The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers
of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and
the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.
We find that the centering of management of the industries into
fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with
the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions
foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be
pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby
helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions
aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that
the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working
class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all
its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary,
cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department
thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair
day's work", we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary
watchword, "Abolition of the wage system".
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with
capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for
the every-day struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on
production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By
organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new
society within the shell of the old.--Preamble of the Industrial
Workers of the World.
The following Synopsis of Scientific Socialism will serve both as a
summary of and supplement to my little book. It is the introductory part
of a catechism (a series of questions and answers) entitled "Scientific
Socialism Study Course" published by Charles H. Kerr & Company, 341
East Ohio Street, Chicago, and is reprinted here by their consent, with
certain changes in the interests of brevity and perspicuity. As a whole
this short Study Course of only thirty small pages in large type is the
greatest piece of catechetical literature of which I have any knowledge.
Even the synopsis as given here contains more of the education which
makes for the good of the world than all the catechisms of all the
churches. The Catechism was published in 1913.
1. How do you explain the phenomena of History?
Ans.: History, from the capitalist point of view, is a record of
political and intellectual changes and revolutions of so-called great
men, wherein the economic causes for these acts and changes are ignored
or concealed; but, from the socialist view point, history reveals a
series of class struggles between an exploited wealth-producing class
and an exploiting ruling class over the wealth produced.
2. What effect have "great men" had on history?
Ans.: Great men were simply ideal expressions of the hopes of some class
in society that was becoming economically powerful. They formed a
nucleus around which a class gathered itself in attaining economic
conquests in its own interest, and in establishing social institutions
in harmony with, and for the perpetuation of, such class interests.
These men had to embody some vital principles from the economic
conditions of their time and represent some class interest. The same men
with the same ideas would not be great men under a different mode of
production when the time for their ideas was not ripe.
3. What great factor is responsible for the rise of "great men?"
Ans.: The fact that the ideas of these men coincided with the class
interests of some class in society that was becoming economically
powerful. Therefore economic conditions must exist or be developing
which find their highest expression in the ideas of such men.
4. Why do social institutions change and not remain fixed?
Ans.: Because the process of economic evolution will not permit them to
remain fixed. The development and improvement of the means of production
and distribution produce economic changes, therefore social institutions
(the state, church, school and even the family) are forced to change to
conform with changing economic conditions. These are due to evolutionary
and revolutionary processes connected with the means of production and
distribution.
5. What is responsible for the birth of new ideas, and do they occur to
some one individual only?
Ans.: New ideas, theories and discoveries emanate from material
conditions, and such conditions act upon individuals. The same idea or
discovery may be brought out by different individuals independently and
apart from each other. This proves that it is not great men who are
responsible for material conditions, but that material conditions (modes
of production and distribution) produce the men best able to marshal the
facts and express the idea; usually in the interest of some class.
6. What single great idea occurred to both Darwin and Wallace
independently?
Ans.: The theory of "Natural Selection" which showed that the closely
allied ante-type was the parent stock from which the new form had been
derived by variation.
7. What single great idea occurred to both Marx and Engels
independently?
Ans.: The "Materialistic Conception of History."
8. Name the three great ideas developed by Marx and Engels which now
form the bed-rock basis for the socialist philosophy.
Ans.: (1) the Materialistic Conception of History, or, the law of
economic determinism, (2) the Law of Surplus Value, and (3) the Class
Struggle.
9. Explain, briefly, the "materialistic conception of history."
Ans.: "In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic
production and exchange and the social organization necessarily
following from it forms the basis upon which is built up and from which
alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that
epoch." The laws, customs, education, religion, public opinion and
morals are in the long run controlled and shaped by economic conditions;
or, in other words, by the dominant ruling class which the economic
system of any given period forces to the front.
10. What is the most important question in life?
Ans.: The problem of securing food and shelter.
11. What bearing does this have on the materialistic conception of
history?
Ans.: It gives us the only key by which we can understand the history of
the past, and within limits, predict the course of future development.
12. What effect does the prevailing mode of production and exchange in
any particular epoch, have on the social organization and political and
intellectual history of that epoch?
Ans.: "Anything that goes to the roots of the economic structure and
modifies it (the food and shelter question in life) will inevitably
modify every other branch and department of human life, political,
ethical, religious and moral. This makes the social question primarily
an economic one and all our thought and effort should be concentrated on
it."
13. Do the ideas of the ruling class, in any given epoch, correspond
with the prevailing mode of economic production?
Ans.: They correspond exactly, as all connective institutions, civil,
religious, legal, educational, political and domestic have been moulded
in the interest of the economically dominant class who control these
institutions in a manner to uphold their class interests where their
ideas find expression.
14. What effect do these ideas of the ruling class have on the interests
of the subject class?
Ans.: The effect is detrimental to the interests of the subject class as
the different class interests conflict. Therefore the ruling class finds
the institutions mentioned very useful in either persuading or forcing
the so-called "lower classes" to submit to the economic conditions that
are absolutely against their interest, even though they are the wealth
producing class.
15. Distinguish natural environment from man-made environment.
Ans.: Natural environment which consisted of the fertility of the soil,
climatic conditions, abundance of fruits, nuts, game and fish was
all-important in the early stage of man's development. With the progress
of civilization this nature-made environment loses its supreme
importance and the man-made economic environment becomes equally
important.
16. Explain, briefly, the law of Surplus Value.
Ans.: It is the difference between what the working class as a whole
gets for its labor power at its value in wages, say an average of five
dollars per day, for producing commodities, and what the employing class
as a whole gets, say an average of twenty-five dollars, for the same
commodities when sold at their value. According to this conservative
estimate capital is upon the whole and in the long run robbing labor of
four-fifths of the value of its productive power. Capitalism is
therefore the great robber, the Beelzebub of robbers.
17. Since the economic factor is the determining factor, what does the
law of Surplus Value furnish us?
Ans.: "Surplus Value is the key to the whole present economic
organization of society. The end and object of capitalist society is the
formation and accumulation of surplus value; or in other words, the
systematic, legal robbery of the subject working class."
18. Define value and state how measured.
Ans.: Value is the average amount of human labor time socially, not
individually, necessary under average, not special, conditions for the
production or reproduction of commodities.
19. What determines the value of labor power?
Ans.: It is determined precisely like the value of every other
commodity, i. e., by the amount of labor time socially necessary for its
production or reproduction by the raising and support of children to
succeed their parents as wage-earning slaves.
20. Since labor power is a commodity, what condition is it subject to?
Ans.: It is subject to the same conditions that all other commodities
are subject to without regard to the fact that it is the source of all
social value. The worker in whom the commodity labor power is embodied,
does not get the value of the product of his labor, but only about
one-fifth of it, enough to keep him in working order and reproduce more
labor power in his children. If the worker received the value of the
product of his labor he would receive much more than enough to keep him
in working order and to raise his family. Such an economic condition
would abolish all forms of surplus value or profit, also the wage
system, by substituting economic and social organization in the interest
of the working class. No other class could remain in existence and the
class struggle would be ended.
21. In what economic system, past or present, does surplus value appear?
Ans.: It is the root of all social systems since the rise of the
institution of private property, but only under the present system
(capitalism) has labor power assumed the commodity form. Labor power is
a commodity with a two fold character: it has a use and an exchange
value. Its use value consists in its being capable of producing values
over and above its own needs for sustenance and reproduction. Its
exchange value consists in the amount of socially necessary labor time
required for its production and reproduction.
The chattel and feudal systems of slavery were not directly concerned
with the production of commodities for the profit of the masters, but
rather with the producing of the necessities of life for all, masters
and slaves, and the luxuries for some, the masters. That which was not
produced for immediate consumption was sold, if opportunities presented
themselves, and occasionally the professional traders developed, for
example, the Phoenicians; but they were an exception to the rule. The
same holds good for feudalism, except that during the latter stages of
that system commercialism arose; but this commercialism was no feature
of feudalism--it was the rising capitalism that began to unfold and
assert itself.
22. Name the three great systems of economic organization upon which the
structure of past history and social institutions have their basis.
Ans.: (1) Chattel slavery, (2) serfdom, or feudal slavery and (3) wage
slavery.
23. Explain, briefly, how the subject class was exploited under each of
these economic systems.
Ans.: 1. Under chattel slavery the laborer was a chattel (possession or
property) the same as a mule or horse, and only received his "keep,"
that is, enough food, clothing and shelter to keep him in working order
and to reproduce labor power by raising children. All he produced (use
values and children) was taken by his master. The body of the slave was
the property of his master. 2. Under serfdom or feudal slavery, the
worker produced what was necessary to keep him in working order and to
raise a family of slaves, and then the balance of his time produced use
values for his feudal lord. The body of the slave was his own, though he
could not go about with it from one place to another; for it was bound
to the land of his master. 3. Under the wage slavery, the worker
receives wages which again equals only the amount necessary to keep him
in working order and to reproduce more labor power in his children. His
entire product belongs to the capitalist, and out of this resource he
pays the wages for the commodity labor, also for other commodities such
as raw materials, and appropriates all of the balance and converts it
into capital with which he not only continues but increases the
exploitation of his workers. The body of the capitalist's slave is
indeed his own as under the feudal system but with this difference, that
if he does not like his master, or he is disliked by him, he can or must
go abroad with it from one place to another looking for a job--a liberty
or necessity which is to the advantage of the owning class and the
disadvantage of the working class. Unemployment is necessary to the
existence of capitalism, but this necessity is a danger to the system
and will ultimately destroy it in all countries as it has in Russia.
24. Define the "Class Struggle."
Ans.: It is the direct clash between two hostile class interests wherein
the employing class makes every effort to appropriate more of the wealth
produced by the working class, and the working class ever struggles to
retain more of the wealth which it produces. The capitalist class
strives to get more surplus value and the working class strives to get
more wages.
The class consciousness of those who live by working has found one of
its best expressions in the following paragraphs:
"The world stands upon the threshold of a new social order. The
capitalist system of production and distribution is doomed;
capitalist appropriation of labor's product forces the bulk of
mankind into wage slavery, throws society into the convulsions of
the class struggle, and momentarily threatens to engulf humanity in
chaos and disaster.
Since the advent of civilization human society has been divided
into classes. Each new form of society has come into being with a
definite purpose to fulfill in the progress of the human race. Each
has been born, has grown, developed, prospered, become old,
outworn, and, has finally been overthrown. Each society has
developed within itself the germs of its own destruction as well
as the germs which went to make up the society of the future.
The capitalist system rose during the seventeenth, eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries by the overthrow of feudalism. Its great and
all-important mission in the development of man was to improve,
develop, and concentrate the means of production and distribution,
thus creating a system of co-operative production. This work was
completed in advanced capitalist countries about the beginning of
the 20th century. That moment capitalism had fulfilled its historic
mission, and from that moment the capitalist class became a class
of parasites.
In the course of human progress mankind has passed (through class
rule, private property, and individualism in production and
exchange) from the enforced and inevitable want, misery, poverty,
and ignorance of savagery and barbarism to the affluence and high
productive capacity of civilization. For all practical purposes,
co-operative production has now superseded individual production.
Capitalism no longer promotes the greatest good of the greatest
number, It no longer spells progress, but reaction. Private
production carries with it private ownership of the products.
Production is carried on, not to supply the needs of humanity, but
for the profit of the individual owner, the company, or the trust.
The worker, not receiving the full product of his labor, can not
buy back all he produces. The capitalist wastes part in riotous
living; the rest must find a foreign market. By the opening of the
twentieth century the capitalist world--England, America, Germany,
France, Japan, China, etc.--was producing at a mad rate for the
world market. A capitalist deadlock of markets brought on in 1914
the capitalist collapse popularly known as the World War. The
capitalist world can not extricate itself out of the debris.
America today is choking under the weight of her own gold and
products.
This situation has brought on the present stage of human
misery--starvation, want, cold, disease, pestilence, and war. This
state is brought about in the midst of plenty, when the earth can
be made to yield a hundredfold, when the machinery of production is
made to multiply human energy and ingenuity by the hundreds. The
present state of misery exists solely because the mode of
production rebels against the mode of exchange. Private property in
the means of life has become a social crime. The land was made by
no man; the modern machines are the result of the combined
ingenuity of the human race from time immemorial; the land can be
made to yield and the machines can be set in motion only by the
collective effort of the workers. Progress demands the collective
ownership of the land on and the tools with which to produce the
necessities of life. The owner of the means of life today partakes
of the nature of a highwayman; he stands with his gun before
society's temple; it depends upon him whether the million mass may
work, earn, eat, and live. The capitalist system of production and
exchange must be supplanted if progress is to continue.
In place of the capitalist system we must substitute a system of
social ownership of the means of production, industrially
administered by the workers, who assume control and direction as
well as operation of their industrial affairs."
25. Define "class consciousness."
Ans.: Class consciousness of the workers means that they are conscious
of the fact that they, as a class, have interests which are in direct
conflict with the interests of the capitalist class.
26. What function does the state perform in the class struggle?
Ans.: "The state is a class instrument, and is the public power of
coercion created and maintained in human societies by their division
into classes, a power which, being clothed with force, makes laws." It
is, therefore, used by the dominant class to keep the subject working
class in subjection in accordance with the interests of the ruling and
owning class. It is also used to prevent the workers from altering the
economic structure of society in the interests of the working class.
As the author of the catechism, of which these twenty-six questions and
answers constitute a small part, says:
"Society is a growth subject to the laws of evolution. When evolution
reaches a certain point, revolution becomes necessary in order to break
the bonds of the old and bring in the new. As the chicken grows through
evolution until it reaches the point where it must break its shell (the
revolution) in order to continue its growth, so do classes of people
come to the point in their evolution where revolution is necessary in
order to continue their growth, bring in the new society and consummate
the next step in civilization."
Since 1913, when the foregoing catechism was published, we have had the
war to end war and to make the world safe for democracy--a fateful and
mournful war in which millions of lives were lost and other millions
wrecked with the result of multiplying wars and increasing imperialism.
It was a war between national groups of capitalists with conflicting
interests for commercial advantages, which is unexpectedly issuing in
three great crises: (1) the imminent bankruptcy of capitalism; (2) the
communist revolution in Russia, and (3) the imminent taking over of the
world by the revolutionary proletariat.
Hitherto, the sons and daughters of capitalism have owned the earth with
all that thereon and therein is. Henceforth, the sons and daughters of
the useful workers shall be the owners.
The future belongs to the workers, but not until they organize
themselves into one big revolutionary union. What ideas and aims are
involved in the faith and endeavor of Revolutionary Unionism will appear
from this passage in Comrade Philip Kurinsky's Industrial Unionism and
Revolution, a brilliant pamphlet, published by The Union Press, Box 205,
Madison Square, New York City:
"Slavery is not abolished. It is merely a change in the struggle
which throws itself hither and thither like the waves of the seas.
In ancient times chattel slavery existed. Feudalism then took its
place. Feudalism in its turn was overthrown by capitalism which at
present reigns supreme. As the immortal Tolstoy explained, 'The
abolition of the old slavery is similar to that which Tartars did
to their captives. After they had cut up their heels they placed
stones and sand in the wounds and then took the chains off. The
Tartars were sure that when the feet of their prisoners were
swollen, that they could not run away and would have to work even
without chains. Such is the slavery of wages'.
Of this slavery does revolutionary unionism speak in the name of
the revolutionary worker. It analyzes the present society and shows
that it is divided into two economic classes. One class, the
capitalist class, is the master class which controls all the
factories, mills, mines, railroads, lands and fields and all the
finished and raw materials. This class possesses all the natural
riches of the world and this economic supremacy gives it control of
the state, of the church, and of all educational institutions. In
short, this class owns everything and controls the whole social and
political life of each country. The other class, the working class,
owns nothing. It produces all and enjoys little. It uses the
machines and tools but does not possess them, and is therefore
forced to sell its only possession, its labor power, to the master
class. And the latter uses the opportunity to buy that wonderful
power like any raw material or some other commodity (some of the
representatives of craft unionism wish to deny this but
unsuccessfully). For the commodity which the worker is compelled to
sell in order that he might live, he receives a wage which is
determined as is the price of every other commodity. The price is
always smaller than the value of the product which the worker
produces for the capitalist.
Between these two classes there must, naturally, exist a
tremendous struggle which often has the character of actual war. No
one urges the workers to this war--not the terrible I. W. W.'s nor
the political socialist, neither the Bolsheviks nor the Anarchists,
but the war naturally and inevitably arises from existing
conditions.
On the one hand, the capitalists are continually chasing after
higher profits which results in the employment of cheap labor under
the worst conditions. Naturally the ideal of the capitalist class
is to keep the workers in a condition of slavery. If the workers
attempt to revolt, as they do daily, their masters try to suppress
the revolt with all the power at their command. On the other hand,
the workers struggle with all their power to lighten their burdens.
They strive to get better conditions, higher wages and shorter
hours, and in general the ideal of the working class is to throw
off the yoke of capitalism.
No one rightfully can say that this struggle is merely a theory. We
can see this struggle in the attempts of the capitalist class to
destroy the victorious Russian Proletariat. It is mirrored before
our eyes in the continual strikes. Nothing can stop this struggle
except the abolition of exploitation.
No matter how hard the Citizens' Committees, Boards of Arbitration,
of Conciliation and of Mediation, with their so-called impartial
members try to convince the world that it is possible to bring the
warring classes into closer relations, their attempts are doomed to
failure. At best their success is only temporary and their efforts
succeed only in blinding the eyes of the working masses. And if at
some time these boards claim a victory, the credit is not due to
them, but to the force exerted by the workers. It is the
strike-weapon, held in reserve by the toilers, that brings victory
to the workers--not the efforts of the philanthropic gentlemen.
Furthermore the efforts of these gentlemen greatly harm the
workers, for at times when the workers can attain success through
the use of the strike, these philanthropists interfere, and deaden
the initiative and aggressiveness of the strikers. Often this
causes strife between the strikers themselves. They lose confidence
in one another, and the existence of the organizations which the
workers succeeded in building up through their efforts and
sacrifices are jeopardized.
The "Conciliation," however, can bring no conciliation between the
employers and workers, because that is unnatural. On the contrary,
the hatred of one side to the other is intensified and war breaks
out oftener and assumes a more bitter and more obstinate character.
Thus viewing the two struggling classes of capitalist society,
revolutionary industrial unionism comes to the logical conclusion
that between capital and labor there exists nothing in common, that
the struggle must go on and peace can come only when economic
oppression will cease, which is possible only when the program of
revolutionary unionism will be realized; namely, when the workers
will take over the means of production and abolish the system of
private ownership. The autocratic control of industry, the unequal
division of products will then disappear and society will be built
on a socialist foundation, where the industries will be owned and
operated by the workers, organized in a truly democratic manner,
and where the individual will receive the full product of his
labor.
These are the principles of revolutionary unionism, the principles
of the international proletariat. They are the true expressions of
the class struggle and because of that, revolutionary unionism
attracts more and more followers whose ideal is to develop within
the working masses a consciousness of their historic mission."
In the words of an eloquent representative of the organized workers in
the United States, I exhort the working men and working women of
America: Keep your eyes on Russia. Watch what is going on there and what
the capitalist plunderbund will try to do. Do not be misled by the lies
and slanders that are daily dished up to you. Bear in mind that those
who tell you these yarns have an interest to mislead you. They want to
use you as a makeweight in their game of wresting from the Russian
workers their dearly-won liberty. It is of no use to enumerate the lies
that have already been punctured because they will invent new ones
faster than one can write and print. Let your reason guide you. Think
yourselves into the shoes of your Russian fellow workers. Think how you
would act if placed in the same position and then draw the conclusion
that they act about the same way that you would, because they are like
you moved by the same emotions, the same desires, the same aspirations.
You, too, would like to keep for yourselves the fruits of your toil, if
you only knew how to go about it, if you had the organization that would
make it possible. But as yet you do not know and you have not that
organization. In politics you still vote against one another in the
Republican or Democratic camp. You will have to wait until you do know
and until you do have the means--the Industrial Unions of the entire
working class that will be able to take and hold and administer industry
for the reason that it will have the might, the power to do so. And when
you have expressed through the ballot your will for that new society,
which will guarantee to you the full fruits of your labor, remember the
slogan of revolutionary Russia: "All power to the Soviets," and let your
slogan then be: "All power to the Industrial Unions!"
These are prophetic words written fifty years ago by Frederick Engels:
Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of
production, the appropriation by society of all the means of
production has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by
individuals, as well as by sects, as the ideal of the future. But
it could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only
when the actual conditions for its realization were there. Like
every other social advance, it becomes practicable, not by men
understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to
justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish
these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions....
So long as the total social labor only yields a produce which but
slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so
long, therefore, as labor engages all or almost all the time of the
great majority of the members of society--so long, of necessity,
this society is divided into classes....
But if, upon this showing, division into classes has a certain
historical justification, it has this only for a given period, only
under given social conditions. It was based on the insufficiency of
production. It will be swept away by the complete development of
modern productive forces. And, in fact, the abolition of classes in
society presupposes a degree of historical evolution, at which the
existence, not simply of this or that particular ruling class, but
of any ruling class at all, has become an obsolete anachronism....
With the seizing of the means of production by society, production
of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery
of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is
replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for
individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a
certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal
kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions into really human
ones.... It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to
the kingdom of freedom.
The capitalist countries are ruled through banks, and a bank is
necessarily an institution of the owning class.
Russia is ruled through Soviets, and a soviet is necessarily an
institution of the working class.
Banks and Soviets are so many headquarters for big unions. In capitalist
countries the banks are such for the one big union of the owners, and in
Russia the soviets are this for the one big union of the workers. These
big unions cannot co-exist and flourish in the same country.
All owners everywhere see the necessity for their one big union and in
all capitalistic countries, nowhere more than in the United States, they
have the advantage of being on the ground floor and indeed on all the
floors of all the sky scrapers with their union which is the most
universally inclusive and the most relentlessly efficient organization
on earth.
Some workers everywhere see the necessity for their one big union, but
nowhere is it seen as generally and clearly as in Russia,--the only
country in which the workers have held the ground floor for any
considerable time against all comers.
In all countries a beginning has been made by the workers in laying the
foundation for their one big union, but in only one country, Russia, has
progress been made with the superstructure, and here as everywhere the
owners have hindered the workers so that they must defend themselves
with their right hand while they build with their left. Nevertheless
wonderful progress is being made and when the industrial structure has
been completed, as it soon must be, else the world is doomed to
destruction, it shall tower above its capitalist rival as a mountain
over a foot hill.
After all, the power of the owner is money and it is not a real
potentiality, for within the social realm there is in reality only one
potentiality, the power of productivity which exclusively belongs to the
worker.
In the sky there is no god, and on earth there is no king or priest like
unto Labor, the lord of gods, the tzar of kings and the pope of priests.
Labor is high above all potentialities. The motto, "All Power to the
Workers," which the class-conscious proletarians inscribe on their
banners, is not the expression of an ideal fiction, but the declaration
of a practical reality, the greatest among all realities, that reality
in which the whole social realm lives, moves and has its being.
Down with the one big union of the owners. Long live the one big union
of the workers.
II. GOD AND IMMORTALITY.
We have done with the kisses that sting,
With the thief's mouth red from the feast,
With the blood on the hands of the king,
And the lie on the lips of the priest.
--Swinburne.
Many critics contend that socialism and supernaturalism are not, as I
represent, incompatibilities; but they lose sight of four facts: (1)
this is a scientific age; (2) Marxian socialism is one of the sciences;
(3) the vast majority of men of science reject all supernaturalism,
including of course the gods and devils with their heavens and hells,
and (4) only in the case of one of the sciences, psychology, is this
majority greater than in the science of sociology.
The truth of the last two of these representations will be
overwhelmingly evident from the chart on the next page. It and its
explanation given in the following quotation is taken with the kind
consent of the author and also of the publishers of a book entitled God
and Immortality, by Professor James H. Leuba, the Psychologist of Bryn
Mawr College. This book is having a great influence and I strongly
recommend it to all who think that I am wrong in the contention that
conscious, personal existence is limited to earth; that, therefore, we
are having all that we shall ever know of heaven and hell, here and now,
and that whether we have more of heaven and less of hell depends
altogether upon men and women, not at all upon gods and devils. The
second edition of Professor Leuba's book is now in the press of The Open
Court Publishing Company, 122 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. Here is
the quotation in support of our contentions:
[Illustration: Chart XI
PARTIAL SUMMARY OF RESULTS]
What, then, is the main outcome of this research? Chart XI, Partial
Summary of Results, shows that in every class of persons
investigated, the number of believers in God is less, and in most
classes very much less than the number of non-believers, and that
the number of believers in immortality is somewhat larger than in a
personal God; that among the more distinguished, unbelief is very
much more frequent than among the less distinguished; and finally
that not only the degree of ability, but also the kind of knowledge
possessed, is significantly related to the rejection of these
beliefs.
The correlation shown, without exception, in every one of our
groups between eminence and disbelief appears to me of momentous
significance. In three of these groups (biologists, historians, and
psychologists) the number of believers among the men of greater
distinction is only half, or less than half the number of believers
among the less distinguished men. I do not see any way to avoid the
conclusion that disbelief in a personal God and in personal
immortality is directly proportional to abilities making for
success in the sciences in question.
A study of the several charts of this work with regard to the kind
of knowledge which favors disbelief shows that the historians and
the physical scientists provide the greater; and the psychologists,
the sociologists and the biologists, the smaller number of
believers. The explanation I have offered is that psychologists,
sociologists, and biologists in very large numbers have come to
recognize fixed orderliness in organic and psychic life, and not
merely in inorganic existence; while frequently physical scientists
have recognized the presence of invariable law in the inorganic
world only. The belief in a personal God as defined for the purpose
of our investigation is, therefore, less often possible to students
of psychic and of organic life than to physical scientists.
The place occupied by the historians next to the physical
scientists would indicate that for the present the reign of law is
not so clearly revealed in the events with which history deals as
in biology, economics, and psychology. A large number of
historians continue to see the hand of God in human affairs. The
influence, destructive of Christian beliefs, attributed in this
interpretation to more intimate knowledge of organic and psychic
life, appears incontrovertibly, as far as psychic life is
concerned, in the remarkable fact that whereas in every other group
the number of believers in immortality is greater than that in God,
among the psychologists the reverse is true; the number of
believers in immortality among the greater psychologists sinks to
8.8 per cent. One may affirm it seems that, in general, the greater
the ability of the psychologist, the more difficult it becomes for
him to believe in the continuation of individual life after bodily
death.
Within the generation to which I belong Darwin and Marx, the greatest
teachers that the world has had, went over the top of entrenched
ignorance with the greatest books of the world, worth infinitely more to
it than all its bibles together. Darwin did this in 1859 with his Origin
of Species by Natural Selection and Marx in 1867 with his Capital, a
Critique of Political Economy.
Darwin with his book is driving the Christian church out of its trench
of supernaturalism and uniqueism by showing that the different kinds of
vegetable and animal life are not, according to the representation of
its bible, so many separate creations by a personal, conscious divinity,
but interrelated evolutions by an impersonal, unconscious nature, the
higher out of the lower, and that, therefore, man is so far from being a
special creation, having his most vital relationships with a celestial
divinity and his most glorious prospects in a heavenly place with him,
that he is really more or less closely related to every living thing on
earth, and is as hopelessly limited to it, as an elephant, a tree or
even a mountain.
Marx with his book is driving the states out of the trench of
imperialism and capitalism.
As Darwin is driving the conscious, personal gods out of the realm of
biology, placing all animal and human life of body, mind and soul on
essentially the same footing, so Marx is driving all such divinities out
of the realm of sociology, placing all life of family, state, church,
lodge, store and shop on essentially the same level.
According to Darwin, all animal life is what it is at any time by reason
of the effort to accommodate the physical organism to its environment.
According to Marx, human civilization is what it is at any time because
of the economic system by which people feed, clothe and house
themselves.
This Darwinian-Marxian interpretation of terrestrial life in general,
and of the human part of it in particular, is known as materialism. It
is the materialistic, naturalistic, levelistic interpretation of
history, and differs fundamentally from the spiritualistic,
supernaturalistic, uniqueistic interpretation of Christian preachers.
The contrast between these interpretations is especially strong in the
case of human history.
On the one hand the Christian preacher says, man's history is what it is
because of the directing providence of a God, the Father, Son and
Spirit, and because of His directing inspiration of great leaders, such
as Washington, Luther, Caesar and Moses.
On the other hand Darwin and Marx agree in saying that both the triune
god and the inspired leader are what they are, because society is what
it is; that, again, the character of society depends upon the economic
system by which it feeds, clothes and houses itself, and that finally
all such systems owe their existence to the machinery in use for the
production of the basic necessities of life, the primal machine being
the human hand to which all other machines are auxiliaries.
The most insatiable and universal among all human longings is for
freedom--freedom from economic want, social inequality and imperialistic
tyranny, also freedom to learn, think, live and teach truths.
Socialism of the Marxian type is the gospel of freedom, because a
classless god, nature, reveals it in the interest of a classless world:
therefore, it is true, and slavery, of which there never was so much
before on the earth, and nowhere is there more than in the United
States, is utterly incompatible with truth, and classless interests.
All the supernaturalistic gospels are revealed by a class god (Jesus,
Jehovah, Allah, Buddha) in the interest of the capitalist class:
therefore, they are false and freedom is utterly incompatible with
falsehood and class interest.
Ignorance is the destroyer-god and capitalism is the diabolical scourge
by which he afflicts the wage-earner with many unnecessary sufferings,
especially the crushing ones arising from the great trinity of evils,
war, poverty and slavery.
Knowledge is the saviour-god and Marxism is his divine gospel of freedom
from these capitalistic sufferings.
III. MYTHICAL CHARACTER OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT PERSONAGES.
What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first,
second, and third days, in which the evening is named and the
morning, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such
an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like an
husbandman? I believe that every man must hold these things for
images under which a hidden sense is concealed.--Origen.
One of the critics of Communism and Christianism whose representations
are in alignment with several others says:
While the Bishop speaks in the language of scholarship, he entirely
ignores all the findings of modern scholars on the literature of
the Bible.
The failure to show more clearly that my representations concerning the
untenableness of the basic doctrines of Christian supernaturalism are in
alignment with the conclusions of outstanding authorities in the newly
developed sciences of historical and biblical criticisms is indeed a
defect and an attempt will here be made to remove it by a short but
faithful and, as I think, convincing summary of what such authorities in
these sciences have to say on the subject.
My summary is summarized from a pamphlet by Charles T. Gorham, published
by Watts and Company, 17 Johnson's Court, Fleet St., E. C. 4, London,
England, which is itself an able summarization of the relevant facts
which have been scientifically established as they are given in the
greatest of all the Bible Dictionaries, the Encyclopedia Biblica.
It will be seen that all except one among my contentions concerning the
baselessness of the supernaturalism of orthodox Christians are well
sustained. This exception is the contention that Jesus is not an
historical personage, but a fictitious one. However the great critics
are unanimously with me even in this, for two crushing facts are
admitted by them: (1) the Old Testament affords no scientifically
established data from which a reliable history of the Jews can be
written, and (2) the New Testament has no such data for a biography of
Jesus.
The illuminating summary which is a large part of my answer to the
criticism under review follows, and it is as far as possible in the
language of Mr. Gorham:
Once upon a time there was a system of Christian Theology. It was a
wonderful though a highly artificial structure, composed of fine
old crusted dogmas which no one could prove, but very few dared to
dispute. There was the "magnified man" in the sky, the Infallible
Bible, dictated by the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the Fall, the
Atonement, Predestination and Grace, Justification by Faith, a
Chosen People, a practically omnipotent Devil, myriads of Evil
Spirits, an eternity of bliss to be obtained for nothing, and
endless torment for those who did not avail themselves of the
offer.
Now the house of cards has tumbled to pieces, or rather it is
slowly dissolving, as Shakespeare says, "like the baseless fabric
of a vision". The Biblical chronology, history, ethics, all are
alike found to be defective and doubtful. Divine Revelation has
become discredited; a Human Record takes its place. What has
brought about this startling change? The answer is, Knowledge.
Thought, research, criticism, have shown that the traditional
theories of the Bible can no longer be maintained. The logic of
facts has confirmed the reasonings of the independent thinker, and
placed the dogmatist in a dilemma which grows ever more acute. The
result is not pleasant for the believer; but it is well that the
real state of things should be known, that the kernel of truth
should be separated from the overgrown husk of tradition.
During the last few years a work has been issued which sums up the
conclusions of modern criticism better than any other book. It is called
the Encyclopedia Biblica, and its four volumes tersely and ably set
forth the new views, and support them by a mass of learning which
deserves serious consideration. And the most significant thing about it
is not merely that the entire doctrinal system of Christianity has
undergone a radical change, but that this change has largely been
brought about by Christian scholars themselves. A rapid glance at this
store-house of the heresy of such scholars will give the reader some
idea of the extent of the surrender which Christianity has made to the
forces of Rationalism. It must be premised that space will permit of the
conclusions only being given, without the detailed evidence by which
they are supported.
Let us begin with our supposed first parents. Is the story of Adam and
Eve a true story? There are, we are told, decisive reasons why we cannot
regard it as historical, and probably the writer himself never supposed
he was relating history.[K]
The Creation story originated in a stock of primitive myths common to
the Semitic races, and passed through a long period of development
before it was incorporated in the book of Genesis. If, then, it is the
fact, as Christian scholars assert, that this story of the Creation
originated in a pagan myth, and was shaped and altered by unknown hands
for nearly a thousand years, it is nothing more nor less than
superstition to hold that it is divinely true.
As for the Old Testament patriarchs, we now learn that their very
existence is uncertain. The tradition concerning Abraham is, as it
stands, inadmissible; he is not so much a historical personage as an
ideal type of character, whose actual existence is as doubtful as that
of other heroes. All the stories of the patriarchs are legendary.
The whole book of Genesis, in fact, is not history at all, as we
understand history. Exodus is another composite legend which has long
been mistaken for history.
The historical character of Moses has not been established, and it is
doubtful whether the name is that of an individual or that of a clan.
The story of his being exposed in an ark of bulrushes is a myth probably
derived from the similar and much earlier myth of Sargon.[L]
Turning to the New Testament, we find that modern critical research only
brings out more clearly than ever the extraordinary vagueness and
uncertainty which enshroud every detail of the narrative. From the
article on "Chronology" we learn that everything in the Gospels is too
uncertain to be accepted as historical fact. There are numerous
questions which it is "wholly impossible to decide". We do not know when
Jesus was born, or when he died, or who was his father, or what was the
duration of his ministry. As these are matters on which the Gospel
writers purport to give information, the fact of their failure to do so
settles the question of their competency as historians.
The supposed supernatural birth of Jesus has of late exercised the minds
of theologians. It is not surprising that some of them should reject the
notion, for it is one without a shred of evidence in its favor. Setting
aside the well-known fact that many other religions assume a similar
origin for their founders, we may note the New Testament accounts are in
such hopeless conflict with each other that reconciliation is
impossible.
The important subject of the "Resurrection" is treated by Professor P.
W. Schmiedel, of Zurich, who tells us that the Gospel accounts "exhibit
contradictions of the most glaring kind".
The article on the Gospels by Dr. E. A. Abbott and Professor Schmiedel
is crammed with criticism of a kind most damaging to every form of the
orthodox faith. The view hitherto current, that the four Gospels were
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and appeared thirty or forty
years after the death of Jesus, can, it is stated, no longer be
maintained.
The alleged eclipse of the sun at the Crucifixion is impossible. One of
the orthodox shifts respecting this phenomenon is that it was an eclipse
of the moon!
Modern criticism decides that no confidence whatever can be placed in
the reliability of the Gospels as historical narratives, or in the
chronology of the events which they relate. It may even seem to justify
a doubt whether any credible elements at all are to be found in them.
Yet it is believed that some such credible elements do exist. Five
passages prove by their character that Jesus was a real person, and that
we have some trustworthy facts about him. These passages are: Matthew
xii. 31, Mark x. 17, Mark iii. 21, Mark xiii. 32, and Mark xv. 34, and
the corresponding passage in Matthew xxvii. 46, though these last two
are not found in Luke. Four other passages have a high degree of
probability--viz., Mark viii. 12, Mark vi. 5, Mark viii. 14-21, and
Matthew xi. 5, with the corresponding passage in Luke vii. 22. These
texts, however, disclose nothing of a supernatural character. They
merely prove that in Jesus we have to do with a completely human being,
and that the divine is to be sought in him only in the form in which it
is capable of being found in all men.[M]
The four Gospels were compiled from earlier materials which have
perished, and the dates when they first appeared in their present form
are given as follows:--Mark, certainly after the destruction of
Jerusalem in the year 70; Matthew, about 119 A. D.; Luke, between 100
and 110; and John, between 132 and 140.
The question of the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles, is now far from
being so clear as was once universally supposed. Advanced criticism,
Professor Van Manen tells us in his elaborate article on "Paul", has
learned to recognize that none of these Epistles are by him, not even
the four generally regarded as unassailable. They are not letters to
individuals, but books or pamphlets emanating from a particular school.
We know little, in reality, of the facts of Paul's life, or of his
death: all is uncertain. The unmistakable traces of late origin indicate
that the Epistles probably did not appear till the second century.
The strange book of Revelation is not of purely Christian origin.
Criticism has clearly shown that it can no longer be regarded as a
literary unit, but it is an admixture of Jewish with Christian ideas and
speculations. Ancient testimony, that of Papias in particular, assumed
the Presbyter John, and not the Apostle, as its author or redactor.
The Epistles of Peter, James and Jude are none of them held to be the
work of the Apostles. They probably first saw the light in the second
century; the second Epistle of Peter may even belong to the latter half
of that period.
All the above conclusions are summarized, as nearly as may be, in the
words of the authors of the respective articles. Their significance is
surely enormous. Right or wrong, eminent Christian scholars here
proclaim results in complete antagonism to the ideas usually accepted as
forming the true basis of the Christian faith. They amount, in fact, to
a complete and unconditional surrender of the whole dogmatic framework
which has hitherto been held as divinely revealed, and therefore
divinely true.
Thomas Paine was a Deist. As such he believed that nature may be
compared with a clock and God with its maker. As the clock maker, under
normal conditions, has but little to do with his handiwork, so it has
been with the Creator and his universe. The theists of every name
(Christian, Jew, Mohammedan and Buddhist), not to speak of others,
believe that the universe, with all which therein is, lives, moves and
has its being as the result of the willings of their respective gods.
Though I have my god, indeed two gods, one god in the world of my
physical existence--a trinity: matter, force and motion, and another god
in the world of my moral existence--a trinity: fact, truth and life, yet
if the rejection of both deism and theism is atheism, I am an atheist.
But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a conscious personal
being who has had and is having something to do with making things what
they are, I set my seal to this arraignment:
Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented, there is
none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more
repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this
thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to
convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart
torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of
power, it serves the purpose of despotism and as a means of wealth,
the avarice of priests; but for the good of mankind it leads to
nothing here or hereafter.
--Thomas Paine.
William Rathbone Greg in his Creed of Christendom says that much of the
Old Testament which Christian divines, in their ignorance of Jewish
lore, have insisted on receiving and interpreting literally, the
informed Rabbis never dreamed of regarding as anything but allegorical.
The literalists they called fools.
Origen and Augustine, the two greatest men which Christianity has
produced, would agree with Greg in this. We have already quoted the
motto of this section from Origen, and we will now quote this from
Augustine:
It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth
or the sky, or the other elements of this world, respecting which
one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain
reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and
mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a
Christian, speaking of such matters as being according to the
Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such
nonsense that the unbeliever, perceiving him to be as wide from the
mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
FOOTNOTES:
[K] But if Adam and Eve are not historical personages there is no
doctrine of supernaturalistic Christianism resting on the solid ground
of facts and the whole of its immense dogmatic structure is floating in
the air of theories and myths.--Author.
[L] It is questionable whether such persons as Samson, Jonah and Daniel
ever lived, but it is certain that their adventures are as mythical as
anything in Aesop's Fables.--Author.
[M] But these nine texts which for some years were often triumphantly
pointed to as the pillars upon which securely rested the historicalness
of Jesus as a man are now lying in the dust where the learned and
brilliant Professor William Benjamin Smith of Tulane University put them
by his great contribution to the Christological problem in a book,
entitled Ecce Deus in which he, as I think, proves conclusively that the
Jesus of the New Testament never was a real man but always an imaginary
god, the Christian recasting of the Jewish God, a new Jehovah.--Author.
IV. WOULD SOCIALISM CHANGE HUMAN NATURE?
Fear not the tyrants shall rule for ever,
Or the priests of the bloody Faith:
They stand on the brink of that mighty river
Whose waves they have tainted with death,
It is fed from the depths of a thousand dells,
Around them it foams and rages and swells,
And their swords and their scepters I floating see
Like wrecks in the surge of eternity.
--Shelley.
My revolt against the existing capitalist system of economics and the
capitalized political and religious systems which support it is
complete, and the end which I have in view in this booklet is that of
primitive Christianism, as it is taught by Mary in the Magnificat, the
putting down of the owning masters of the world and the exaltation of
the working slaves, only that I do not recommend, as she did, that the
masters should be banished to starve but rather that they should be
allowed to become producers and to live then as such, not as robbers, as
they now live.
This is bolshevism. It is not anarchy, but a new dictatorship instead of
the old, that of the proletariat in place of the bourgeoisie. But this
dictatorship (though necessary during the period of transition from the
capitalist system, by which commodities are made only for the profit of
a few to an industrial system by which they will be made only for use of
the many) is not the goal of socialism. Its goal is a classless world--a
world in which all who are able to work shall directly or at least
indirectly contribute their due proportion, according to their abilities
and opportunities, towards feeding, clothing, housing and educating it.
Perhaps the truest thing in the Bible relates to the utterly corrupt
condition of civilization, nor was it ever truer than now, and it always
must be equally true while the world is divided into master and slave
classes under the dictatorship of the masters:
The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. From the sole of
the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it, but
wounds and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been
closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
Capitalism and Socialism differ fundamentally in that the former always
has sought and always will seek to exercise a permanent dictatorship,
whereas that of the latter is to constitute the temporary bridge over
which the world is to pass from the economic system under which
commodities are competitively made for the profit of the few, to the
economic system under which they will be co-operatively made for the use
of the many.
It is contended with much show of reason that the dictatorship of the
proletariat will not lead to the goal, because human nature being what
it is the slaves will automatically develop into another class of
masters.
But those who raise this contention proceed upon the assumption that
human nature is a constant quantity so that it cannot be essentially
changed and that it has made the economic systems, what they have been.
This is not the case. Human nature, like animal nature, is constantly
changing and neither the one nor the other voluntarily changes itself,
but both are forced to change by the development of new and external
conditions and by the necessity of conformity to them.
Professor Joseph McCabe, not a socialist, observes that these
developments and conformities were so many revolutions and that the man
who says, the secret of progress is evolution, not revolution, may be
talking very good social philosophy but he is not talking science, as he
thinks. In every modern geological work you read of periodical
revolutions in the story of the earth, and these are the great ages of
progress--and, I ought to add, of colossal annihilation of the less fit.
Darwin discovered that animal nature changed (for example snake nature
changed into bird nature) because of changed physical environments and
the necessity of life to adaptation to them.
Marx discovered that human nature changed from what it was during the
period of chatteldom to what it was during serfdom and from that to what
it is under capitalism by reason of the difference in the economic
systems of these periods by which the world fed, clothed and housed
itself and that these differences are in turn accounted for by the
differences in the machines by which the necessities of life are
produced.
Thus Darwin explained the history of animal life without the hypothesis
of a divine creator, and Marx explained the history of mankind without
the hypothesis either of a divine ruler or human leaders. These
Darwinian and Marxian explanations constitute what is known as the
materialistic explanation of history.
Marx represented that capitalism would end the class struggle and issue
in a classless world because its profiteering system of production and
distribution could not be succeeded by another, since it divides mankind
into masters who are ever growing less numerous and slaves who are ever
growing more numerous, without the possibility of those who are half
capitalists and half workers rising out of their nondescript condition
into a new master class, as did the bourgeoisie under feudalism. For
these reasons he contended the proletarian slaves would become the grave
diggers for the bourgeois masters and so end capitalism with the burial
of its representatives.
But with the complete and sustained triumph of the proletarian class the
bourgeois class will rapidly pass away, as is now the case with it in
Russia, and a classless world will be born to live on a co-operative
instead of a competitive basis, in a heaven instead of a hell.
V. WHAT WILL BE THE FORM OF THE WORKERS' STATE.
Hail Soviet Russia, the first Communist Republic, the land of, by
and for the common people. We greet you, workers and peasants of
Russia, who by your untold sacrifices, by your determination and
devotion, are transforming the Russia of black reaction, of the
domination of a few, into a land of glorious promise for all.
Comrades in America, watch the bright dawn in the East; you have
but your chains to lose, and a world to gain!--The Workers'
Council.
In general outline the form of the workers' state will be that of the
Russian Soviet Republic, and what it is will appear from the following
semi-official description, the briefest and clearest of any which I have
seen. Its authorship is unknown to me but I know it to be the work of a
committee of which Zinoviev, one of the directing and inspiring minds of
the proletarian movement in Russia, was a member, and it may be that he
is the author. Anyhow it is a recently published, authoritative classic
containing the information for which a large part of the world has been
waiting:
We have before us the example of the Russian Soviet Republic, whose
structure, in view of the conflicting reports printed in other
countries, it may be useful to describe briefly here.
The unit of government is the local Soviet, or Council, of
Workers', Red Army, and Peasants' Deputies.
The city Workers' Soviet is made up as follows: Each factory elects
one delegate for a certain number of workers, and each local union
also elects delegates. These delegates are elected according to
political parties--or, if the workers wish it, as individual
candidates.
The Red Army delegates are chosen by military units.
For the peasants, each village has its local Soviet, which sends
delegates to the Township Soviet, which in turn elects to the
County Soviet, and this to the Provincial Soviet.
Nobody who employs labor for profit can vote.
Every six months the City and Provincial Soviets elect delegates to
the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is the supreme governing
body of the country. This Congress decides upon the policies which
are to govern the country for six months, and then elects a Central
Executive Committee of two hundred, which is to carry out these
policies. The Congress also elects the Cabinet--The Council of
People's Commissars, who are heads of Government Departments--or
People's Commissariats.
The People's Commissars can be recalled at any time by the Central
Executive Committee. The members of all Soviets can be recalled
very easily, and at any time, by their constituents.
These Soviets are not only Legislative bodies, but also Executive
organs. Unlike your Congress, they do not make the laws and leave
them to the President to carry out, but the members carry out the
laws themselves; and there is no Supreme Court to say whether or
not these laws are "constitutional."
Between the All-Russian Congresses of Soviets the Central Executive
Committee is the supreme power in Russia. It meets at least every
two months, and in the meanwhile, the Council of People's
Commissars directs the country, while the members of the Central
Executive Committee go to work in the various government
departments.
In Russia the workers are organized in Industrial Unions all the
workers in each industry belonging to one Union. For example, in a
factory making metal products, even the carpenters and painters are
members of the Metal Workers' Union. Each factory is a local
Union, and the Shop Committee elected by the workers is its
Executive Committee.
The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the federated Unions
is elected by the annual Trade Union Convention. A Scale Committee
elected by the Convention fixes the wages of all categories of
workers.
With very few exceptions, all important factories in Russia have
been nationalized, and are now the property of all the workers in
common. The business of the Unions is therefore no longer to fight
the capitalists, but to run industry.
Hand in hand with the Unions works the Department of Labor of the
Soviet Government, whose chief is the People's Commissar of Labor,
elected by the Soviet Congress with the approval of the Unions.
In charge of the economic life of the country is the elected
Supreme Council of People's Economy, divided into departments, such
as, Metal Department, Chemical Department, etc., each one headed by
experts and workers, appointed, with the approval of the Union by
the Supreme Council of People's Economy.
In each factory production is carried on by a committee consisting
of three members: a representative of the Shop Committee of the
Unions, a representative of the Central Executive of the Unions,
and a representative of the Supreme Council of People's Economy.
The Unions are thus a branch of the government--and this government
is the most highly centralized government that exists.
It is also the most democratic government in history. For all the
organs of government are in constant touch with the working masses,
and constantly sensitive to their will. Moreover, the local Soviets
all over Russia have complete autonomy to manage their own local
affairs, provided they carry out the national policies laid down by
the Soviet Congress. Also, the Soviet Government represents only
the workers, and cannot help but act in the workers' interests.
The motto of this section is the conclusion of a good article in the
first number of one among the best of the periodicals devoted to the
promotion of Marxism, The Workers' Council, published by the
International Educational Company, New York City. This article is so
short and lends itself so naturally as a supplement to the foregoing
explanation of the new economic system which has been established and is
being developed in Russia that I quote the rest as the conclusion of
this section about Sovietism.
Communist Russia, the Russia of the common people, marks a new
epoch in the world's history. It marks a basic change in the
structure of human society. Up to this time society lived under the
rule of the few, under the rule of the class which possessed the
wealth of the country. The methods were different at different
periods in the world's history, but the results were the same:
riches and power for the few, a bare existence and endless toil for
the many. The slaves, the serfs, or the wage workers of today, who
compose the masses of the people, have ever been the hewers of wood
and the carriers of water, the beasts of burden on whose backs
sported and fattened kings and nobles, landlords and capitalists.
They who possessed wealth had the power. And they passed laws to
protect that power, to make the possession of wealth a social
institution. Private property was enthroned and every striving of
mankind was subjected to the rule of property. Thence grew the
exploitation of man by man for private profit, and all abuses
resulting therefrom; fear of loss of property, care of possession,
dread of the future, fear of loss of employment, envy and greed.
Human society was ruled by property grabbers; masters, kings,
capitalists, providing toil, disease, war for the masses of
mankind. That is the rule of capitalism, and cannot be otherwise.
But under communism, profit is abolished, and with it the exploitation
of man by man; private property is no longer a factor in the life of
man; property becomes universal, all natural and created wealth belong
to society, to every member of the community, as secure a birth right as
air and sunlight. Everybody's measured work provides a common fund of
things to satisfy material needs, today, tomorrow and in years to come.
There can be no fear of losing one's job, of seeing one's children
starve, of the poor-house in old age. As sure as the sun will rise on
the morrow, man is secure of his bread, his shelter and clothing. Man is
freed from animal cares, free to develop his human qualities, his
intelligence, his brain and heart.
Russia points the way. Russia is now one huge corporation, every man,
woman and child an equal shareholder. The state is administered as a
business; the benefit of the stockholders being the object of the
corporation. The individual contributes his labor, whatever it may be:
manual, mental, artistic. This labor is applied to available materials:
the soil of the farm, the natural resources, the mines, and mills and
factories. The finished product is distributed through the agencies of
the corporation, in the shape of food and clothes and shelter, of
education and amusement, of protection to life and limb, of literature
and art, of inventions and improvements: to every man, woman and child
of the nation.
To be sure this ideal of a human brotherhood is not yet realized in
Russia. No sane person would expect so tremendous a change to be
consummated in three years, in the face of universal aggression,
intrigues and blockades. It may take ten years, perhaps a generation.
What of it! Russia is past the most difficult period of transition from
the capitalist state to a communist state, while other capitalist
countries must still face the period of revolution. Therefore let Russia
lead the way. Let the American workers realize that Russia's fight is
their fight, that Soviet Russia's success is the success of the laboring
people the world over!
Have you ever been to Crazy Land,[N]
Down on the Looney Pike?
There are the queerest people there--
You never saw the like!
The ones that do the useful work
Are poor as poor can be,
And those who do no useful work
All live in luxury.
They raise so much in Crazy Land
Of food and clothes and such,
That those who work don't have enough
Because they raise too much.
They're wrong side to in Crazy Land,
They're upside down with care--
They walk around upon their heads,
With feet up in the air.
--T.
VI. WITHDRAWAL OF PRIZE OFFER.
Never have anything to do with those who pretend to have dealings
with the supernatural. If you allow supernaturalism to get a
foothold in your country the result will be a dreadful
calamity.--Confucius.
Mrs. Brown and I hereby withdraw, for the present at least, our prize
offer, and for two reasons:
1. We are convinced that it is as necessary to the welfare of the world
to smite supernaturalism in religion as capitalism in politics, but
while many are able and willing to attack the octopus of capitalism,
this is true of only a few in the case of the dragon of supernaturalism.
Some hesitate because they feel with one of the critics of Communism and
Christianism that revolutionary forces are coming to the surface in the
churches.
"Where," he asks, "shall we classify the stand of the Catholic Church
against the open shop? What shall be said of the Interchurch report on
the steel strike? What of the attitude of the combined commission in
Denver of Catholics, Protestants and Jews on the street car strike?"
We have no desire to belittle such efforts nor to discourage their
promoters; but (though they may afford some local and temporary
alleviation to the miseries of far the greater part of the
world--miseries growing out of its division into two classes, a small
class of owning masters and a large class of working slaves) we center
no hope in them, because the whole history of the supernaturalistic
interpretations of religion, not excepting the Christian, show these
efforts to be only reformatory and temporary bubbles which sooner or
later are always pricked by the masters of what little revolutionary air
they contain, and so never issue in any general or permanent improvement
of the sad lot of the overwhelming majority of the slaves.
How little the church serves the working slaves, and how much the owning
masters, will appear from the following representations of Roger W.
Babson, the well-known financial expert and adviser:
The value of our investments depends not on the strength of our
banks, but rather upon the strength of our churches. The underpaid
preachers of the nation are the men upon whom we really are
depending, rather than the well-paid lawyers, bankers and brokers.
The religion of the community is really the bulwark of our
investments. And when we consider that only 15 per cent of the
people hold securities of any kind and less than 3 per cent hold
enough to pay an income tax, the importance of the churches becomes
even more evident.
For our sakes, for our children's sakes, for the nation's sake, let
us business men get behind the churches and their preachers. Never
mind if they are not perfect. Never mind if their theology is out
of date. This only means that were they efficient they would do
very much more. The safety of all we have is due to the churches,
even in their present inefficient and inactive state. By all that
we hold dear, let us from this very day give more time, money and
thought to the churches, for upon these the value of all we own
ultimately depends.
What our critics say about the recent efforts of the American churches
being in the right direction is interesting to Mrs. Brown and me, but we
are much more impressed by the observation of a writer in a late issue
of Soviet Russia. In speaking of the baneful influence of the Russian
church through all the ages he says:
Out of the shadows of antiquity, from the morning of man's cupidity
and avarice, two sinister figures have crawled with crooked talons
through history, leaving a trail of blood and fear most horrible
which has not halted yet. These are the monarch and the priest. The
one is symbolical of despotic or oligarchic power, the other
typifies the sordid ignorance and fearful superstition of the
credulous masses which maintains the power of the first. High in
the streets of Moscow, where one may see the pallid, long-haired,
degenerate-looking venders of holy lies and pious impositions
shuffle along like spectres from a remoter age, there hangs a woven
streamer of scarlet hue with huge white lettering, which defiantly
proclaims that religion is the opium of the people.
Though many still cross themselves a score of times daily on
passing the church, yet nevertheless the people are rapidly
assimilating the knowledge which elevates and enlightens, and
learning to reject that which terrorizes and deforms the mind, and
just so sure as the last filthy tyrant has been placed for ever
beyond mischief, so will the last priest soon vanish from the land
once contemptuously known as "Holy Russia".
The foregoing is from a revolutionary sympathizer with soviet Russia and
the following is from a reactionary criticizer of it, but both are to
the same effect, that orthodox Christianity is wholly against the
interest of the proletariat and entirely for that of the bourgeoisie:
One of the most striking characteristics of Bolshevism is its
pronounced hatred of religion, and of Christianity most of all. To
the Bolshevik, Christianity is not merely the theory of a mode of
life different from his own; it is an enemy to be persecuted and
wiped out of existence.
To understand this is not difficult. The tendency of the Christian
religion to hold before the believer an ideal of a life beyond
death is diametrically opposed to the ideal of Bolshevism, which
tempts the masses by promising the immediate realization of the
earthly paradise. From that point of view Christianity is not only
a false conception of life; it is an obstacle to the realization of
the Communist ideal. It detaches souls from the objects of sense
and diverts them from the struggle to get the good things of this
life. According to the Bolshevist formula, religion is opium for
the people: and serves as a tool of capitalist domination.
This influence of the churches, in the long run and on the whole has
been and will continue to be the same throughout christendom everywhere
and everywhen, not excepting these United States in the twentieth
century.
Nor is it to any convincing purpose that the representatives of the
owning class contend that kings and priests have lost their supremacy to
presidents and preachers, for it is imperialism in politics which
enthralls and supernaturalism in religion which degrades. The world is
greatly afflicted with both, none of it much, if any, more than our
country.
It seems to us that we see two fundamentally important facts more
clearly than our critics see them: (1) the first step in the way of
salvation for the proletariat is class consciousness, and (2) the
Christian interpretation of supernaturalistic religion has been, and
until it is discredited will continue to be the most efficient among the
many preventives to this consciousness.
Let me show this to be the case by an experience which I had some years
ago when Mr. Pierpont Morgan, Senior, was at the height of his glory, as
the king of the great realm of big business, receiving homage on the one
hand from the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, and on the other hand from
the Blockheads and Henry Dubbs of all the world.
At that time I made a confirmation visitation for my sick episcopal
brother, the Bishop of New York, to what was popularly known as Pierpont
Morgan's church (St. George's, one of the downtown churches for working
people.) He was the senior warden of this great parish having nearly
5,000 communicants. He went with the collecting procession out through
the great congregation and back to the chancel where each collector
ceremoniously emptied the contents of his basket into the great gold
alms basin held by the Rector.
While the famous financier was collecting contributions from obscure
toilers, how could any, brought up as I was and as nearly all of the
great congregation were, see that capitalism has divided humanity into
two conflicting classes which "have nothing in common, the working class
and the employing class, between which a struggle must go on until the
workers organize, take possession of the earth and the machinery of
production and abolish the wage system!"
By the light of what I had been taught all along and of what I was then
seeing with my own eyes from the bishop's chair such a representation
would have seemed preposterous and what was true of me was equally so of
all present, rector, wardens, vestrymen, members and visitors.
There were not many I. W. W.'s. in those days, but if one had been there
and upon leaving the church had made a representation to this effect to
a fellow-worker who was a member of St. George's would not the reply
have been something as follows:
See what Pierpont Morgan and I have in common: the same God; the same
religion; the same church; the same services for worship; the same
collection basket in which he puts a $100.00 bill and I a ten cent
piece; the same Lord's Supper where we eat and drink together; and,
besides all this, there is the same hell where he will go unless he
gives me a fair day's wage and where I will go unless I do a fair day's
work, and the same heaven where both will go to equally glorious
mansions, if we are alike 100 percenters in church and state, and if he
pays me liberally for my work and I slave hard enough for his money.
Assuming the truth of the Christian interpretation of religion this
conclusion is correct. But this Christian religion is not true.
Christianism offers nothing to either the owners or workers in the sky
for its god and heaven, devil and hell are lies. And neither religious
Christianism nor political Republicanism or Democracy, not to speak of
the other isms of religion and politics, offers the workers aught on
earth.
Capitalism is the god of this world, of no part of it more than of these
United States, and capitalism is to the laborer a robbing, lying,
murderous devil, not a good divinity.
2. The recall of the prize offer is also occasioned and justified, we
think, by a demand, which was as unexpected as it is gratifying, for our
little propagandist in foreign countries, and we have been persuaded
that it should be met by securing to him the gift of tongues. We propose
to do this by devoting the money which was set aside for the prizes to
the encouragement of making and publishing translations.
FOOTNOTES:
[N] The capitalist countries of the world constitute the United States
of Crazy Lands.
VII. AFTERWORD.
"So many Gods, so many Creeds,
So many ways that wind and wind,
When all this sad world really needs
Is just the art of being kind."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox.
I.
My title, given in Latin on the picture page, is bestowed upon me by
some in jest and by others in reproach, and I am accepting it from both
as compliments, because they prove that I have at least succeeded in
making clear the general outlines of my religious and political
position.
The use of this title is due to the desire that those who pick up the
booklet should not buy it, much less undertake to read it, under a
mistaken impression as to its doctrinal trends. In English the Latin
title is, "Bishop of the Countries belonging to the Bolsheviki and the
Infidels."
Certain friends greatly fear that some things said in this booklet may
fall foul of the criminal-syndicalism laws. I have carefully read those
of Ohio and believe that the booklet contains nothing which is not
safely within them.
Anyhow, I have spoken the truth about supernaturalistic religion and
capitalistic politics as I understand it, and I believe that I have
adequately supported all my representations on bases of relevant facts
which cannot be gainsaid or, at any rate, upon sound arguments which
have such facts for their foundations.
However, I am trying to hold myself open to conviction; and, this being
the case, if "the powers that be" in state or church feel that they must
proceed against me, I beg that, in justice to all the persons and
interests concerned, they will come with their resources of persuasion,
not coercion.
My appeal to the religious and political rulers to do this shall be in
the burning words of a celebrated defender of the capitalistic system of
economics, John Stuart Mill, words which constitute the most remarkable
passage in his powerful essay on Liberty:
No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting
a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the
people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines
or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.
Speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be
apprehended, that the government, whether completely responsible to
the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of
opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the
general intolerance of the public.
Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one
with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion
unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice.
But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion,
either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is
illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the
worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in
accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the
owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a
private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury
was inflicted on only a few persons or on many. But the peculiar
evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is
robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing
generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than
those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of
the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose,
what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and
livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
This passage should be inscribed in letters of gold on the doors of
every church and court house in the world. It was written in
condemnation of the persecution by majorities of minorities in states,
but it applies equally to all intolerance of dissentient opinions.
It is utterly impossible in a printed discussion of the length of this
booklet to weed out every word capable of misconstruction; and equally
so to furnish a definition or limitation to every doubtful word or
phrase. Nevertheless I call attention to a few:
The word "revolution" as used here should not be taken as implying armed
insurrection or violence, unless expressly so described. These are not
necessary features of revolution. There have been both political and
industrial revolutions entirely unattended by violence or bloodshed; for
example, the political revolution of 1787 when the old Articles of
Confederation were abolished and the federal Constitution imposed upon
the United States; also the political and industrial revolution of 1919
in Hungary when for a time a soviet system was established, with Bela
Kun as premier.
The bloodshed which often attends revolutions comes almost invariably
from the lawless counter-revolutionary efforts of the deposed ruling
class to maintain themselves in power or regain power by terrorism and
murder.
When I eulogize the Bolsheviki and their system in Russia, I am not to
be taken as advocating for the United States the employment of the
bloody tactics for gaining power, which the capitalist press of America
persists in describing--and as I believe, falsely. I deal in this
booklet not with tactics but with facts. I concern myself here not with
the ways by which the Bolsheviki of Russia gained power, but with what
they did with the power after gaining it.
As I was trained in theology, I am certain that my religious position
has been so clearly outlined that no mistake as to where I stand will be
made by the rulers in my church; but, having had no training in the law,
I am less certain that my political position will be as unmistakably
understood by the rulers in my state. Therefore, to avoid
misinterpretation of certain words and phrases in this booklet, I here
expressly disclaim any intention of violating the criminal-syndicalism
statute of Ohio, following as closely as may be its phraseology in these
my denials of criminal intention:
Nothing herein is to be understood as advocating or teaching the
duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or
unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing
industrial or political reform. This booklet is not issued for the
purpose of advocating, advising, or teaching the doctrine that
industrial or political reform should be brought about by crime,
sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism; nor of
justifying the commission or the attempt to commit crime, sabotage,
violence or unlawful methods of terrorism with intent to exemplify,
spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal
syndicalism; nor of organizing any society, group or assemblage of
persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal
syndicalism. If any such meaning shall be read into any passage of
this booklet by any reader, it will be a wrong meaning, not what I
intended to convey.
A revolution by which a new industrial democracy--the freedom to make
things for the use of workers--will supplant the old capitalist
democracy--the freedom to make things for the profit of owners--is an
inevitable event in the history of every country within the twentieth
century.
II.
My object in this booklet is not the promotion of class hatred and
strife. Far from it. It is to persuade to the banishment of gods from
skies and capitalists from earth.
Theism and capitalism are the great blights upon mankind, the fatal ones
to which it owes, more than to all others together, the greatest and
most unnecessary of its suffering, those arising from ignorance, war,
poverty and slavery.
This recommendation as to banishments and this representation in support
of it stand out on nearly every page of the booklet, and in order to
make sure of special prominence for them on its last pages, I quote the
following from an article by G. O. Warren (a major in the British army,
I think) an occasional contributor of brilliant articles to rationalist
publications on sociological lines:
If there be a God who rules men and things by His arbitrary will,
it is an impertinence to attempt to abolish poverty, because it is
according to His will. But if there be no such God, then we know
that poverty is caused by men and may be removed by men. If there
be a God who answers prayers, the remedy for social injustice is to
pray. But if there be no such God, the remedy is to think and act.
If men go to heaven when they die, and if heaven is a place in
which everybody will be made perfectly happy, then there is no need
to struggle against poverty in this world, because a few years of
trouble, or even degradation, in this world are of no consequence
when compared with an eternity of happiness that must be ours by
simply following the directions of the clergy. But if there be no
such heaven, then it becomes a matter of first importance that we
make our condition as happy as possible in this world, which is the
only one of which we are certain.
I maintain that there is no God who rules men and things by His
arbitrary will and who answers prayers, and that there is no heaven
of everlasting bliss to which we are to be wafted after death. And
I maintain this not only because I think that these religious
beliefs are erroneous, but because I know that they are most potent
to make men docile and submissive to the most degrading conditions
imposed on them. I feel sure that the doctrine that obedience to
rulers and contentment in poverty are according to the will of God,
and the doctrine that the poor and the oppressed will be
compensated in heaven are the chief causes of slums, prisons,
lunatic asylums and poor-houses.
All political tyranny is backed up and made possible by belief in
an arbitrary God, and all poverty is endured because of the belief
that after death everlasting happiness and wealth await us. Two
conditions are necessary to human happiness: personal freedom and
general wealth. But we never can be free as long as we believe that
it is the will of an infinite heavenly ruler that we should submit
to a finite earthly ruler, whether he gets upon the throne by
hereditary succession or by the votes of a majority; and wealth
will never be justly, and therefore, generally, distributed as long
as most of the people believe that because they are poor in this
world they will be rich in the world to come.
The apostle Paul says that political rulers are ordained by God and
must be obeyed, from the King to the constable, from the President
to the policeman. He says that if you are refractory, "the
minister of God" will use his sword, and will not use it "in vain."
He says that the sword-bearer is God's minister.
Christ himself recites a parable about a rich man who went to hell
because he was rich and a poor man who went to heaven because he
was poor. Rich Christians are told by the clergy that the surest
way for them to get to heaven is by being rich; but they use this
parable to console the poor with the idea that the surest way for
them to get to heaven is by being poor. And this idea is confirmed
by the saying of Christ: 'Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.'
I claim that it is impossible to prove that any being exists who
can do, or ever does, anything outside of the regular processes of
Nature, and therefore that the word "God," which has always meant
such a being, should be dropped. I would have no objection to the
current use of the word "God" if that use were harmless, but it is
very far from that. It is a word that every despot conjures with to
keep the people in ignorance and subjection. It is a word that
crafty politicians use in carrying out their schemes of bribery and
plunder.
The same thing applies to the word "heaven." It is impossible to
show that there is any such place, and the word is used as a bribe
to the poor to keep them quiet under injustice. I do not see how
there can be a life after death, but if there is it will not be any
better because we are poor and undeveloped in this world, and
therefore immortality should be a reason rather for discontentment
among the poor than for submission to injustice.
As an atheist, I object to a God who is for every tyrannical ruler
and against the rebels that he imprisons, tortures and slays; who
is for the idle landlord and usurer and against the workers; who is
for the purse-proud prelate and against the people; who is for the
boodle politician and against the happiness of the many; who is
for the white exploiter and against the simple colored man; who is
for the rich profiteer and against the petty burglar and
pickpocket.
If I am told there is no such God as this, I reply that there is,
or there is none. The God of every Christian creed is the God of
the rulers, the God of the idle rich. There never has been any
other God known to the world. This is the God that the church now
worships and always has worshiped.
There are forces in Nature that we do not yet understand, and
therefore should not name. But they can only help us as we learn
what they are and how to use them. It is therefore neither our duty
nor our privilege to pray, nor can any good be thus achieved. It is
for us to observe, to think, and to examine the pretensions of the
privileged. It is for us to understand that there is no God to
raise our wages, and no heaven to compensate us for our poverty and
all the misery it entails in this world.
"Said the parson, 'Be content;
Pay your tithes due, pay your rent;
They that earthly things despise
Shall have mansions in the skies,
Though your back with toil be bent,'
Said the parson, 'be content.'
"Then the parson feasting went
With my lord who lives by rent;
And the parson laughed elate
For my lord has livings great,
They that earthly things revere
May get bishop's mansions here.
"Be content! Be content!
Till your dreary life is spent,
Lowly live and lowly die,
All for mansions in the sky!
Castles here are much too rare,
All may have them--in the air!"
III.
According to Marxian socialism, the history of man arose from the need
of his body for food, raiment and shelter. This is the materialistic
explanation of history, and the following is one of the passages in
which Marx clearly shows that it is true and reasonable:
In the social production which men carry on they enter into
definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their
will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage
of development of their material powers of production. The sum
total of these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society--the real foundations, on which rise legal and
political superstructures and which correspond to definite forms of
social consciousness. The mode of production in material life
determines the general character of the social, political and
spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men
that determines their existence but, on the contrary, their social
existence determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of
their development, the material forces of production in society
come in conflict with the existing relations of production,
or--what is but a legal expression for the same thing--with the
property relations within which they had been at work before. From
forms of development of the forces of production these relations
turn into their fetters. Then comes the period of social
revolution.
Marx and his followers are justified in their contention that the
physical necessities of man (not gods or great men) constitute the key
to his history by the fact that there was no mind of man before the
human body nor will there be any mind when the body has been
disintegrated; for the mind was made by the body, for the body, not the
body by the mind, for the mind. This very remarkable fact, when duly
considered, will change nearly all the ideas of most men and women about
almost everything.
A leader is but a mouthpiece of a people through which they give
expression to their deepest convictions and highest aspirations. Early
in my life Lincoln was the great leader of the people in the United
States, and late in it Lenin is the great leader of the people of the
world. The earlier of these was at least a rationalist and the latter is
an atheist, so that the first probably did not suppose himself to have
been inspired by a divinity, and the second certainly does not.
I claim, said Lincoln, not to have controlled events, but confess
plainly that events have controlled me.
In Lenin's Birthday Anniversary number of the magazine, Soviet Russia,
the Editor says:
At the very outset, we must clearly state that much of Lenin's
powerful position in present-day history is made by the history
itself,--by the fact that we are living at the moment when the
entire life of the race is vindicating in a most emphatic manner
the theoretical position occupied by Lenin for many years. After
all, Lenin, like Trotsky, was an unknown man, except to certain
political circles, and the mass of Russian revolutionists, even as
late as 1916. And yet, he was the same Lenin; had not the
opportunity come to put into practice the system for which he and
his associates had been laboring and suffering for many years, no
doubt the circle of his admirers and readers would not be much
wider in 1920 than it was in 1916. Lenin would probably be the
first to admit--nay, insist--that the material circumstance that
enables a certain individual to assert himself is the prime element
in building his reputation. So that, if the Russian Revolution had
not taken the course it did take, Lenin, with exactly the same
mental and idealogical preparation, might have remained a
relatively unknown man.
Those who on the one hand interpret life from the naturalistic or
materialistic point of view, and those who on the other hand interpret
it from the supernaturalistic viewpoint need not and generally do not
differ as widely as is commonly supposed.
Materialism is the name for two totally different things, which are
constantly confused. There is, in the first place, materialism as a
theory of the universe--the theory that matter is the source and
the substance of all things. That is (if you associate "force" or
"energy" or "motion" with your "matter," as every materialist does)
a perfectly arguable theory. It has not the remotest connection
with the amount of wine a man drinks or the integrity of his life.
But we also give the name of materialism to a certain disposition
of the sentiments, which few of us admire, and which would kill the
root of progress if it became general. It is the disposition to
despise ideals and higher thought, to confine one's desires to
selfish and sensual pleasure and material advancement. There is no
connection between this materialism of the heart and that of the
head.
For whole centuries of Christian history whole nations believed
abundantly in spirits without it having the least influence on
their morals; and, on the other hand, materialists like Ludwig
Buchner, or Vogt, or Moleschott, were idealists (in the moral
sense) of the highest order. Look around you and see whether the
belief or non-belief (for the Agnostic is in the same predicament
here) in spirit is a dividing-line in conduct. There is no ground
in fact for the confusion, and it has wrought infinite
mischief.--McCabe.
As to their philosophy concerning the origin, sustenance and governance
of the universe, communists are almost to a man materialists; but, as to
their philosophy concerning life, they are as generally idealists. There
is, I feel sure, as much idealism in my thinking and living now as there
was in the days of my orthodoxy.
Many of the representations of the Jewish-Christian Bible are
materialistic in a high, if not gross, degree. This is true of the
account of the creation according to which the god, Jehovah, with hands
moulded a man out of dust; performed a surgical operation upon him for
the purpose of securing a rib out of which he carved a woman; made a
garden; and provided worship for himself by a system of material
sacrifices. The ark of the covenant was a wooden chest, and its contents
(a pot, some manna, and Aaron's rod) were materialities.
The conception, birth, death, descension, resurrection, ascension and
session of the god, Jesus, were (if they occurred) material realities.
And the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the god sounds
like materialism, especially according to the explanation of the Greek,
Roman, Lutheran and Anglican churches.
IV.
A nutshell summary of this booklet is contained in these confessions of
my religious and political faith:
I. My religious faith is summed up in the following creed of twelve
Articles:
(1) The chief end of every man should be to make the most of his own
life by having it as long and as happy as possible and to help others in
doing this for themselves.
(2) Though parents live unconsciously in their children and all do so in
those over whom they have had any influence, yet all there is of
conscious, personal life for man is of a terrestrial character, none
celestial.
(3) Knowledge is the Christ of the World. The saviour-gods of the
supernaturalistic interpretations of religion are symbols of this one.
(4) Ignorance is the devil of the world. The destroyer-gods of the
supernaturalistic interpretations of religion are symbols of this one.
(5) Knowledge consists in knowing facts and truths. Every real fact and
truth is a word of the only gospel which the world possesses.
(6) A fact is something which matter, force and motion have
unconsciously done, not what a god has consciously willed. There are no
other facts.
(7) A truth is a fact so interpreted that if it is lived it will
contribute towards making the most of life. There are no other truths.
(8) Hence the greatest people in the world are the scientists who
discover facts, and the preachers who interpret them and persuade to
their living. If you contend that mothers are greater than teachers, I
shall agree with you on condition that you will admit that a mother is
not really great unless she is a teacher.
(9) The desire and effort to learn facts, interpret and live them
constitute morality.
(10) Morality is the greatest thing in the world, because it is all
there is of real religion and politics.
(11) But, paradoxical as it may seem, there is one thing which is
greater than the greatest thing in the world--freedom.
(12) And the freedom which is greater than morality consists in the
liberty to learn, interpret, live and teach facts, without which liberty
a man may be a non-moral child, or an immoral hypocrite, but he cannot
be the possessor of the pearl of great price--morality, without which
human life is not worth the living or even possible.
II. My political faith is summed up in the following creed of twelve
articles:
(1) As the universe in general is self-existing, self-sustaining and
self-governing, so man in particular, who is but one among the
transitory, cosmic phenomena, has all of the potentialities of his own
life within himself, so that every man can say of himself what the
makers of Jesus had him say: I and my Father are one.
(2) Man has set a far-off and high-up goal of an ideal civilization for
himself, and is finding the way to it by his own discoveries, and is
walking therein by his own strength, so that he is not in the least
indebted to any of the gods of the supernaturalistic interpretations of
religion, either for the setting of the goal, or for what progress he
has made towards it.
(3) Nor is humanity indebted to its outstanding representatives for the
advance in the way of civilization, as is evident from the fact that,
but for the gods, it would have long since been far beyond the point
where the English-German war would have been within the range of
possibilities, and these gods are the gifts to a blind humanity by its
blind leaders.
(4) Humanity is not indebted to its physical scientists any more than to
its spiritual prophets for its advance in the way of civilization,
because the scientists have always worked, as the prophets have
preached, in the interests of the profiteers of the existing system of
economics. Economic systems have been the chief, if not indeed, the only
promoters of war, and the world war with its tremendous horrors would
not have been possible but for science.
(5) So, then, the history of civilization has been what it is because of
the economic systems by which the material necessities of life (foods,
raiments and houses) have been produced, not because gods have made
spiritual revelations, nor yet because men have made great discoveries
and persuasively taught them. According to Marx, who discovered the key
to the door of history, it is constituted neither by the gods in the
skies, nor the great men on earth; but by economic systems. These create
the divinities and the leaders, not they them.
(6) Thus far in the history of mankind every civilization has rested
upon the institution of slavery and there have been, speaking broadly,
three different forms of it, with their correspondingly different
civilizations, chattel, feudal and capital. Each of these forms of
slavery has been the foundation for a superstructure of a civilization
peculiar to a distinct period of history. Chattel, feudal and capital
slaveries respectively constituted the foundations for the
superstructures of ancient, mediaeval and modern civilizations. The
second of the two great discoveries by Marx was that the wage slavery of
capitalism, by far the worst of all slaveries, is due to surplus
profits.
(7) Since civilizations have their embodiments in religious and
political institutions (churches and states with what goes with them) so
clearly as to justify the contention that religion and politics are the
halves of one and the same reality--civilization--it follows that I am
right in carrying my materialism over from the realm of religion into
that of politics.
(8) A system of economics is about the most materialistic thing in the
world, yet it is the only key which will open the door to the temple of
human history. Having opened it with this key, the first thing to be
seen is a world divided into two classes, one class whose
representatives live by owning the material means and the machines for
production and distribution; and another class whose representatives
live by working in making and operating these machines, with the result
of producing and distributing the material commodities by which the
world is fed, clothed and housed, but to the surfeiting of the owners
who as such produce nothing and have everything and the starving of the
workers who produce everything and have nothing.
(9) Capitalists and communists agree that when the goal of humanity has
been reached the world will find itself to be one all inclusive
co-operating family.
(10) Capitalists say that then the co-operating will be between the
owners as fathers, and the workers as children. The capitalists will
recognize every laborer who does a fair day's work as a good son or
daughter, and the laborer will recognize every owner who gives a fair
day's wage as a good father.
(11) But communists say that then the co-operating will be between men,
all of whom are on the same footing as laborers, since, when the goal is
reached, the world will no longer be divided as it has been, from time
out of mind, into a small owning or master class and a large working or
slave class; but it will constitute one great all inclusive family,
every member of which will be on the same footing with all others,
except that the older members will regard the younger as sons and
daughters, and they in turn will be regarded as fathers and mothers, and
all of the same generation will look upon each other as brothers and
sisters.
(12) Civilization always has been and ever will be impossible without
slavery, because leisure and opportunity for study, social intercourse
and travel are necessary to it, but under capitalism, as it works out,
only representatives of the owning or master class have these
prerequisites, and those of the working or slave class must be deprived
of them. When communism supplants capitalism all will have their equal
parts in both the labor necessary to the sustenance of the physical
(body) life, and also the leisure necessary to the development of the
psychical (soul) life. There will still be slavery, indeed much more of
it than the world has hitherto known, but machines, not men, women and
children will be the slaves. Of course there will remain much work
connected with the making and operating of the machines, but the time
and energy required for it will more and more decrease with the
inevitable increase in the number and efficiency of the machines until,
according to conservative estimates, three or four hours per day of
comparatively light and pleasant employment will be quite sufficient to
provide the necessities of life in abundance for every worker and his
dependents, so that, then, all will have as much of them as the few have
now; and this without any sense of slavery because when one is working
for the benefit of himself and his own in particular, and the public to
which he belongs in general, not for the profit of a class of which he
is not a representative, there is no feeling of irksome servitude.
V.
A world-wide revolution has begun and is rapidly spreading over the
earth. Why? Because a world-wide economic system for feeding, clothing
and housing the people has broken down so that it must be supplanted by
a new system, else mankind will perish for the lack of food, raiment and
shelter.
This revolutionary war is between the working class whose
representatives live starvingly, though they produce and distribute all
the necessities of life and the capitalist class whose representatives
live surfeitingly, though taking no part in the production and
distribution of these necessities.
Nearly one hundred years ago our fourth President, James Madison, saw
partly and dimly what nearly every one now sees fully and clearly:
We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our
Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility
because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A
republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when
the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we
must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to
readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions.
The laborers of Russia have turned the country right side up so that
they themselves are above and the capitalists below, having the
privilege of remaining down to idle and starve or else to crawl up to
work and live, but not to rob, war and enslave.
As I lay down my pen the working man's government of Russia is fighting
a double war, the Poland-Crimea war, to prevent its overthrow by the
capitalist governments of the world, especially England, France, Japan
and the United States, which in this war are surreptitiously
confederated against it, and the victory seems assured to it, largely
because of the sympathy and help of their fellow workers throughout the
world.
Marx though dead yet speaketh. He is speaking more widely and
persuasively in death than in life. Russia is the megaphone from which
his voice goes out through every land and over every sea.
Never man nor god spake with as much power as he speaks. His gospel is
to the slave, and this is its thrilling appeal--workers of the world
unite, and this is its inspiring assurance--you have nothing to lose but
your chains and a world to gain.
WM. M. BROWN.
Brownella Cottage, Galion, Ohio.
September 24th, 1920.
* * * * * *
Transcriber's note:
The typographical error "overwhelmlingly" was changed to
"overwhelmingly." All other spelling, capitalization, and
punctuation was retained.