mean that the private _use_ of land would be forbidden, because that
would be impossible. There would be no object in taking away the small
farms from their owners. On the contrary, the number of such farms
might be greatly increased. There are many people to-day who would
like to have small farms if they could only get a fair chance, if the
railroads and trusts of one kind and another were not always sucking
all the juice from the orange. Socialism would make it possible for
the farmer to get what he could produce, without having to divide up
with the railroad companies, the owners of grain elevators,
money-lenders, and a host of other parasites.
I have no doubt, Jonathan, that under Socialism there would be many
privately-worked farms. Nor have I any doubt whatever that the farmers
would be much better off than under existing conditions. For to-day
the farmer is not the happy, independent man he is sometimes supposed
to be. Very often his lot is worse than that of the city wage-earner.
At any rate, the money return for his labor is often less. You know
that a great many farmers do not own their farms: they are mortgaged
and the farmer has to pay an average interest of six per cent. upon
the mortgage.
Now, let us look for a moment at such a farmer's conditions, as shown
by the census statistics. According to the census of 1900, there were
in the United States 5,737,372 farms, each averaging about 146 acres.
The total value of farm products in 1899 was $4,717,069,973. Now then,
if we divide the value of the products by the number of farms, we can
get the average annual product of each farm--about $770.
Out of that $770 the farmer has to pay a hired laborer for at least
six months in the year, let us say. At twenty-five dollars a month,
with an added eight dollars a month for his board, this costs the
farmer $198, so that his income now stands at $572. Next, he must pay
interest upon his mortgage at six per cent. per annum. Now, the
average value of the farms in 1899 was $3,562 and six per cent. on
that amount would be about $213. Subtract that sum from the $572 which
the farmer has after paying his hired man and you have left about
$356. But as the farms are, not mortgaged to their full value, suppose
we reduce the interest one half--the farmer's income remains now $464.
Now, as a general thing, the farmer and his wife have to work equally
hard, and they must work every day in the year. The hired laborer gets
$150 and his board for six months, at the rate of $300 and board per
year. The farmer and his wife get only $232 a year each and _part_ of
their board, for what is not produced on the farm they must _buy_.
Under Socialism the farmer could own his own farm to all intents and
purposes. While the final title might be vested in the government, the
farmer would have a title to the use of the farm which no one could
dispute or take from him. If he had to borrow money he would do it
from the government and would not be charged extortionate rates of
interest as he is now. He would not have to pay railroad companies'
profits, since the railways being owned by all for all and not run
for profit, would be operated upon a basis of the cost of service.
The farmer would not be exploited by the packers and middlemen, these
functions being assumed by the people through their government, upon
the same basis of service to all, things being done for the use and
welfare of all instead of for the profit of the few. Under Socialism,
moreover, the farmer could get his machinery from the government
factories at a price which included no profits for idle shareholders.
I am told, Jonathan, that at the present time it costs about $24 to
make a reaper which the farmer must pay $120 for. It costs $40 to sell
the machine which was made for $24, the expense being incurred by
wasteful and useless advertising, salesmen's commissions, travelling
expenses, and so on. The other $54 which the farmer must pay goes to
the idlers in the form of rent, interest and profit.
Socialism, then, could very well leave the farmer in full possession
of his farm and improve his position by making it possible for him to
get the full value of his labor-products without having to divide up
with a host of idlers and non-producers. Socialism would not deny any
man the use of the land, but it would take away the right of non-users
to reap the fruits of the toil of users. It would deny the right of
the Astor family to levy a tax upon the people of New York, amounting
to millions of dollars annually, for the privilege of living there.
The Astors have such a vast business collecting this tax that they
have to employ an agent whose salary is equal to that of the President
of the United States and a large army of employees.
Socialism would deny the right of the English Duke of Rutland and Lord
Beresford to hold millions of acres of land in Texas, and to levy a
tax upon Americans for its use. It would deny the right of the
British Land Company to tax Kansans for the use of the 300,000 acres
owned by the company; the right of the Duke of Sutherland and Sir
Edward Reid to tax Americans for the use of the millions of acres they
own in Florida; of Lady Gordon and the Marquis of Dalhousie to any
right to tax people in Mississippi. The idea that a few people can own
the land upon which all people must live in any country is a relic of
slavery, friend Jonathan.
So you see, my friend, Socialism does not mean that everything is to
be divided up equally among the people every little while. That is
either a fool's notion or the wilful misrepresentation of a liar.
Socialism does not mean that there is to be a great bureaucratic
government owning everything and controlling everybody. It does not
mean doing away with private initiative and making of humanity a great
herd, everybody wearing the same kind of clothes, eating the same kind
and quantities of food, and having no personal liberties. It simply
means that all men and women should have equal opportunities; to make
it impossible for one man to exploit another, except at that other's
free will. It does not mean doing away with individual liberty and
reducing all to a dead level. That is what is at present happening to
the great majority of people, and Socialism comes to unbind the soul
of man--to make mankind free.
I think, Jonathan, that you ought to have a fairly clear notion now of
what Socialism is and what it is not. You ought to be able now to
distinguish between the social properties which Socialism would
establish and the private properties it could have no object in taking
away, which it would rather foster and protect. I have tried simply to
illustrate the principle for you, so that you can think the matter
out for yourself. It will be a very good thing for you to commit this
rule to memory.--
_Under Socialism, the State would own and control only those things
which could not be owned and controlled by individuals without giving
them an undue advantage over the community, by enabling them to
extract profits from the labor of others._
But be sure that you do not make the common mistake of confusing
government ownership with Socialism, friend Jonathan, as so many
people are in the habit of doing. In Prussia the government owns the
railways. But the government does not represent the interests of all
the people. It is the government of a nation by a class. That is not
the same thing as the socialization of the railways, as you will see.
In Russia the government owns some of the railways and has a monopoly
of the liquor traffic. But these things are not democratically owned
and managed in the common interest. Russia is an autocracy. Everything
is run for the benefit of the governing class, the Czar and a host of
bureaucrats. That is not Socialism. In this country we have a nearer
approach to democracy in our government, and our post-office system,
for example, is a much nearer approach to the realization of the
Socialist principle.
But even in this country, government ownership and Socialism are not
the same thing. For our government is a class government too. There is
the same inequality of wages and conditions as under capitalist
ownership: many of the letter carriers and other employees are
miserably underpaid, and the service is notoriously handicapped by
private interests. Whether it is in Russia under the Czar and his
bureaucrats, Germany with its monarchial system cumbered with the
remnants of feudalism, or the United States with its manhood suffrage
foolishly used to elect the interests of the capitalist class,
government ownership can only be at best a framework for Socialism. It
must wait for the Socialist spirit to be infused into it.
Socialists want government ownership, Jonathan, but they don't want it
unless the people are to own the government. When the government
represents the interests of all the people it will use the things it
owns and controls for the common good. _And that will be Socialism in
practice, my friend._
X
OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM CONSIDERED
I feel sure that the time will come when people will find it
difficult to believe that a rich community such as our's,
having such command over external nature, could have submitted
to live such a mean, shabby, dirty life as we do.--_William
Morris._
Morality and political economy unite in repelling the
individual who consumes without producing.--_Balzac._
The restraints of Communism would be freedom in comparison
with the present condition of the majority of the human
race.--_John Stuart Mill._
I promised at the beginning of this discussion, friend Jonathan, that
I would try to answer the numerous objections to Socialism which you
set forth in your letter, and I cannot close the discussion without
fulfilling that promise.
Many of the objections I have already disposed of and need not,
therefore, take further notice of them here. The remaining ones I
propose to answer--except where I can show you that an answer is
unnecessary. For you have answered some of the objections yourself, my
friend, though you were not aware of the fact. I find in looking over
the long list of your objections that one excludes another very often.
You seem, like a great many other people, to have set down all the
objections you had ever heard, or could think of at the time,
regardless of the fact that they could not by any possibility be all
well founded; that if some were wise and weighty others must be
foolish and empty. Without altering the form of your objections,
simply rearranging their order, I propose to set forth a few of the
contradictions in your objections. That is fair logic, Jonathan.
First you say that you object to Socialism because it is "the clamor
of envious men to take by force what does not belong to them." That is
a very serious objection, if true. But you say a little further on in
your letter that "Socialism is a noble and beautiful dream which human
beings are not perfect enough to realize in actual life." Either one
of the objections _may_ be valid, Jonathan, but both of them cannot
be. Socialism cannot be both a noble and a beautiful dream, too
sublime for human realization, and at the same time a sordid envy--can
it?
You say that "Socialists are opposed to law and order and want to do
away with all government," and then you say in another objection that
"Socialists want to make us all slaves to the government by putting
everything and everybody under government control." It happens that
you are wrong in both assertions, but you can see for yourself that
you couldn't possibly be right in both of them--can't you?
You object that under Socialism "all would be reduced to the same dead
level." That is a very serious objection, too, but it cannot be well
founded unless your other objection, that "under Socialism a few
politicians would get all the power and most of the wealth, making all
the people their slaves" is without foundation. Both objections cannot
hold--can they?
You say that "Socialists are visionaries with cut and dried schemes
that look well on paper, but the world has never paid any attention
to schemes for reorganizing society," and then you object that "the
Socialists have no definite plans for what they propose to do, and how
they mean to do it; that they indulge in vague principles only." And I
ask you again, friend Jonathan, do you think that both these
objections can be sound?
You object that "Socialism is as old as the world; has been tried many
times and always failed." If that were true it would be a very serious
objection to Socialism, of course. But is it true? In another place
you object that "Socialism has never been tried and we don't know how
it would work." You see, my friend, you can make either objection you
choose, but not both. Either one _may_ be right, but _both_ cannot be.
Now, these are only a few of the long list of your objections which
are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive, my friend. Some of
them I have already answered directly, the others I have answered
indirectly. Therefore, I shall do no more here and now than briefly
summarize the Socialist answer to them.
Socialists do propose that society as a whole should take and use for
the common good some things which a few now own, things which "belong"
to them by virtue of laws which set the interests of the few above the
common good. But that is a very different thing from "the clamor of
envious men to take what does not belong to them." It is no more to be
so described than taxation, for example is. Socialism is a beautiful
dream in one sense. Men who see the misery and despair produced by
capitalism think with joy of the days to come when the misery and
despair are replaced by gladsomeness and hope. That _is_ a dream, but
no Socialist rests upon the dream merely: the hope of the Socialist is
in the very material fact of the economic development from
competition to monopoly; in the breakdown of capitalism itself.
You have probably learned by this time that Socialism does not mean
either doing away with all government or making the government master
of everything. Later, I want to return to the subject, and to the
charge that it would reduce all to a dull level. I shall not waste
time answering the objections that it is a scheme and that it is not a
scheme, further than I have already answered them. And I am not going
to waste your time arguing at length the folly of saying that
Socialism has been tried and proved a failure. The Socialism of to-day
has nothing to do with the thousands of Utopian schemes which men have
tried. Before the modern Socialist movement came into existence,
during hundreds of years, men and women tried to realize social
equality by forming communities and withdrawing from the ordinary life
of the world. Some of these communities, mostly of a religious nature,
such as the Shakers and the Perfectionists, attained some measure of
success and lasted a number of years, but most of them lasted only a
short time. It is folly to say that Socialism has ever been tried
anywhere at any time.
And now, friend Jonathan, I want to consider some of the more vital
and important objections to Socialism made in your letter. You object
to Socialism
Because its advocates use violent speech
Because it is "the same as Anarchism"
Because it aims to destroy the family and the home
Because it is opposed to religion
Because it would do away with personal liberty
Because it would reduce all to one dull level
Because it would destroy the incentive to progress
Because it is impossible unless we can change human nature.
These are all your objections, Jonathan, and I am going to try to
suggest answers to them.
(1) It is true that Socialists sometimes use very violent language.
Like all earnest and enthusiastic men who are possessed by a great and
overwhelming sense of wrong and needless suffering, they sometimes use
language that is terrible in its vehemence; their speech is sometimes
full of bitter scorn and burning indignation. It is also true that
their speech is sometimes rough and uncultured, shocking the sensitive
ear, but I am sure you will agree with me that the working man or
woman who, never having had the advantage of education and refined
environment, feels the burden of the days that are or the inspiration
of better days to come, is entitled to be heard. So I am not going to
apologize for the rough and uncultured speech.
And I am not going to apologize for the violent speech. It would be
better, of course, if all the advocates of Socialism could master the
difficult art of stating their case strongly and without compromise,
but without bitterness and without unnecessary offense to others. But
it is not easy to measure speech in the denunciation of immeasurable
wrong, and some of the greatest utterances in history have been hard,
bitter, vehement words torn from agonized hearts. It is true that
Socialists now and then use violent language, but no Socialist--unless
he is so overwrought as to be momentarily irresponsible--_advocates
violence_. The great urge and passion of Socialism is for the peaceful
transformation of society.
I have heard a few overwrought Socialists, all of them gentle and
generous comrades, incapable of doing harm to any living creature, in
bursts of tempestuous indignation use language which seemed to incite
their hearers to violence, but those who heard them understood that
they were borne away by their feelings. I have never heard Socialists
advocate violence toward any human beings in cold-blooded
deliberation. But I _have_ heard capitalists and the defenders of
capitalism advocate violence toward Socialists in cold-blooded
deliberation. I have seen in Socialist papers upon a few occasions
violent utterances which I deplored, but never such advocacy of
violence as I have read in newspapers opposed to Socialism. Here, for
example, are some extracts from an editorial which appeared January,
1908, in the columns of the _Gossip_, of Goldfield, Nevada:
"A cheaper and more satisfactory method of dealing with this
labor trouble in Goldfield last spring would have been to have
taken half a dozen of the Socialist leaders in the Miners'
Union and hanged them all to telegraph poles.
"SPEAKING DISPASSIONATELY, AND WITHOUT ANIMUS, it seems clear
to us after many months of reflection, that YOU COULDN'T MAKE
A MISTAKE IN HANGING A SOCIALIST.
"HE IS ALWAYS BETTER DEAD.
"He, breathing peace, breathing order, breathing goodwill,
fairness to all and moderation, is always the man with the
dynamite. He is the trouble-maker, and the trouble-breeder.
"To fully appreciate him you must live where he abounds.
"In the Western Federation of Miners he is that plentiful
legacy left us from the teachings of Eugene V. Debs, hero of
the Chicago Haymarket Riots.
"ALWAYS HANG A SOCIALIST. NOT BECAUSE HE'S A DEEP THINKER, BUT
BECAUSE HE'S A BAD ACTOR."
I could fill many pages with extracts almost as bad as the above, all
taken from capitalist papers, Jonathan. But for our purpose one is as
good as a thousand. I want you to read the papers carefully with an
eye to their class character. When the Goldfield paper printed the
foregoing open incitement to murder, the community was already
disturbed by a great strike and the President of the United States had
sent federal troops to Goldfield in the interest of the master class.
Suppose that under similar circumstances a Socialist paper had come
out and said in big type that people "couldn't make a mistake in
hanging a capitalist," that capitalists are "always better dead."
Suppose that any Socialist paper urged the murder of Republicans and
Democrats in the same way, do you think the paper would have been
tolerated? That the editor would have escaped jail? Don't you know
that if such a statement had been published by any Socialist paper the
whole country would have been roused, that press and pulpit would have
denounced it?
Socialists are opposed to violence. They appeal to brains and not to
bludgeons; they trust in ballots and not in bullets. The violence of
speech with which they are charged is not the advocacy of violence,
but unmeasured and impassioned denunciation of a cruel and brutal
system. Not long ago I heard a clergyman denouncing Socialists for
their "violent language." Poor fellow! He was quite unconscious that
he was more bitter in his invective than the men he attacked. Of
course Socialists use bitter and burning language--but not more bitter
than was used by the great Hebrew prophets in their stern
denunciations; not more bitter than was used by Jesus and his
disciples; not more bitter than was used by Martin Luther and other
great leaders of the Reformation; not more bitter than was used by
Garrison and the other Abolitionists. Men with vital messages cannot
always use soft words, Jonathan.
(2) Socialism is not "the same as Anarchism," my friend, but its very
opposite. The only connection between them is that they are agreed
upon certain criticisms of present society. In all else they are as
opposite as the poles. The difference lies not merely in the fact that
most Anarchists have advocated physical violence, for there are some
Anarchists who are as much opposed to physical violence as you or I,
Jonathan, and it is only fair and just that we should recognize the
fact. It has always seemed to me that Anarchism logically leads to
physical force by individuals against individuals, but, logical or no,
there are many Anarchists who are gentle spirits, holding all life
sacred and abhorring violence and assassination. When there are so
many ready to be unjust to them, we can afford to be just to the
Anarchists, even if we do not agree with them, Jonathan.
Sometimes an attempt is made by Socialists to explain the difference
between themselves and Anarchists by saying that Anarchists want to
destroy all government, while Socialists want to extend government and
bring everything under its control; that Anarchists want no laws,
while Socialists want more laws. But that is not an intelligent
statement of the difference. We Socialists don't particularly desire
to extend the functions of government; we are not so enamoured of laws
that we want more of them. Quite the contrary is true, in fact. If we
had a Socialist government to-morrow in this country, one of the first
and most important of its tasks would be to repeal a great many of the
existing laws.
Then there are some Socialists who try to explain the difference
between Socialism and Anarchism by saying that the Anarchists are
simply Socialists of a very advanced type; that society must first
pass through a period of Socialism, in which laws will be necessary,
before it can enter upon Anarchism, a state in which every man will be
so pure and so good that he can be a law unto himself, no other form
of law being necessary. But that does not settle the difficulty. I
think you will see, friend Jonathan, that in order to have such a
society in which without laws or penal codes, or government of any
kind, men and women lived happily together, it would be necessary for
every member to cultivate a social sense, a sense of responsibility to
society as a whole. Each member of society would have to become so
thoroughly socialized as to make the interests of society as a whole
his chief concern in life. And such a society would be simply a
Socialist society perfectly developed, not an Anarchist society. It
would be a Socialist society simply because it would be dominated by
the essential principle of Socialism--the idea of solidarity, of
common interest.
The basis of Anarchism is utopian individualism. Just as the old
utopian dreamers who tried to "establish" Socialism through the medium
of numerous "Colonies," took the abstract idea of equality and made it
their ideal, so the Anarchist sets up the abstract idea of individual
liberty. The true difference between Socialism and Anarchism is that
the Socialist sets the social interest, the good of society, above all
other interests, while the Anarchist sets the interest of the
individual above everything else. You could express the difference
thus:
Socialism means _We_ -ism
Anarchism means _Me_ -ism