SOCIALISM A PERIL TO WORKINGMEN
In glowing colors the imaginations of Socialists have beautifully
pictured their utopian state for the benefit of the credulous and
oppressed. Unfortunately, however, for the followers of Karl Marx, a
little reasoning and common sense show that their visionary state,
instead of being a heavenly paradise, would in reality be a descent into
chaos and anarchy. Domestic peace would be a blessing of the past.
Discontent, wrangles, fights, riots, civil discord and sabotage would be
the order of the day till irrepressible rebellion had sounded the
death-knell of Socialism.
There is every indication that the Revolutionists would not destroy our
present system of government without having recourse to arms. Besides
the many convincing proofs given in the preceding chapter, we learn from
"The Call," New York, January 28, 1912, that the celebrated Socialist
novelist, Jack London, scouted the idea that the social revolution would
be realized without force. Then, again, Victor Berger--who was Socialist
Congressman from Wisconsin, and who, like Debs, was one of the
"innocents" whom the "poor," "persecuted" Reds have been trying to save
from a long imprisonment by a nationwide agitation for amnesty--writing
in the "Social Democratic Herald" of Milwaukee, on August 14, 1909,
said: "We should be grateful if the social revolution, if the freeing of
75,000,000 whites would not cost more blood than the freeing of
4,000,000 negroes in 1861."
Roland Sawyer, the Socialist candidate for governor of Massachusetts in
1912, writing in "The Call," New York, October 1, 1911, dares to confess
that "the conceptions of modern Socialism are all found in a cruder form
on the streets of Paris during the Revolution." Finally, as we have
seen, Eugene V. Debs, who on four different occasions was the Socialist
candidate for the presidency of the United States, in the "Appeal to
Reason," Girard, Kansas, September 2, 1911, said: "Let us marshal our
forces and develop our power for the revolt.... A few men may be needed
who are not afraid to die. Be ye also ready.... Let us swear that we
will fight to the last ditch, that we will strike blow for blow, that we
will use every weapon at our command, that we will never surrender."
It is evident that if, after a bloody rebellion, the Socialists should
overthrow the United States Government, the many millions of defeated
patriotic Americans would continue to be the enemies of the new regime.
But even if no rebellion took place, and the present system of
government were overthrown merely by the ballot, the new state would
begin life with millions of enemies, those, namely, who for one reason
or another had been radically opposed to Socialism.
When the Marxians come into power, several large factions of them
usually rebel against the government of the Socialists, as in Russia,
Germany and Bavaria.
The Socialists, in most cases, gain control of a country after a foreign
war, at a time when it is most difficult for even the wisest and most
experienced statesmen to solve the serious problems of the hour. Great
discontent should, therefore, be expected from the failure of
inexperienced agitators after coming into power, because of their
inability to solve an almost endless number of serious difficulties.
Foremost among these would probably be food difficulties, which, as in
Russia, Germany, and Hungary, have resulted in widespread opposition to
the newly established regimes.
The Socialists have never yet made known to the people of America the
detailed working plan of their proposed state. They have, of course,
made lots of very general statements, which do not stand the test of
accurate criticism, but they have utterly failed to offer solutions of
the grave difficulties that they know would confront them. They prefer
to let the future work out the solution, and, in the meantime, invite us
to ruin our present form of government and industry, imagining that we
Americans are a lot of ignorant children who will entrust our destinies
to a pack of wild theorists with nothing but a vague hope of a
propitious future.
Think of the discontent which would result if our people tore down the
old structure, to find no structure whatever into which to move. They
would be in the same predicament as the people of San Francisco in the
days after the earthquake and fire, when they had to camp out in the
open with an insufficient food supply, exposed to the inclemency of the
weather. In fact, they would be far worse off. A big-hearted world
rushed supplies to the San Franciscans and soon helped them to surmount
their difficulties. But the new Socialist state would be attacked from
within and without, by citizens hoping to destroy the hated form of
government, and by foreign nations dreading the spread of anarchy, just
as the United States, England and France blockaded Socialist Russia,
causing untold trouble to the Bolshevist government.
In the midst of embarrassments like these the inexperienced Marxian
agitators must attempt to solve ten thousand times ten thousand problems
which require skill in the extreme and years of careful thought. Would
not this result in widespread discontent? Or would the citizens of the
United States, who just before the dawn of Socialism had been taught by
Debs and his crew to find fault with everything under the sun, suddenly
learn patience and remain as meek as lambs merely because the Socialists
had raised the Red flag in place of the Star Spangled Banner?
No sooner would the all-perfect Socialists take control at Washington
than the endeavors of the new state to settle the serious difficulties
confronting it would occasion so much discontent and strife as seriously
to threaten, if not actually bring to an end, the very existence of the
new government. For, first of all, the people would have to determine
whether the immense number of property owners, whose goods must be taken
over by the state, should receive full payment, partial payment, or no
payment at all.
The famous Belgian Socialist, Vandervelde, informs us that we may group
into three categories the plans of socialization proposed by different
schools, according to their aiming at the expropriation of the means of
production without indemnity, with complete indemnity, or with limited
indemnity. ["Collectivism and Industrial Evolution," by Vandervelde,
page 152 of the 1904 translation into English.--Chas. H. Kerr and
Company.]
If full compensation were granted, millions of Socialists would become
exceedingly disgusted and discontented, for not only would the new state
from the very beginning of its existence be burdened with a tremendous
debt through having to borrow many billions of dollars, if such a thing
were possible, in order to make the purchases, but--which would make
matters much worse--many of the property owners, who even now are hated
and detested by the Socialists, could, after receiving payment, either
sit down for the rest of their lives and watch the Revolutionists labor
and toil, or else, while doing some work themselves, could use their
wealth in bribing the Socialist officials to bestow on them all kinds of
privileges and favors.
If no compensation whatever were granted, then, in addition to the
hatred and disgust for the new system, which would prevail among the
millions who would be dispossessed of their property, after long years
of work and careful saving in order to purchase it, there would also be
boundless dissatisfaction on the part of persons who, still respecting
God's Commandments and the sense of right in natural conscience, would
want to see justice and honesty reign throughout America.
Finally, if partial payment were made, both those opposed to full
compensation and those in favor of it would be displeased because of the
reasons given, which would still influence them very decidedly. If the
indemnity paid were very small, the former property owners and all
honest citizens would be those especially offended. If the amount paid
were large, dishonest Socialists would take offense. Therefore, no
matter which plan of expropriation were adopted, the state would make a
great number of new enemies.
Though we learn from page 186 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National
Convention of the Socialist Party" that the delegates to the convention,
after a factional dispute on party principles, declared by a vote of 102
to 33 for the collective ownership of _all_ the land, and thus
determined that the state should take over all the farms of the country,
still it cannot be denied that a great number of Revolutionists have
claimed, especially of late years, that the government should not
dispossess the small farmers of their properties. On account of the
rival theories of the two contending factions, the Socialist state might
have to pass through a serious ordeal before either plan was adopted.
Should the new government finally determine to take possession of such
property, millions of farmers and their families would become
exceedingly hostile to the government. Should the state allow former
owners to cultivate the fields about their old homesteads, the
discontent would be but partially lessened, for strict obedience to the
commands of government bosses would replace the freedom of action once
enjoyed by the farmer's family.
Pages 167 to 190 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of
the Socialist Party," and pages 220 to 235 of the "Proceedings of the
1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," convinced us that very
many of the Revolutionists who oppose government ownership of _all_
land do so in order to gain votes. It seems highly probable, therefore,
that if Socialism became the law of America many of the apparently
moderate Revolutionists would throw off their masks and unhesitatingly
declare for the most radical plan of government ownership.
Yet even if the contemplated state should permit the private ownership
of small farms, their owners would be displeased because they would no
longer be allowed to hire laborers for working the fields. Some
conservative Socialists, indeed, profess willingness to tolerate the
employment of one or two farm hands. But not alone do the 1908 National
Platform and the amendment adopted by party referendum on September 7,
1909, oppose exploitation, or the employment of hired labor in the
production of goods, but innumerable articles in Socialist papers, books
and reviews denounce exploitation most emphatically. Hence, if the
Socialist state allowed farmers in good standing with the government to
own little farms, they could not hire labor to operate them. If the
farmer should fall sick, his crops would go to ruin. Advantage could not
be taken of some of the great inventions helpful to agriculture, nor
scientific methods of work and management. The individual farmer, thus
handicapped, might feed himself, his wife, his children, his horse, his
cow, his pig, but very little more.
In the Socialist state great discontent would arise from either the
toleration or prohibition of small business enterprises. If permitted,
without power to hire labor, they must compete with the government. If
forbidden, large numbers of persons would be obliged to work for the
government, after losing little stores or shops in which for years they
had been interested.
In its issue of March 30, 1912, the "Appeal to Reason," then the leading
Socialist weekly of the United States, declared that under Socialism
John D. Rockefeller would be allowed to retain his money and decide what
to do with it. Were this the case, and every person of wealth allowed to
retain his money, it is difficult to see how Socialists who hate and
detest the rich could endure such a condition, any more than they could
tolerate the granting of full or partial indemnity to property owners.
The attempt to leave the rich in possession of their wealth would
probably incite Socialists to rise in arms against the state they had
founded.
On the other hand, if wealth were confiscated, the wealthy and the
honest poor alike would be discontented with a dishonest government.
Moreover, where would the Socialists draw the line of lawful possession?
At $1,000,000, $10,000, $1,000, or $100? Would the decision be reached
peaceably? Would the use and possession of government bonds be allowed?
As the desire to acquire is one of the strongest passions, bitter hatred
would assail the Socialist state, which, Debs tells us, would prohibit
business profits, rent and interest. ["Socialism and Unionism," by
Eugene V. Debs.] How could insurance companies, in which the American
people have invested so much, and which depend on interest, exist under
Socialism? Socialism having ruined the insurance companies, would the
millions of policyholders just sit down and have a good, hearty laugh
over their losses?
The real crux of Socialism is the inability of the Marxians to determine
upon a system of employment and a scale of wages or remuneration
satisfactory both to the government and the working classes.
Remuneration must either be in the form of money, or of goods or labor
certificates entitling the holder to receive goods from the government
stores. As labor certificates would be like money, we shall class them
as "money" when speaking of wages.
Different schemes of employment have been proposed by Socialists. One of
the oldest allows each individual to select the occupation he desires,
provided he can do the work. All citizens, under this system, receive
equal pay or equal supplies for their services.
Such a system is absurd. The more repugnant occupations, no matter how
important for the welfare of the nation, would be neglected. All would
want easy, clean jobs. Bootblacks might prefer to become artistic
decorators; street-cleaners would ask to be put in charge of big
factories; night-workers would prefer day-work. The result would be
endless discontent, jealousy and disorder. As everybody would receive
equal recompense, the system would set a premium on sloth and
inefficiency, and entail state bankruptcy. One of the most serious
objections would be the discontent among skilled workingmen, who would
want skill to be a determining factor in the wage scale. Yet should
their system of equal remuneration not prevail, unskilled laborers, led
by agitators to believe that equal wages would be paid to all, would
become the sworn enemies of the government. A second system, favored by
many Socialists would permit all citizens to choose their occupations
and allow each individual to draw upon the national storehouses
_according to his needs_. [Gotha Programme of the Socialists of
Germany.]
This scheme, like the first, is absolutely absurd. It would permit all
to demand more than they needed, would encourage sloth, would bankrupt
the state, and would occasion discontent among skilled workingmen. Under
this system, too, the entire population would neglect the more
distasteful occupations, and ill-feeling and jealousy would arise in the
hearts of those failing to obtain congenial positions.
As diligence should be a determining factor in the arrangement of the
wage scale, in considering the remaining systems we shall assume that
the wages are those for men whose diligence may be termed first class.
Many Socialists, foreseeing the evils of a mad rush to obtain the
attractive positions, yet realizing how intolerable it would be for the
state to drive its citizens into uncongenial occupations, have
endeavored to find a way out. Several solutions have been proposed,
among which is the one we shall call the third system.
In the third system, occupations may be chosen by those qualified to do
the work. The recompense would be the same for all, but with the hours
of toil lessened in proportion to the disagreeableness of the work.
["Looking Backward," by Bellamy, Chapter 7, Social Democratic Publishing
Company of Milwaukee.] But such a system would give more reason than
ever for jealousy and discontent on the part of skilled workingmen, who
would be terribly incensed at seeing street cleaners and garbage
collectors for example receive salaries equal to their own and at the
same time enjoy shorter hours. This system would put a premium on such
occupations as sewer-cleaning and dish-washing, and would discourage
persons from pursuing occupations of the highest importance to the
country.
Morris Hillquit, writing in "Everybody's," December, 1913, page 826,
tells us that "the national government might well own and operate all
means of interstate transportations and communication, such as railroad
systems, telegraph and telephone lines; all sources of general and
national wealth, such as mines, forests, oil-wells; and all monopolized
or trustified industries already organized on a basis of national
operation.
"Similarly the state government might assume the few industries confined
within state limits; while the municipal government would logically
undertake the management of the much wider range of peculiarly local
business, such as street transportation and the supply of water, light,
heat and power.
"Still other local industries, too insignificant or unorganized even for
municipal operation, might be left to voluntary co-operative
enterprises."
On page 829 of the same issue of "Everybody's," Hillquit adds that
"under a system of Socialism each worker will be a partner in the
industrial enterprise in which he will be employed, sharing in its
prosperity and losses alike."
At first sight this fourth plan seems attractive, but upon examination
we notice that nothing is said as to how the millions of persons to be
employed by the national, state or municipal governments will be
assigned to the different enterprises. Will the people be forced to
labor at repugnant tasks? That will make endless turmoil and trouble in
the Marxian state. But if all persons enjoy equal rights under the
Socialist government there would be a grand rush for the most congenial
occupations, and especially for the most lucrative. The result would be
an immense amount of discontent and jealousy in those who failed to
secure the positions they desired. True, these objections might not hold
for well-to-do persons like Hillquit, founder of the "New York Call,"
for he and other Socialist politicians who have become wealthy by always
remaining leaders of their dues-paying comrades might, perhaps, invest
their money in co-operative enterprises. But such persons constitute
only a small part of the population of the country.
The many objections brought against these four systems could not be
obviated by the adoption of a fifth, in which all would be free to
choose their occupations, and would for the same number of hours of work
receive as recompense an amount determined by all the factors which
should be taken into consideration, such as skill, the physical
difficulty of the labor, danger, disagreeableness of the work and the
increased value added to the raw material.
In trying to arrange the details of such a system, innumerable
difficulties would arise. Unskilled laborers would want physical labor
rather than skill or talent made the principal factor in determining the
scale; for they would recall the promises of Socialist orators that in
the new state all should enjoy equal rights, and they would consider it
a grave injustice to work as hard or even harder than skilled laborers
and yet receive lower wages through want of skill and talent due to no
fault of theirs. Should the plea of these millions of unskilled
laborers go unheeded, the new state could count them among its most
bitter enemies.
On the other hand, skilled laborers would want skill and talent to be
the main factors in determining wages, arguing that they had worked hard
to become proficient and that their talent and skill made the work more
valuable to the state. They would protest that they should not suffer
simply because unskilled laborers lacked their skill and talent. Should
the skilled workingmen not be heard, the new state would have another
throng of enemies.
Compromises might be attempted by different adjustments of talent and
skill to physical labor in determining the wage schedule; but in each
case the new regime would only be at the beginning of troubles. What
bitter disputes among the skilled workingmen in different trades! There
would be conflicting views of every sort regarding the exact amount of
skill and of physical labor required in the different trades, and
regarding the difficulties, disagreeableness of work, dangers to health
and life, and increased value added to the raw material in each line.
But what would happen even if the ship of state under the red flag and
its mast could weather the wage-storm and come safely into port with
some working system?
The people, we are told, would enjoy equal rights. The government could
not refuse to grant work to any qualified person applying for it.
Suppose the members of some trade, the carpenters, for example,
displeased with the wages they were getting, should apply for other work
and stick to it until the government was forced to grant their demands.
Other craftsmen, seeing how easily the carpenters had won their strike,
would imitate their example. Thus would occur derangements of the
intricate wage scale--which had occupied the attention of the country
for so long a time and been adopted only after the greatest
difficulty--causing great discontent and jealousy, while the economic
losses through successful strikes would raise the prices of commodities,
bringing on a general fever of discontent.
A further source of trouble would be the problem of determining what
wages should be paid to shirkers and those incapable of working with
efficiency. Would wage courts decide the value of their services? If so,
how many thousands of such courts would be required? If not, would state
officials or politicians decide the cases? The wages of such persons,
no matter how determined, would cause discontent.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine justly
and accurately the wages of eminent specialists, physicians and persons
whose important services the state could not afford to lose. If very
high wages were awarded them, the poorer classes would take offence at
the prospect of a rich class once more rising with power to suppress
them, as many do at the present time. If low wages were paid to eminent
specialists, they would neglect important pursuits and vocations to the
detriment of the nation's welfare. Even if they received moderately high
wages, other persons of the same profession would become offended at the
government's refusal to grant them like salaries and would line up with
the enemies of the Socialist state.
Even under the most favorable circumstances, the fifth wage-system would
produce two classes, the comparatively rich, and the comparatively poor,
a condition repugnant to Socialists.
The forcing of women to work, in accordance with Socialistic doctrines,
would arouse opposition to the new government. The husbands, fathers and
sons of the women would be displeased with the wretched way in which
their homes would be kept and their meals prepared.
A further source of tremendous discontent in the Socialist state would
be the prevalence[14] of political corruption to a far greater extent
than under the present system. For there would be a far greater throng
of state employes than now, and there would be an immense number of
people trying to get permissions, privileges and exemptions of every
description. With human nature unchanged, but with the opportunities for
deals and bribery greatly multiplied, political corruption would greatly
increase.
Another important cause would be in operation. Socialism is spreading
anti-religious and atheistic doctrines, loosing men and women from their
moral restraints. With dishonesty thus increasing, acceptors of bribes
would not only be more common in the Marxian state, but the average
number of their offences would increase; for since opportunities of
collecting large single sums would be rarer than at present, owing to
abolition of the capitalist system and the small amount of wealth
possessed by individuals, dishonest politicians would naturally endeavor
to enrich themselves by granting corrupt favors to a larger number of
people. The reader himself can picture the condition of affairs in the
Socialist state when large numbers of its citizens were its declared
enemies because of a vast and hopeless system of political corruption.
The Socialist state would contain many persons who by soapbox orators
and revolutionary authors were led to believe that police, soldiers and
courts would disappear. These persons would be greatly discontented when
the Socialist government still hedged them in by retaining the old
system for the preservation of law and order, or, as in Russia, greatly
increased the restraint on their liberty by means of immense numbers of
Red Guards, heavily armed and noted for cruelty. Or if these were taken
away, the state would feel the enmity of all its better citizens who
realized the need for guardians, police, soldiers and courts, to protect
them from the crimes of the lawless.
Under the Socialist regime there would be atheists, fighting as in
Russia, Mexico, France, Italy and Portugal for the propagation of their
doctrines, while in opposition to them would be millions of believers,
defending themselves from the attacks of the enemies of God. Any
concession granted by the state to one of these parties would arouse the
enmity of the other.
So, too, there would be a rapidly growing faction in favor of free-love,
as well as one opposed to it, and as each party would be extremely
powerful, and use every effort to defeat its opponents, there would be
great strife and discontent.
The Socialists in power in Europe, whether "moderate" or extremely
radical, have made millions of enemies by imprisonments, executions,
suppression of free speech, the gagging of the press, the withholding
food, etc. Would these things happen in our country if the Reds gained
control?
There is every reason to believe that the Socialist Government would
become exceedingly unpopular here as in Russia, owing to a great
increase in crime; for to say nothing of the criminal offences
occasioned by the prevalent discontent of the citizens, the atheistical
and anti-religious doctrines of the Revolutionists, by continuing to
undermine the faith of the people in the existence of God and by leading
them to disbelieve in the rewards of heaven and the punishments of hell,
would very seriously interfere with the beneficent effects of several of
the most excellent preventives of crime.
With discontent, jealousy and crime reigning supreme in the state from
its very birth, many who had hoped for the success of Socialism would
become utterly disgusted with its absolute failure and would long for
the re-establishment of the old order. As the leaders of the Marxian
movement now make the most extravagant promises concerning perfections
of their prospective state, their government, should it come, would
suffer the hatred of all who discovered that they had been cruelly
deceived.
We must remember, too, that the very persons who would discover that
they had been deceived by their Socialist teachers would be the very
same people who are now taught by the same teachers to find fault with
everything under the sun. It would, therefore, be a terrible day for the
new state when the embittered rank and file of the Revolutionary Party
fully realized the total failure of Socialism. The Socialist state would
then have millions of enemies, recruited from the Socialist Party
itself, as well as from the ranks of those who had always opposed
Socialism.
Not alone would these enemies be far more numerous than those who oppose
our present form of government, but their wrath and anger, wrought to
fever heat by the many causes we have enumerated, as well as by the
mistakes of the Marxian rulers, would urge them to commit deeds of
violence that have never yet been conceived even by the "bomb squad" of
the revolutionary I. W. W. Rebellion against the new government would be
the order of the day, and the Socialist state would not long endure. It
would crumble to pieces, and the poor workingman, in the midst of
anarchy and the total destruction of industry, would deeply regret
having listened to the crazed imaginations of silver-tongued fanatics.
* * * * *
Lincoln Eyre's cables from Russia, received by the "New York World" when
this book was in type, more than corroborate the picture drawn in this
chapter of the "perils to workingmen" from any attempt to put the
economic fallacies of Socialism into practice. In the first place,
according to Eyre's cable of February 26, 1920, printed in the "World"
of February 28, 1920, all the blood and violence inflicted on Russia
have failed to establish real Communism there. Through courtesy of the
"World" we give, in part, Eyre's statement as to this, from the cable
just mentioned:
"In wartime France, England or Germany no man could obtain for love
or money more than a specified maximum of food, fuel or the
household requirements. In wartime revolutionary Russia, ruled by a
communist dictatorship, any man with enough thousand ruble notes
can buy all the food and warmth he desires. Throughout the war
dwellers in London, Paris or Berlin affected by war conditions
(and that meant practically everybody) were freed of paying rent by
a moratorium. Residents of Moscow and Petrograd are still obliged
to pay rent and at a higher figure than in pre-war days. These two
incontrovertible facts are evidence that an all-powerful Bolshevik
in the Communist Government has in two years installed a lesser
measure of Communism in actual practice than existed in the
belligerent European countries during the war years. To my mind
this is one of the severest, albeit the most rarely mentioned,
indictments of the Bolsheviks' vast communistic programme, since it
reveals their impotency to attain their initial aim--the abolition
of classes."
In the second place, not alone has there been failure to destroy
capitalism and equalize possessions, but new class distinctions and "new
aristocracies" have arisen. We quote Eyre on this point from the same
issue of the "World," February 28, 1920:
"While capitalism in the larger sense of the term has been
destroyed, together with private ownership on a large scale,
capital continues to be accumulated and to make its influence felt.
One man may still possess more than another in worldly goods and
receive higher pay for his work. Equality of material possessions
is as non-existent in the Russian social republic as it is in the
American 'bourgeois' republic. Hence there are coming into
existence new groupings of Russian population, new lines of
economic demarcation, new forms of social standing and of wealth.
The beginning of two new aristocracies are detectable. One is found
in the governmental hierarchy, the other in the ever-increasing
speculator class.... The Soviets ... cannot do without the
speculators (which means all persons engaged in private trading)."
Thirdly, "Communist" Russia already has her "ruling class," as
privileged and as distinctly marked off from the ordinary day-laborer as
in any "bourgeois" republic. We quote Eyre as to this from the same
article:
"Governmental aristocracy has its boots imbedded in the Kremlin,
that ancient Moscow citadel.... In Soviet Russia today one speaks
of the Kremlin as one spoke of Versailles in the magnificent days
of Louis XIV.... Only the most eminent commissaries of the people
and a few other Soviet stars of the first magnitude are domiciled
there in the grandiose palaces that once housed the most famous
figures of Muscovite history.
"Protected behind numerous barriers of bayonets and machine guns,
the Bolshevik chieftains have made this barbarically gorgeous
nesting place of Oriental autocracy the throbbing nerve centre of
world revolution.... And from its frowning gates they sally forth
in their high power limousines on affairs of state even as the
Czars in their day went forth to superintend the administration of
their colossal heritage.
"Bolshevism's upper ten are in the Kremlin. The lesser lights of
the Bolshevik aristocracy must content themselves with quarters in
the 'Soviet houses,' which were the city's leading hotels, and are
now nationalized habitations reserved for prominent Soviet
officials. These buildings, like the Kremlin, are better heated and
generally cared for than most other domiciles and the food served
in them is slightly more abundant. Sentries guard the doors to
prevent unauthorized visitors from gaining admission....
"The fact that some individuals ride to the opera in limousines
while the rest walk is necessarily productive of class division.
Already there is a slang term for the former--the proletarian
bourgeoisie, they are called."
The observant reader will also have gathered from the extract just given
that, fourthly, the "ruling class" of Communist Russia is much more
distrustful of the "common people" than any class in the United States,
Great Britain or France would think of being. Thus the lords and
lordlings of the "proletarian dictatorship" barricade themselves in
"citadels," behind "barriers of bayonets and machine guns," while
"sentries guard the doors" to keep out "visitors." What would we poor
"bourgeois" Americans think if our wealthier inhabitants and public
officials kept "common citizens" out of range by such a display of
infantry and artillery?
Fifthly, despite all the gush about a "workingmen's" republic in Russia,
that country is now absolutely helpless under the yoke of the most
absolute autocracy the world has seen in a long while. As to this we
quote Lincoln Eyre's cable, dated February 25, 1920, and published in
the "New York World" of February 27, 1920. Eyre says:
"Lenine ... and Trotzky ... wield a more absolute power than any
Czar.... They are the only really strong men detectable among the
Bolsheviki or anywhere else in Russia. That their strength is
greater than ever is demonstrated by the amazing program for the
militarization of labor that they have just entered upon; a
programme which when first proposed aroused the Communist Party's
instant antagonism, but which in a few days the dictators easily
persuaded their disciples to support."
We shall return to this astounding conscription of labor a little
further on. It is referred to here merely to show who actually does the
"ruling" in the widely advertised "labor" government of Russia. Eyre
continues:
"There is iron law and order all over Russia, neither anarchy nor
chaos being visible.... With the recent abolition of the death
penalty the Red terror, long since bleached to pale pink, came to a
definite end. Such is the omnipotence of the Soviets that it is no
longer necessary for them to terrorize their opponents into
obedience."
Thus horrible butcheries are no longer necessary because no one longer
dares to resist. All liberty, all self-government, all self-initiative
have been crushed in the iron vise of dictated policy. This is the case,
as Eyre says, "twenty-seven months after the social revolution gripped
the nation in a clutch of steel that never has been relaxed since." Is
not such mental, moral and spiritual death a greater calamity than
physical death?
Sixthly, the common people, crushed under this experimental Socialist
Juggernaut, are starving to death. In the article last cited, in the
"World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:
"The food problem is hideously acute, yet not quite so critical as
at the outset of the winter. In Moscow, Petrograd and other
industrial centres some 8,000,000 human beings, of whom only a tiny
fraction are Bolsheviki, are slowly but surely starving to death.
There are abundant food stocks in the south and east, but they
cannot be carried in sufficient quantity over the semi-paralyzed
railroads....
"Trotzky himself defined the industrial situation as a race between
economic reconstruction and reversion to savagery."
Seventhly, craving for food is one of the things which make it
impossible to shut out the food speculator, whose extortion at least
helps to prolong life. As Eyre says:
"City and country food speculation, which the dictatorship thus far
confesses its inability to suppress or even control, is fast
developing a new capitalist class right under the Communists'
noses. One of the most painful sights in Russia is some pale, thin,
tottering old woman paying out more than she earns in a week for a
few lumps of sugar bought from a well-fed trader from the country
in the Sukfarevka, Moscow's open air market place."
Eighthly, the common people are nearly as cold as they are hungry. In
the cable printed in the "World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:
"Fuel is slightly less scarce than it was two months ago. The lack
of heat, however, is helping the food shortage to increase the
mortality rate, which is likely to attain 30 per cent in Moscow
before spring."
In the ninth place, disease stalks through the land, hand in hand with
cold and famine. The article just cited contains the following by Eyre:
"Disease is rampant, and the typhus epidemic in Siberia, where
Kolchak left many tens of thousands of victims behind him in his
retreat, is spreading swiftly westward. Owing to the absence of
medical supplies, the epidemic can be combated only by quarantine."
In the tenth place, "labor" in Russia, the real "working class," is
conscripted, enslaved under military discipline, and "exploited" under
an incredible system of military court martial--a degradation of
workingmen by the Socialist tyrants of Russia which no form of modern
"capitalism" has dreamed of since human slavery was abolished. On this
subject Eyre says, in the "World" of February 27, 1920:
"Four of Trotzky's sixteen armies have been turned into 'labor
armies,' which means that soldiers fresh from victories on military
fronts are being obliged to work, still under military command and
discipline, on the 'economic front.' They are used chiefly for
building up the transport system and assuring shipment of food and
fuel from the country to the city....
"Labor generally is being militarized to an amazing extent.
Discipline is being imposed upon factory workers by the
establishment of special tribunals with powers of courts martial.
Communist commissaries, no longer required at the front, are being
detached from their regiments and sent to stimulate production
endeavor in industries and railroads."
Is this the kind of thing which Hillquit's Socialist gang of would-be
labor "exploiters" would lure America's liberty-loving workingmen into
by calling them "slaves" in their present dignified situation as
self-governed and self-reliant freemen? On December 13, 1919, the
presidents and secretaries of the 113 national and international unions
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor met at Washington, D.
C., with the heads of the four railway brotherhoods and several
farmers' organizations, and are to be congratulated for having passed
the following resolution, which the late information from Russia
overwhelmingly vindicates:
"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is an American
institution, believing in American principles and ideas, and
"Whereas, an attempt is being made to inject the spirit of
Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism into the affairs of the American
Federation of Labor, and
"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is opposed to
Bolshevism, I. W. W.'ism and the irresponsible leadership which
encouraged such a policy, therefore be it
"Resolved, that the conference of representatives of trades unions
affiliated with the A. F. of L., and other organizations associated
in this conference, repudiate and condemn the policy of Bolshevism
and I. W. W.'ism as being destructive of American ideals and
impracticable in application; be it further
"Resolved, that this conference reiterate the action of the
conventions of the American Federation of Labor, and the advocacy
of the principles of conciliation and voluntary arbitration and
collective bargaining."
We cite this here to put the freedom of self-determination, practiced by
the great progressive body of American labor, in vivid contrast with the
abject slavery which the Socialists of Russia are now imposing upon the
labor of that country. Lincoln Eyre's statement of the labor situation
in Russia is confirmed by Trotzky himself, as we learn from the "New
York World" of February 28, 1920, as follows:
"London, February 27.--Leon Trotzky, Minister of War of Soviet
Russia, addressing the third Russian Congress, held in Moscow
January 25 last, outlined the Bolshevist plan for converting the
Red Army into an army of labor. According to reports of his speech
reaching here he said:
"'There is still one way open to the reorganization of national
economy--the way of uniting the army and labor and changing the
military detachments of the army into detachments of a labor army.
"'Many in the army have already accomplished their military task
but they cannot be demobilized as yet. Now that they have been
released from their military duties, they must fight against
economic ruin and against hunger; they must work to obtain fuel,
peat and other heat-producing products; they must take part in
building, in clearing the lines of snow, in repairing roads,
building sheds, grinding flour, etc.
"'We have already organized several of these armies and they have
been allotted their tasks. One army must obtain foodstuffs for the
workmen of the districts in which it was formerly stationed and it
also will cut wood, cart it to the railways and repair engines.
Another army will help in the laying down of railway lines for the
transport of crude oil. A third labor army will be used in
repairing agricultural implements and machines, and, in the spring,
will take part in the working of the land....
"'Trade unions must register qualified workmen in the villages.
Only in those localities where trade union methods are inadequate
other methods must be introduced, in particular that of compulsion,
because labor conscription gives the state the right to tell the
qualified workmen who is employed on some unimportant work in his
village, "You are obliged to leave your present employment and go
to Sormovo or Kolomna, because there your work is required."
"'Labor conscription means that the qualified workmen who leave the
army must proceed to places where they are required, where their
presence is necessary to the economic system of the country. We
must feed these workmen and guarantee them the minimum food
ration.'"
No doubt these "qualified workmen" are what we call "skilled workmen."
Here we have, in its naked reality, the "deliverance" from
"wage-slavery" which the crazy Socialists of all schools have so long
been preaching to the laboring freemen of America. How would the
millions of labor's noblemen in the American Federation of Labor like to
see Debs, Hillquit and Victor L. Berger cracking the whip over them
after the fashion of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff in Russia?
Notice the "capitalistic" language of Trotzky: "_We_"--the tyrannical,
exploiting drones in the Kremlin--"must feed these workmen and guarantee
them the _minimum_ food ration." Do not the "workmen" produce the food?
Then why do they not take it and cut the throats of these drones? Is not
this the Socialist doctrine we are taught by our American theorists, who
froth at the mouth over the alleged "wage-slavery" of American workmen
who rear intelligent families in comfortable homes and maintain the
independence and self-initiative of American freemen?
In the eleventh place, we notice that the workmen of Russia, as a reward
for complete slavery under military conscription and courts martial
tribunals, are guaranteed nothing but this "minimum food ration" and a
possibility of being able to buy enough additional food out of their
wages to postpone starvation. The last-mentioned possibility is
described for us by Lincoln Eyre in his cable in the "New York World" of
February 27, 1920, where, it must be remembered, he is speaking of the
most-favored workmen, in the big cities. He says:
"Nobody in Russia relying wholly upon 'Sovietsky' food--food handed out
through official agencies--gets enough to eat except soldiers, a small
percentage of heavy workers and high Soviet officials. Ordinary factory
workers seldom receive as much as 60 per cent of their alimentary
requirements through the Government. The remainder they must buy at
fantastically high prices from speculators. And though they themselves,
in collaboration with central dictatorship, fix their own wages, they
never earn enough to cover the swift-climbing cost of living. If this is
the plight of the workers, that is, of the ruling class, the ghastliness
of the situation confronting the less favored elements of the population
may well be imagined."
Is it in irony that Eyre speaks of these "workers" as "the ruling
class"? What are the real workmen in Russia but victims of this cruel
experiment of tyrannizing Socialist "intellectuals"?
We remark next, in the twelfth place, that the Soviet system of food
distribution, wholly unequal and thus anti-communistic, has resulted in
dividing the Russians into eight classes, each category having a special
card defining its special ration. The account of this is given by
Lincoln Eyre in a cable dated March 9, 1920, and published in the "New
York World" of March 10, 1920, from which we take two sentences:
"The commissariat of food control has gradually built up no less
than eight distinct classes.... Special cards also are provided for
children from one, two to five and from five to sixteen. It will be
seen that this totals eight distinct varieties of card."
The affect of these distinctions may be gathered from the following
instance given in the article just cited:
"In the month of November there was distributed by the Petrograd
Soviet altogether 13,631,480 pounds of bread.... Had all the bread
been divided evenly among the whole population, each person would
have had about one-half a pound a a day, whereas, in fact, one
category got much less than that amount daily and the third
category none at all."
In the thirteenth place, we note that the Russian Socialist tyrants give
the workmen, in exchange for their labor, pieces of paper run off from
printing presses which seem almost to have solved the problem of
perpetual motion. The workmen are wise if they spend this fiat money
daily for whatever it will bring in food, for its value will collapse
utterly when the dictatorship bursts, leaving the country financially
prostrate, without credit or means of exchange. This is one of the
greatest bunco games ever practiced upon workingmen. Eyre describes it
in a cable dated March 3, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of
March 4, 1920, from which we quote:
"In 'the Socialist Federative Republic of Soviets of Russia,' to
give the Bolshevik land its official title, no mention has been
made of finance. The reason for this is simple. There is no
finance, in the European or American sense of the word, in present
Russia. The Soviet Government pays its own people what it has to
pay in paper money, of which it prints unlimited quantities. Being
determined eventually to abolish money altogether in favor of
Communistic exchange of products, it is not worried about
depreciation in the value of its currency. It possesses about
1,000,000,000 rubles--the exact amount is kept very secret--in
gold, with which it intends to pay for goods purchased abroad until
it can establish a system of barter with foreign commercial
interests. From the capitalistic viewpoint its budgetary
expenditures are chaotic, but in Communistic eyes they are both
sane and logical."
Only to minds financially insane or criminally degenerate could such a
system seem "sane and logical." Their carefully kept store of gold shows
that the Bolshevist dictators are not insane but criminal. They
understand their game, which is that of bunco-steering to "exploit"
labor on the largest scale the world has ever seen. Honest paper money
is a promise to pay, for value received, in gold, silver or good
merchandise. If this form is used by these frauds, it is with the
deliberate intention of repudiation, the possibility of payment being
also destroyed by the floods of the stuff turned out. If the paper given
is not a promise to pay, it is circulated simply through the tyranny of
men who by threat of punishment or starvation force workingmen to
exchange a day's labor for a bit of food and a piece of paper. In either
case the labor exploiters in the Kremlin exact from Russia's workingmen,
in exchange for a little food and a wad of paper, a genuine value, the
product of hard labor, which these get-rich-quick Wallingfords can turn
into gold, or exchange with the world for anything they want. All that
Russian workingmen get is semi-starvation and the temporary delusion,
conveyed to them in fine speeches, that they are "in the game," whereas
they are only its dupes.
The worthless character of the paper money, which the workmen
nevertheless have to take and spend to keep soul and body together, is
shown by the fact that the peasants refuse it. In his cable printed in
the "New York World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says that "the peasant
twenty miles outside of Moscow ... has more food than he can eat, more
clothes than he can wear," yet "refuses to sell his products for money
except that proportion of them that he is compelled to turn over to the
Soviets at a fixed price. In private trading," Eyre continues, "he will
take in exchange for his foodstuffs only manufactured articles, clothing
and other things he needs." Thus the peasant is fortunate in that he
lives on land where he can at least raise enough to eat; whereas the
"proletarian," in whose behalf the Socialists pretend to have made the
Russian revolution, is most of all victimized by it.
The reason why the Bolshevist dictators are now conscripting Russian
labor seems evident. These pick-pockets have finished exploiting the
Russian aristocracy and "bourgeoisie," squeezed them dry, and squandered
what they stole. The only game left to them now is to exploit labor to
the limit and appropriate the profits.
Two other features of this thimble-rigging arrangement complete the
exposure of the most inhuman scheme to exploit labor which the world has
seen for centuries. One of these shows us, in the fourteenth place, that
the rascals Lenine and Trotzky, are actually inviting "foreign capital"
to form a partnership with them in their exploitation of Russian labor,
under promise to turn over to this outside "capital" a good share of the
"profits" to be wrung by labor conscription out of the sweat of Russia's
brow.
The invitation to "foreign capital" to join hands with the Bolshevist
dictatorship, under promise of good profits and guarantees of security
was made by both Lenine and Trotzky through interviews granted to
Lincoln Eyre. Through courtesy of the "New York World" we have quoted
the propositions of these "friends" of Russian labor near the close of
Chapter XV of this book, as the reader doubtless remembers, and we
merely recall the facts here to put them in line with the other features
of Bolshevist labor oppression which we have just been considering. Who
could have imagined that within a little more than two years after
beginning their barbarous Socialist experiment with Russian industries
the brazen dictatorship would be urging "foreign capital" to join in a
scheme to squeeze both a domestic and a foreign profit out of the toil
of Russian workingmen conscripted by Socialist task-masters and held in
wage-slavery under fear of death by court martial?
In the fifteenth place, we have the dreadful fact that Russian labor is
enslaved by a Socialist autocracy not for the sake of promoting peace
but for the sake of promoting war. In our last chapter we quoted the
statements of Zinovieff to Lincoln Eyre that the Third Internationale
would never give up its purpose to make the whole world Bolshevist. Eyre
also found the belief general in Russia that so long as the Socialists
retain power, any peace made by them with the outside world will only be
a short truce in which to prepare for another war. He says, in his cable
printed in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920:
"All, Bolsheviki included, feel that as long as the Soviets remain
in power in Russia and Bolshevism does not spread to other lands,
peace cannot be more than a truce in the international class
warfare."
Again, in his cable printed in the "New York World" of March 4, 1920,
Lincoln Eyre says:
"The Red Army's victories against Kolchak, Yudenitch and Denikine
are in themselves paradoxical, in that they serve to increase the
Russian need for peace.... Every advance recorded in Siberia or the
Crimea brings the front line further from the base and complicates
the task of supplying munitions, food and equipment. Thus it
becomes increasingly evident to all Russians, whatever their
political leanings may be, that Russia must have peace in order to
survive economically. And yet--another paradox--all feel that any
peace established now between Soviet authority and Governments of
the bourgeois and democratics cannot be more than a brief truce
because Socialism and capitalism cannot abide side by side, and
because neither can be suppressed without warfare. The Bolshevik
faith in the ultimate appearance of a world revolution has not
waned, but their hope of its speedy coming has lessened
considerably."
Who but the long-suffering Russians would endure the hopeless fate
imposed by Socialism on Russian labor? The workingmen were conscripted
by Trotzky's armies. They won victories, but these have not freed them.
Returning from the front they are conscripted for labor armies, to work
as they fought, under military discipline, subject to court martial and
death if they rebel. Yet this military toil will not free them. They
slave under the pistols of the commissaries only to get themselves
economically equipped for a new war against their "capitalistic"
neighbors, and in this war the workingman, if he can still walk, will be
conscripted to go to the front again. Should he survive this, must he
begin the same round over again?
But why not strike against this slavery? Russian labor does not dare to
strike. Tender-hearted Socialism has made the labor strike a crime in
Russia. Says Lincoln Eyre, in a cable dated March 11, 1920, and printed
in the "New York World" of March 13, 1920:
"The unions, of course, lost their former principal weapon--the
strike. Today any body of workers that would venture out on strike
would be considered, to quote President Melnitchansky of the Moscow
unions, as traitors to their Socialist fatherland and as such would
doubtless be shot."
With this utter collapse of Socialist theories and professions in
Bolshevikiland, we need not wonder that, according to a cable in the
"New York Times" of March 2, 1920, the French National Socialist
Congress adjourned at Strasbourg, March 1, 1920, "after voting down by
more than 2 to 1 a motion to ally the Socialists of France with Lenine
and Trotzky." According to the same cable, "The pleaders for the Third
Internationale, formed at Moscow, were answered by the reply that the
beautiful doctrines enunciated there had been thrown aside by Lenine and
Trotzky and that any one who believed in real Socialism would be a fool
to get behind the leaders of Soviet Russia."
Is it now in order for our American Bolshevists, Gene Debs, Morris
Hillquit (_alias_ Hilkovitz) and Vic Berger, solemnly to inform us that
Russian Bolshevism never was Socialism, nor anything like it, but only a
base counterfeit? And will they also inform us that Lenine and Trotzky
are unprincipled adventurers and cold-blooded blackguards who have
hidden behind the mask of Socialism to blackjack a great people and
filch a wealth they never did a day's work to accumulate?
When our American wavers of the Red Flag try to hide their shipwrecked
theories behind a repudiation of Bolshevikiland, we shall have to remind
them of their many, many utterances jubilantly assuring us that
"Bolshevism is Socialism in practice." A specimen will do, taken from
one of the books published by the Jewish Socialist Federation of
America, a "part of the Socialist Party" of the United States piloted by
Debs, Hilkovitz and Berger, which we quote as cited on page 34 of the
"Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee" of the
New York Assembly:
"Bolshevism is not a new Socialist theory, but the practical
carrying out in life of the old Socialist theory.
"Bolshevism especially is not a theory. Bolshevism is a method of
how to establish Socialism in life.
"Bolshevism is practical Socialism, the Socialism of today, and not
of the remote future day."