world over, as much as the law of gravitation. To blink it, is to go
wild or blind. This is the law of progress upon which all human
affairs expand, and there is scarcely a difference in wording it.
For instance, in the last book out on "Economics,"--that of
Prof. George Gunton, he says (p. 22): "Progress is an _integrating_
differentiation. Only that differentiation is progressive which
results in _new_ integrations and greater complexity of social
relations." Comte's, and Fiske's, and Herbert Spencer's statements of
the same law are the same in substance, but too well known to quote
here. So Professor Huxley in his "Administrative Nihilism," Henry
George in "Social Problems," and indeed pretty much everybody who
touches the subject, except Mr. Savage. He, however, has the grace to
admit that "The world began in Socialism,"--and, by the law referred
to, it will continue in an ever-enlarging, integrating Socialism, till
the rise of "the complete individual" will result. Yes, man's origin
was social; from the "Social Anthropoids,"--says Professor Huxley; and
to omit the continuance of this social fact and law in sociology is
worse than talking pre-Copernican astronomy. That should be left to
our metaphysical anarchists, who chatter as if man was a solitarily
created "Adam," defying the social "compact" of Rousseau, or dickering
as to the terms upon which he will "come in."
From Henry C. Carey's noble work, "Social Science," Americans should
have heard, if not read, enough of this law of enlarging integration
never to forget it, or to let those address them who have. He
illustrates it not only by human history, but by the fundamental law
of biology from Oken, Goethe, and the evolutionists generally. This
application has been continued by them to the present day; the last
instance I noticed is that of Prof. Ernst Haeckel, translated in Dr.
Paul Carus' late work, "The Soul of Man." This law measures the
progress of organisms from the homogeneous jelly-fish to the complex
elephant or man; from the savage tribe to the Roman Empire, or the
future "Federation of Mankind and Parliament of the World."
Integration is the mother, nurse, and protector of the individual.
In history and politics this law stands, however expressed or applied,
as the door which opens to the mental vision, the river of human
evolution and progress,--a sight grander far than Niagara. Those who
see not this fact, law, vision!--are socially blind.
In industrial and economic evolution the same law of progress holds.
The tribal homogeneous industry, when one man did work at everything,
became heterogeneous, special, and complex, as society enlarged and
advanced into higher integrations, and as the life of the individual
became more and more advanced through Fetichism, Polytheism,
Monotheism, to our modern inception of Humanism.
Do you stop this lecture to say that all this is a truism--a
"chestnut"?
Yes, but everybody who talks against Nationalism forgets it. So follow
a step farther.
"People will buy where they can buy the cheapest." But the cheapest
can only result from the highest integration of capital, machinery,
labor, intellect, and means of _wholesale_ production. Thus industrial
integration and progressive civilization, where the people can have
the means of a higher life, are indispensable parts and complements of
each other. But the result and the difficulty is, that _while_ the
people get their travel, oil, sugar, and necessities of life cheaper
and better than ever, they become the dependents, wage-slaves, and
political and social underlings of the _industrial Feudal System_
which that integration of transporting and producing monopolies builds
up. For, those who can and do combine to control the conditions of the
people's life and welfare have the people and their Republic in their
power. Under the integration of the Roman Empire and Papacy the
"Republic" was continued, but as a name only.
The lesson of history is, that Republics and Liberty always go down
when the necessary integrations of civilization and progress, military
or other, pass from the control of the people. In a word monopoly in
war, politics, industry, or in any form of integration, has been the
murder of Liberty, ending in social suicide. Nationalism proposes to
prevent this murder and suicide under the law above stated, thus:
Whenever the necessary transportation and production are integrated
into monopolies beyond the power of competition to control them, then
the people must control and operate them, or become the dependents of
those who do. Such is the difficulty, the danger, and the remedy,
concisely stated. Critics like Mr. Savage can only reply: "The
difficulty does not exist; the remedy is worse than the disease; there
is a better remedy." But Mr. Savage admits the difficulty. In an
evasive way he says, "the industrial condition of the world is not all
that one could wish." But he has no remedy, and concludes by saying
the remedy proposed would kill the patient sooner than the disease.
This is the diagnosis of an ostrich who tries to escape by burying his
head in the sand. It simply abandons the patient and there is no
solution, no health in that. Let our lecture proceed and see if there
is not a scientific remedy.
"Capital is the condition of production and the controlling factor of
modern civilization." Those who control it are the masters of the
world. The contest of the monopolists of this capital with the workers
and producers, that is, the people, is a burning fever which can only
end by the healthy triumph of the people. There is not a railroad,
mine, or factory, where this is not the daily issue upon which an
internecine war is being waged or smothered. In literature, religion,
politics, economics, ethics, everything turns upon the relations of
these contending parties, from the Pope's Encyclical to the Platform
of the People's Party. When we speak of our age, as the age of iron,
silver, gold, or of steam, electricity, intellect!--we simply say it
is the age of integrated capital, material and mental. To destroy this
capital is impossible, and if possible would be the suicide of
civilization.
The question then urges upon us in every direction: Shall the people
become the slaves of this capital, or its masters? The watchman on the
towers of our Boston Zion who fails to see the gathering storm clouds
seems strangely out of place, when we recall 1775 and 1861.
Nationalism says, the "Conflict is irrepressible," between labor and
individualized capital; and that the conflict will be fatal to
liberty, unless a remedy is found under the law of our national
evolution. This remedy that law gives as follows: That the people must
defend their liberties and "the rise of the individual," against this
industrial despotism of money kings, railroad barons, political
bosses, etc., better than they defended themselves against the foreign
tyrants in 1775, or the slaveocrats of 1861,--to-wit, by organizing an
army for their _peaceful_ protection and safety--_A free Army of
Industry_--before an army _for war_ shall be needed, and as its
preventive.
But this name, "Army of Industry," fills our peaceful Mr. Savage with
horror--a remedy worse than the disease? For thus he lets off his
second charge:--
"2. Military Socialism, such as Mr. Edward Bellamy advocates, would be
only another name for universal despotism, in which the individual, if
not an officer, would only count one in the ranks. It would be the
paradise of officialism on the one hand, and helpless subordination on
the other."
Mr. Savage has been taking novels and poetry literally, and has gone
into a fright at a ghost raised by his own excited imagination; or
else, he makes an objection out of a figure of speech because hard up
for a real one. Who does not see that an "industrial army" has nothing
to do with a military army, or a military despotism, except to prevent
both. There is no war, military compulsion, or "military" at all, in
the army of peace. The word "army" is short poetry for the order,
economy, punctuality, and reliable co-operation and co, not
_sub_-ordination of the public administration of industries. Remember
that we are in America, where this administration will be quite
different from that proposed in Europe where the Revolution of 1776
was not, and where "government" is one of divine right, authority, and
force, and covers the all of life from the cradle to the grave.
Nationalism is purely an American product, to be exercised as a
popular benefit, and having no mainspring or motive power but that. It
is the co-operation and co-ordination of equal partners, and while by
a figure of speech _fraternalism_ might be used to describe it,
_paternalism_ can never be properly so used. When Mr. Savage says, or
implies otherwise, he is simply imposing upon, or trading upon an
ignorance he ought to correct. He must know that the attempt to load
up American Nationalism with European despotism, Paternalism, or even
Socialism, is to bear false witness against his neighbor.
Before writing on this subject, he must have become acquainted with
the late writings of Prof. Richard T. Ely, and _The New Nation_ of
Edward Bellamy, whose standing motto is: "The industrial system of a
nation, as well as its political system, ought to be a government of
the people, by the people, for the people." And further it says (Aug.
1, p. 426): "This step necessarily implies that under the proposed
national industrial system, the nation should be no respecter of
persons in its industrial relations with its members, but that the law
should be, as already it is in its political, judicial, and military
organization,--from all equally; to all equally." Equality,
Fraternity, Liberty, are the words.
Pages with similar import can be cited from every exponent of
Nationalism. It all means that our "government" will not be of force
or of authoritarianism, but simply public conveniences and needs
regularly secured, without being farmed out by franchise laws to
monopolistic corporations for their benefit.
Notice further, that the extension of this government--action of the
people is not to do nor to extend to everything nor to anything, but
to the _material needs_ and _industries_ of the people, beginning with
those natural monopolies like railroads and telegraphs, ending with
trusts, etc., which have passed beyond competition. This simple limit
makes the cry of "universal despotism" absurd. The tyranny and robbery
of the few is simply abolished by the people, in equitably resuming
the franchise granted by them, and doing the work for all cheaper and
better. There is no tyranny to the few in this; and as to the many or
all,--the tyranny of having things you want done for you is laughable.
Our anarchists invariably submit to the tyranny of our free
nationalized Brooklyn Bridge instead of swimming the river, or using
the ferry company, as they are at full liberty to do. We had a hard
fight to get this bridge, for it displaced monopolies. When the other
monopolies, we have referred to, are displaced by the people, there
will be the same wonder that their tyrannies and exactions were ever
submitted to. We have found, and will find, that that government is
the best which serves and administers the most, for it will cost and
restrain the least. The government that serves and protects the people
will not need to compel them. Now its main business is to hold them
down while they are being robbed.
But, says Mr. Savage, these advantages would be attended by a
frightful "paradise of officialism"--a helpless subordination--in
which "the individual if not an officer would only count one!" We
cannot appreciate the horror of having more of "a paradise" about
officialism than we have in our present corrupt, inconstant, and
servile system of political Bossism, even if the individual could only
"count one." But Mr. Savage does know, or ought to know, that the very
first step of Nationalism is to nationalize our "politics," so as to
restore the initiative of political action to the people, and render
the abuses to which he refers impossible. He seems to suppose that
Nationalism is to be executed by Tammany Hall! Indeed, his capital as
an opponent of Nationalism consists in loading it up with European
paternalism and American political corruption, both of which it was
invented to render impossible. Suppose the "politics" of New York
were nationalized so that the City should no longer be a mere annex of
Tammany Hall, but so that every citizen might "count one," under legal
provisions for the vote and expression of the people without regard to
party or boss--who would be wronged? Politics must be annexed to our
government by such legal provisions, instead of being left to boss
monopoly or mobocracy. There is no freedom possible without a common
law and order to ensure and protect it. The trouble is now that all of
our politics are _outside_ of any law or order. "Count one!" Even that
is now impossible. We don't count at all, no more than if we lived in
Russia. But how many does Mr. Savage want an individual to count? His
idea of political freedom seems to be that of our old "free" Fire
Department, which was a monopoly entirely "voluntary." It gave us a
fire and _free_ fight nearly every night, developed its "Big Six"
Tweed into a "statesman," and consolidated Tammany Hall into the model
political "combine" of the world--as a monopoly. The custom is to
dispose of the offices of the people as profitably as it can _with
safety_, and to divide the proceeds for the benefit of the combine.
One of our purest and best judges publishes his last contribution as
$10,000, besides his other election expenses. This is the model to
which the State and Nation _must_ conform, for such is the condition
of success. Under that plan Governor Hill manages the State of New
York, and President Harrison, through "Boss" Platt, has just removed
Collector Erhardt from the New York custom house, under the imperative
necessity of the same method.
As long as our Government is run by partisan politics, outside of law,
there is no other alternative but this way or defeat. The pretence,
under this method, of civil service reform or fair tenure is sheer
hypocrisy. The Tammany method is the only condition of success, and
every practical politician knows it and adopts it. Nationalism
proposes the only remedy. It would remove every department from
political control, and restore the political initiative to the people
by requiring their common action under general laws for that purpose,
and suppressing as criminal the Boss conspiracy system, which causes
the counting of less than one by anyone. Do you say it cannot be done?
Well! look at that Fire Department. The indignation of "the State"
finally replaced it by a paid civil service, "nationalized"
department. Since then our fire affairs have run cheaply, effectively,
smoothly, though in a most trying environment. Fires seldom occur, and
seldom extend beyond the building in which they occur. The old abuses,
political and other, have stopped. The men, appointed and promoted for
merit, are highly respected and secured against causeless removal,
accident, sickness, and old age. "Helpless subordination" ended by an
appeal to the law which gave prompt redress. The heads of the
departments and the officers count one and the attempt to count more
would be an assumption not submitted to for a moment, for no one
_needs_ to submit. Extend this method _mutatis mutandis_ over our
Cities, States, and Nation, _and_ also over legalized political
election departments for the whole people,--and the nail will be hit
on the head! The last nail in the coffin of party monopoly and
corruption.
To excuse himself from not aiding this reform Mr. Savage cries,
visionary, unpracticable! Thus he says:--
"3. Nobody is ready to talk definitely about any other kind of
Nationalism ["Military Socialism" meaning], for nobody has outlined
any working method. If it is only what everybody freely wishes
done,--and this seems to be the Rev. Francis Bellamy's idea--then, it
is hard to distinguish it from individualism. At any rate it is not
yet clear enough to be clearly discussed."
All this shows Mr. Savage to be strangely misinformed. The Rev.
Francis Bellamy is right. Every impartial person does want the kind of
Nationalism Nationalists are after, as soon as their minds are
disabused of this foolish talk about military despotism, and helpless
subordination, etc., for every one can see that it works for the
liberty, equality, and welfare of all.
Misinformed, is the word for Mr. Savage. For if he had kept but one
eye on this world, as Humboldt said every well regulated chameleon and
priest is in the habit of doing, he would have known that every word
of this "No. 3," above quoted, is exactly wrong: To wit: The other
kind of Nationalism, which is not military despotism, has not only
been definitely talked about but definitely put in practice, not only
in the New York Fire Department, but in our schools, roads, canals,
waterworks, post-office, and in many other ways the world over! And
never ("hardly ever") has monopoly been able to recover its chance to
tyrannize and rob!
"No definite talk"! Yet our present Postmaster-General is asking
Congress for the postal telegraph; and the Interstate Commerce Law is
to be made practical to head off the People's Party? Let Mr. Savage
pick up the very same August ARENA which contains his article, and
read the clear and definite articles of _C. Wood Davis_, "Should the
Nation own the Railways?" and of _R. B. Hassell_, on "Money at Cost,"
and then tell the Editor with a straight face that _they_ are not
"clear enough to be clearly discussed!" The facts, laws, and arguments
are definitely _there_, and clearly discussed. Why have we not the
discerning eyes and impartial brains of Mr. Savage to read them?
We ask Mr. Savage to bring such eyes and brains to bear, and we defy
him to show any other plan by which the fatal monopolies, which are
_natural_ or _beyond_ competition, can be usefully and safely checked,
controlled, or destroyed. The attempts to do this by legal
prosecutions have notoriously failed. How to replace monopolies and
yet increase the benefits they have conferred is _the_ question of our
age, and Nationalism answers it. Mr. Savage, as we have shown, admits
the difficulty. We are entitled then to a practical answer, or to
silence. Ridicule, however witty, is neither answer nor remedy.
But instead of silence we have his amusing "fourth and lastly,"
thus:--
"4. Nationalism, as commonly understood, could mean nothing else but
the tyranny of the commonplace."
The way in which Nationalism is _commonly_ understood or
misunderstood, is not the question; but how is it _correctly_
understood,--that is the concern of every fair mind. When thus
understood it seems to be just what Mr. Savage wants. For he agrees
with Mr. Bellamy that if "it is only what everybody freely wishes
done," then it would be his "individualism" and all right. Thus he
approves of democracy; for, he says, "it only looks after certain
public affairs, while the main part of the life of the individual is
free." This is Nationalism to a dot! Yet he strangely concludes: "That
Nationalism, _freely chosen_, would be the murder of Liberty, and
social suicide." But if "freely chosen" will it not be the same as his
individualism? and what everybody wants,--and so all right? Such would
be his democracy certainly, but then how can this Nationalism also
"freely chosen" commit murder _and_ suicide, and both at once?
Strange! That certainly would not be the tyranny of the commonplace.
Neither would Nationalism in any correct sense be such tyranny; and
for these reasons:--
1. Government would for the first time in the history of the world,
evolve beyond paternalism. It would be industrial cooperative
administration, for the equal benefit of all, protection of the
liberty of all, and such defence and restraint only as these main
objects require. Government would thus be the material foundation upon
which liberty, originality, and the original--the uncommonplace--could
stand and be protected. The key to liberty is the "separation of the
temporal and spiritual powers;" but Nationalism does even more than
that. It limits Government to the provision of the common needs
of all, and then protects all, in the enjoyment of their
"uncommon-place." Read for instance the remarkable article of _Oscar
Wilde_ on "_The Soul of Man under Socialism_." He expresses the
feeling of the artists and poets of the world. They want Nationalism
so that originality and free healthy development may at last have a
chance,--and an audience. What the people need in order to become an
audience is the same thing that originality needs, emancipation from
drudgery and from the dependence of parasitism.
2. This emancipation can come only from the great saving of time and
of waste by Nationalism; and the division of labor by which it will
enable each to follow the occupation to which he is inclined, and to
which he will be the best prepared by nature and education. Man is an
active animal, and the condition of life is that of some work. _Now_
the work is imposed by the tyranny of man and circumstances; then it
will be rather a matter of choice. In the _order_ instead of the
anarchy of industry there will be some relief. To use the grand
prophecy of Fourier:--
"When the series distributes the harmonies,
The attractions will determine the destinies."
Given a material foundation for man and his education, so that he may
have the mental and material means of acting his part, and continuing
his development, then the individual will have inherited an
environment in which life will be worth living, and which only the
favored inherit now. Civilization will certainly have ever new demands
in order to equate its ever changing conditions; and ambition,
heroism, and originality will simply rise to newer and higher fields.
The idea that the temporal state will not continue to encourage and
protect liberty, genius, and originality is most absurd. That has been
its general course against the sects and monopolists of religion and
opinion which have ever been the persecutors. Mr. Savage throws down a
queer jumble of names, viz.: "Homer, Virgil, Isaiah, Jesus, Dante,
Shakespeare, Angelo, Copernicus, Galileo, Goethe, Luther, Servetus,
Newton, Darwin, Spencer, and Galvani,"--and says, "consider them,"
where would they have been before the "governing board" of
Nationalism? We consider and answer: every one of them would have been
free, and protected and encouraged in the exercise of his highest
gifts.
Even under such defective government as _then_ existed, each had its
aid and support, and each was persecuted by the monopolistic sects and
factions sure to get authority in the absence of some general temporal
control, which is absolutely necessary for the purpose of protecting
freedom of thought, of expression, and of action. From Homer's
chieftain, Virgil's emperor, Goethe's duke, on to the end of the list,
we owe all they have done for us to the _temporal_ governments of
their time, with a possible exception of Spencer, more apparent than
real. Even the Roman Pilate (if we are to take the reports?) let Jesus
have a freedom to tramp and preach in Palestine that would not be
allowed in Boston for a day, and then stood by him, and when
compelled, by the unnationalized nature of his office, to give up to
the Anthony Comstocks and the priestly Monopolists and Pharisees of
that day, he nobly said, "I find no fault in him," and publicly washed
his hands of the whole bloody affair. So was it with Servetus.
Temporal, much less a nationalized, Switzerland would have rescued him
from the clutches of the Calvinistic monopoly of Geneva. "Toleration?"
repeats Mr. Savage tauntingly. We reply, yes! We want a general
temporal government which will protect liberty, and ensure that every
priest, sect, fanatic, and phase of thought and opinion shall
_tolerate_ every other. This Nationalism only can do.