
in the expression, “a fair day’s pay”; yet it is interesting to note
that we should have to go back no further than the first quarter of
the eighteenth century to find an Act of the Court of Massachusetts
under which employers could adopt a maximum wage schedule. In a word,
this law prevented an employer from giving more than the specified
sum per day; yet no effort was made to prevent him from paying the
lowest wages for which a laborer could be induced to work. Between
this condition and the minimum wage agitation with which we are now
familiar, there is a contrast that speaks eloquently in evidence of our
social progress.
In England, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the situation
of labor was worse than it has ever been in this country. Forbidden by
law to establish any safeguard in the form of organization for his own
protection, the employe was absolutely at the mercy of his employer.
The result was a condition of affairs that was barbaric. If the
employer paid the rate of wage agreed in money, or even in “truck,” he
was under no further legal responsibility; and, as the introduction of
improved machinery in many trades was beginning to make it possible for
women and children to perform the duties which hitherto had fallen only
upon men, an employer was able to make the worker accept terms that
made proper sustenance impossible.
At the dawn of the nineteenth century, this was the condition of
things: the laborer was (1) prohibited from forming protective
combinations or unions; (2) compelled to work sixteen hours out of each
twenty-four; (3) forced to accept as recompense wages which were wholly
inadequate to provide the most vital necessities of life; and, as
though these conditions were not sufficiently oppressive, (4) employers
were permitted to make payment at long intervals, or in “truck,” _and
could charge interest at the rate of 260 per cent per annum on all
cash advances made to the needy worker_. Apparently, this was the time
when Marx ought to have appeared with his doctrine of wage slavery and
his incitement to class hatred. But, when we compare these conditions
with those which exist to-day, we can readily see that, while things
are still far from being “ideal,” the worker assuredly is not sinking
steadily into deeper depths of degradation.
Even in this country the conditions of the laborer were far from
enviable a century ago. As McMaster tells us in his “History of the
People of the United States”:
“His house was meaner, his food coarser, his clothing was of commoner
stuff, his wages lower, and his hours of daily labor far longer than
those of the men who in our time perform like service. Down to the
opening of the nineteenth century, a farm hand was paid $3 a month. A
strong boy could be had for $1 a month. Women who went out to service
received $10 a year; type-setters were given $1 per day. The hours
of work were from sunrise to sunset, and, as the sun rose later and
set earlier in the Winter than in the Summer, _wages in December
were one-third less than in July_. On such pittances it was only by
the strictest economy that a mechanic could keep his children from
starvation and himself from jail,” for these were the days when a man
could be arrested upon the complaint of a creditor and, being lodged
in jail, could be kept there until the indebtedness was paid--a system
which actually permitted life imprisonment for debt.
If I were to tell you of the indescribably vile conditions under
which the workers of those days toiled and lived, you would find it
difficult to believe that human beings could bear such burdens and
survive. If you are interested in investigating this subject, there
are books in the libraries that will tell you the story in all its
damning details. And this is the perspective from which you should
view life. It is, to say the least, “unscientific” to exaggerate the
weak spots in present-day civilization to such an extent as to convey
the impression that the evils criticized are the worst that have ever
been known, when a few hours’ study of history would be sufficient to
disclose the fact that circumstances are now infinitely less oppressive
than they have been in the past. At the same time the knowledge that
things are incalculably better than they were even half a century ago,
and that they are steadily improving, must not blind us to the fact
that there is still much to be done--more perhaps than has yet been
accomplished--and that it is our duty as good citizens to do our part
in remedying all our social defects.
But what are we to do?
Let history answer.
Do you imagine that it was the individual capitalist--the “heartless
and greedy sweater”--who was responsible for all the improvements
that have occurred in our industrial conditions? No, it was the worker
himself who secured all these reforms. The worker, chiefly through his
own effort, has brought about the reformation that we witness to-day,
and it is the worker who must carry on the campaign until all the
abuses of which we complain have been eliminated.
It is from the pages of history that we learn the story of the past; it
is to the pages of history that we must turn for advice as to what we
must do in the future. Let us see what history tells us.
In the first place we learn that, despite all the legal prohibitions
then existing, the workers organized new associations. In the beginning
these organizations were merely “friendly societies,” ostensibly formed
to provide aid for the men in time of sickness or other misfortune; but
behind this purpose was the inception of the peaceful revolution that
was to rescue labor from the mire of degradation into which it had been
so pitilessly thrust.
Here then we have our first lesson: _the duty of the worker to
organize_. As Portenar says in his “Problems of Organized Labor”
(p. 4), “the trade union came into being because it was needed;
because the helpless individual found in concerted action with other
individuals his best, if not his only, means of resistance to the
arbitrary exercise of power, to injustice, to cruelty. It was a hard
fight. Wealth, and the merciless power of wealth; the state law,
forbidding workmen to co-operate for the purpose of increasing wages
and fixing maxima, with its interpreters zealous for its rigorous
enforcement; legislative bodies deaf to the cries of those who were
denied the privilege of a voice in the selection of their members; and
the broken-spirited timidity of those in whose behalf the union was
created; these were the forces to be contended with and overcome.”
But the trade union was born, and the trade union has won many a
victory. But for this weapon of defense--and sometimes of offense--the
condition of the worker would not have been what it is to-day. Through
its efforts legislation has been secured. Through its efforts public
opinion has been shaped, and it is to its efforts that we must look
primarily for future betterment of labor’s condition.
The first step, therefore, is one of organization; and, this step once
taken, our subsequent progress follows logically. As the strength of
the organized workers increases, more demands can be made, and with a
much better prospect that they will be recognized. Legislatures, like
parliaments, are no longer deaf and blind to the requirements of the
workers. We have seen the circumstances under which the laborer existed
in the past. We know from personal experience the hardships suffered by
those who live under the lessened burden of to-day.
“Looking broadly to labor legislation as it has occurred in this
country,” said Carroll D. Wright, “it may be well to sum up its general
features. Such legislation has fixed the hours of labor for women
and certain minors in manufacturing establishments; it has adjusted
the contracts of labor; it has protected employes by insisting that
all dangerous machinery shall be guarded ... it has created boards
of factory inspectors whose powers and duties have added much to the
health and safety of the operatives; it has in many instances provided
for weekly payments ... it has regulated the employment of prisoners;
protected the employment of children; ... provided for the ventilation
of factories and workshops; established industrial schools; ...
modified the common-law rules relative to the liability of employers
for injuries of their employes; fixed the compensation of railroad
corporations for negligently causing the death of employes, and has
provided for their protection against accident and death.”
In spite of all that has been accomplished, however, we must increase
enormously our efforts along these lines, and so open up new avenues of
progress. The question of the hours of labor requires adjustment; child
labor, sweating, the home industries, the standardization of wages on
a “living” basis, are but a few of the problems which must be settled;
and the only way to settle them is by means of legislation.
We must not forget, however, that laws are of little use unless they
are enforced. We already have laws on our statute books which would
quickly put an end to some of our abuses were they to be applied
adequately. This teaches us that, unless legislation is supported by
public opinion, it will be practically useless. Until public sentiment
forbids, laws are evaded; and a statute that is a “dead letter” is a
pretty sterile “reform measure.”
It is here that we find the next duty of the worker. Personally, and
through his organization, he must carry out a campaign of education
that will help to develop a more alert social conscience--that will
arouse all good citizens to the justice of his demands, and so
frustrate the efforts of the rascals who, greed-inspired, exist chiefly
to set the moral laws at naught.
To-day, this program can be carried out more easily than ever before in
human history. The social conscience is already awakening and in his
efforts to win more support for his righteous cause, the worker will
derive aid from the churches as well as from the many organizations
that have come into existence during the past decade solely to cast
their influence in behalf of social-welfare movements. The social
question to-day includes the industrial question. Moreover, it is
more than an economic and political question. It has its moral and
religious phases and so appeals directly to all public-spirited men and
women. By organization, legislation and education, a still wider and
ever-widening interest can be excited, until one by one the merciless
evils--now the source of so much woe--have been eliminated.
The objection may be raised that the program outlined is anything but
a simple one. I will admit that this is so; but I can assure you,
John, that the difficulties presented by the remedial measures I have
suggested are really not as great as those which we should experience
were we to attempt to carry out the plan which the Socialists have
arranged for us. The program I have outlined represents a sane solution
of our industrial problems; and the better acquainted with Socialism
you become the more firmly you will be convinced that the so-called
“palliatives” afford the only safe remedy for existing evils. There
can be no short-cut to the end we seek. Many forces operate to produce
present conditions and they must be considered and co-ordinated. It
is because the Socialists have failed to recognize this fact and make
provision for it that they have lost their way and wandered into such a
tangle of absurdities.
INDEX
Agriculture, Concentration in, 125 sqq.
American Federation of Labor, 10 sq.
_American Federationist_, value of goods manufactured in U. S., 47 sq.
_Appeal to Reason_, estimates consumable wealth in U. S., 50;
lauds Paris Commune, 168 sq.
Ashley, W. J., on principles of industrial justice, 197.
Bax, Belfort, on aims of Socialism, 145;
end of Socialism justifies every means, 153 sq., 155.
Bebel, August, proposes “changing-off” system, 61 sqq.;
defends violence, 164.
Benham, Charles, describes Paris Commune, 169 sq.
Bentham, Jeremy, 192.
Berger, Victor, advocates violence, 17.
Bernstein, Ed., declares Socialism could not keep its promise, 56;
takes issue with Marx, 118 sq.
Besant, Mrs. Annie, equal remuneration of all workers, 83;
the worker’s share of the products, 110 sqq.;
forecast of the future Socialist state, 175 sqq.
Blatchford, Robert, individuals have no inherent right to freedom, 74;
equality of payment under Socialism, 81 sq.
Blanc, Louis, National Workshops scheme, 110 sqq.
Bohn, Frank, 12.
Bonanza Farms, 126, 175, 180.
Bosses, Selection of, under Socialism, 68 sqq.; 181.
Building and Loan Deposits, 130 sq.
Capital, 39 sq.
“Capital,” see Marx, Karl.
“Capitalism,” see Individualism.
Capitalistic Development, Law of, 117 sqq.
“Case Against Socialism,” choice of occupation under Socialism, 65 sq.
Cathrein-Gettelmann, 23;
on “changing-off” system, 62 sq.;
impracticableness of Socialism, 95 sqq.
Census, U. S. Industrial, 45.
Changing-off System, 62 sq.
Chesterton, Cecil, Socialism is confiscation, 156.
Chiozza-Money, on “robbery of worker,” 20 sq.
Christianity and Labor, 197 sqq.
Class Consciousness, 16, 133 sqq.
Class Distinctions, 71.
Classes in U. S., 119 sq.
Class Hatred, see Class Consciousness.
Coler, Bird S., on “changing-off” system, 69 sq.
Collective Ownership, 59 sqq.
Collins, Peter W., Socialist method of sowing class hatred, 142 sq.
_Common Cause, The_, 90 sqq.;
Socialist statistics, 121;
increase of wages in recent times, 122;
wider distribution of wealth today, 124, 126 sq.
Commune, see Paris Commune.
“Communist Manifesto,” 83;
misery keeps pace with wealth, 129;
class antagonism, 134 sq.;
advocates violent overthrow of existing society, 160.
Communists, French, attack equal division of property, 83.
Compensation, see Confiscation.
Competitive System, 193 sq.
Concentration of Capital, 117 sqq.
Confiscation, 144 sqq.
Co-operative Commonwealth, definition, 17;
estimated pay roll, 49 sqq.;
length of working day in, 50 sqq.;
choice of occupation in, 67 sqq.;
feasibility of, 158;
forecast of, 175 sqq.
Cost of Labor, 46 sq.
Cost of Materials, 45 sq.
Consumable Wealth of U. S., 49 sq.
Crawford, Archibald, advocates class hatred, 142.
_Daily Telegraph_ (London), 85.
Debs, Eugene V., 11;
no respect for property laws, 149 sq.
De Tunzelmann, G. W., attacks “robbery” theory, 36.
Deville, division of produce under Socialism, 109 sq.
Dietzgen, Joseph, advocates violence, 164 sq.
Division of Profits, 77 sqq.
Earnings of Workers, see Wages.
Economic Liberalism, 191 sqq.
Elder, Benedict, difficulty of calculating value of labor, 92 sqq.
Engels, Friedrich, preaches class antagonism, 134 sq.
Employment under Socialism, 180 sqq.
Equality of Opportunity, 59, 78 sqq.
Equality of Remuneration, 77 sqq.
Erfurt Platform, exploitation of poor by rich, 121.
Ethics of Socialism, 149 sq., 153 sq., 157 sq., 171 sq.
Exchange Value, 23 sqq.
Expropriation, see Confiscation.
Fabian Essays, equal remuneration of workers, 83;
individual has no rights, 105 sq.;
division of profits, 110.
Fabian Society, on freedom in choice of occupation, 59.
Farms in U. S., 125 sqq.
Ferri, Enrico, advocates class antagonism, 136.
Five thousand dollars a year, 44, 48 sq.
Flint, Robert, Socialism a despotism under bosses, 71, 74.
Four-hour day, 44.
Freedom of choice of occupation, 59 sqq.
Freedom of Press and Speech, 186 sq.
Freedom to purchase, 182 sqq.
French Revolution, 158.
Godkin, E. L., Socialism and state solvency, 188.
Grayson, Victor, on “robbery” of worker, 20;
defends violence, 167.
Gronlund, Lawrence, no choice of occupation under Socialism, 67 sq.
Hague Congress (Socialist) of 1872, violence to be lever of social
reform, 161.
Hatton, condition of laboring classes improves, 118.
Haywood, Wm. D., 12.
Hazell, on “robbery” of workers, 20.
Herron, George D., working class alone entitled to existence, 138 sq.,
141;
lauds Paris Commune, 168.
Hillquit, Morris, thinks confiscation probable, 157.
Hobhouse, L. T., society divided into “experts” and puppets under
Socialism, 71 sq.
Hours of Labor, 43 sq., 51, 204.
Hyndman, H. M., maintains all investments are successful, 38 sq.;
wealth divided equally among good and bad workmen, 85 sq.;
advocates class conflict, 140 sq.;
ready to use violence, 163;
even dynamite, 167.
“Immediate Demands,” 13 sq.
Imprisonment for Debt, 205.
“Increasing Misery,” 122.
Individualism, 191 sqq.
Industrial Unionism, 11 sq.
Industries, Ownership of, 123 sqq.
Intensive Farming, 126.
Interest a Crime, 146.
_International Socialist Review_, no respect for present laws, 149 sq.
Inventions, effect of Socialism on, 185 sq.
Jaurès, on class antagonism, 138.
Joynes, advocates violence, 165.
_Justice_ (London), all weapons legitimate, 141;
lauds Paris Commune, 168.
Kautsky, Karl, moral law binding only between members of the same
class, 154 sq.
Kelleher, Rev. J., on constitution of Socialist state, 174 sq.
Kerr, Chas. H., all weapons defensible to overthrow existing society,
163 sq.
Kirkup, Thomas, attacks Marx’s law of the concentration of capital,
116 sq.;
Socialism is revolutionary materialism, 163;
revolution to end present era, 167.
Kress, Rev. W. S., present distribution of wealth compared with past
conditions, 131;
description of Paris Commune, 169 sqq.;
the satisfaction of public wants under Socialism, 182 sq.
Labor Certificates, 26.
Labor Conditions in early 19th Century, 204 sqq.
Labor, Full Product of, under Socialism, 87 sqq., 102 sqq.
“Labor is Source of All Value,” 21 sqq.
Labor Time, 26 sq.
Labor Value, 88 sqq.
Langenstein, principles of industrial justice, 197.
Laws, Disrespect for, among Socialists, 149 sq.
Leatham, interest is criminal, 146.
Legislation, Labor, in U. S., 209 sq.
Leo XIII, Pope, on morality of free contract, 198.
Liberty under Socialism, see Freedom of Choice.
Liebknecht, Wilhelm, on aims of Socialism, 14 sqq.
London, Jack, proclaims class war, 141.
MacDonald, Ramsay, on worker’s freedom under Socialism, 61;
selection of workers, 65.
Mallock, W. H., 38.
Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 136.
Manufactures in U. S., 45 sq.
Marx, Karl, on real aim of Socialism, 15;
on value, 21
sqq.;
on skilled labor, 30;
on “robbery” of worker, 32 sqq.;
supports “changing-off” system, 63 sq.;
equality of remuneration, 78 sq.;
law of concentration of capital, 116 sqq.;
advocates class antagonism, 134 sq.;
defends violence, 160 sq., 164;
lauds Paris Commune, 168.
Massachusetts, Act of Court of, fixing maximum wage, 203.
Maximum Wage, early in 19th Century, 203.
Mazzini, Giuseppe, describes Paris Commune, 169.
McMaster, J. B., Labor Conditions in U. S., in early 19th century,
205.
Mill, J. S., 192.
Ming, Rev. John J., S. J., Socialists hold moral principles bind
only members of same class, 155;
ethics of Socialism, 171.
Minimum Wage, 203.
Miscellaneous Expenses of Manufacture, 45 sq.
Mortgaged Farms, 128.
Municipal Ownership, 13 sq.
National Workshops experiment, 40 sqq.
Natural Rights, 149.
Necessary Labor, 27.
_Neue Zeit_, moral law binds only members of same class, 154.
Opportunity Under Socialism, see Equality of Opportunity.
Organization of Labor, 203 sq., 207 sqq.
Paris Commune, 161, 168 sqq.
Paulsen, Friedrich, ridicules “changing-off” system, 64 sq.
Pauperism, decrease in recent times, 122 sq.
Pearson, Karl, no mercy under Socialism for offenders against the
State, 73 sq.
Peru, Ancient, Society in, illustrates working of Socialist state, 72.
Portenar, A. J., on development of trade unions, 207 sq.
Product of Manufactures in U. S., 45 sq.
Quelch, means to be used in class war, 141;
lauds Paris Commune, 168.
Railways, Ownership of, 124.
“Red Catechism,” ownership of machines under Socialism, 150 sq.;
advocates revolution, 165.
Remuneration, 77 sqq.
_Revolt, The_, advocates class war, 142.
Revolution, The, definition, 17, 143, 160 sqq.; 165 sq.
Ricardo, David, 192.
Richardson, N. A., workers’ share of products under Socialism, 112 sq.
“Robbery” of Worker, 20 sqq., 34 sqq., 42 sq.
Sanial, Lucien, distribution of wealth in U. S. in 1900, 119 sq.
Savings of Workers, in U. S. Savings Banks, 130 sq.;
in building societies, 130.
Schäffle, Albert, condemns Socialist promises, 113 sq.
Shaw, George Bernard, equality of income primary tenet of Socialism,
79 sqq.
Simple Labor, 30.
Six-Hour Day, 33.
Skelton, Oscar D., 23;
Marx’s forecast of increasing misery of poor discredited, 129.
Skilled Labor, Payment of, under Socialism, 30, 77 sqq.
Smith, Adam, 192.
Snowden, riches of the few means the poverty of the many, 117.
Social Conscience, 211 sq.
_Socialist, The_, advocates confiscation, 157.
“Socialist Catechism,” revolution necessary to end exploitation of
workers, 165.
Socialist Federation of Australasia, advocates confiscation, 156 sq.
Socialist Hymn Book, 166.
Socialist Platform, in Germany, see Erfurt Platform;
in U. S., 134; in Great Britain, 136.
Socialist Schools, 143, 150 sqq., 166.
_Socialist Standard, The_, workers to organize for overthrow of
Capitalists, 137.
Spargo, John, constant danger to liberty under Socialism, 76;
equality of income aim of Socialism, 79;
freedom to indulge tastes under Socialism, 114 sq.;
admits weakness of Marxian theory as applied to agriculture, 127 sq.
Spencer, Herbert, only two methods of organizing labor, 70 sqq.;
liberty and justice must die under Socialism, 72.
_Standard, The_ (London), investigates menacing character of
Socialism, 151.
Steel Corporation, U. S., Ownership of, 125.
Surplus Value, Theory of, 32 sqq.
Suthers, on “robbery” of workers, 21;
remuneration under Socialism, 44;
no details concerning future Co-operative Commonwealth, 174.
Tcherkesoff, Concentration of Capital, 117 sq.
Ten Thousand Dollars a Year, 44.
Three-hour Day, 44.
Trade Unions, 207 sqq.
Trusts, 123.
Twenty-five hundred dollars a year, 42, 44.
Two thousand dollars a year, 43.
Unemployment, 190.
Unskilled Labor, 30.
Use Value, 23 sqq.
Utility, 24 sqq.
Utility, Loss of, 27 sq.
Vail, Rev. Charles H., defends confiscation of property, 147 sq.
Value of Farms in U. S., 127.
Value of Goods Manufactured in U. S., 45 sqq.
Value, Theory of, 23 sqq., 68.
Verge of Starvation, 35.
Violence as a political weapon, 16, 160 sqq.
Wages, Socialist prophecies, 42 sqq.;
average in U. S. in 1909, 46 sqq.;
under Socialism, 52, 57 sq., 60;
increase in recent times, 121 sq., 202 sqq.
Wealth, Distribution of, in U. S., in 1900, 119 sq.
Wealth Production, U. S., 49 sq.
Webb, Sydney, on freedom of worker under Socialism, 60 sq.;
selection of workers, 65;
industry is for benefit of community, not for profit of masters or
workingmen, 105 sq.
Welsh, Rev. J. J., unbridled competition is commercial cannibalism,
193 sq.;
man may not dispose wealth regardless of common good, 196.
Wells, H. G., on true aims of Socialism, 14;
forecast of Socialist state, 175.
West, Stuart P., on Socialist assertions and statistics, 120 sqq.;
wider distribution of wealth today, 124, 126 sq.
Woman, to undertake same tasks as man under Socialism, 62.
Willey, 47;
present distribution of wealth compared with past conditions, 131.
Woolsey, Rev. J. D., foretells violent opposition to Socialist plans,
162.
Wright, Carroll D., labor legislation in U. S., 209 sq.
Transcriber’s Notes
Page 72: “absolute depotism” changed to “absolute despotism”
Page 130: “associations affords” changed to “associations afford”
Page 133: “he first become” changed to “he first became”
Page 170: “which Rignault” changed to “which Rigault”
Page 185: “slighest evidence” changed to “slightest evidence”