Americanized Socialism: A Yankee View of Capitalism

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Preface

Socialists differ about the philosophy and the tactics of socialism, but they agree about its program. Adherence to the program therefore is the test of a socialist Morris HUlquit, probably the best authority on orthodox socialism in America, is fully in agreement with this position, as shown by the following quotation from an article in the Metropolitan Magazine for July, 1912:

"Stated in . . . concrete terms, the Socialist program requires the public or collective ownership and operation of the principal instruments and agencies for the production and distribution of wealth. The land, mines, railroads, steamboats, telegraph and telephone lines, mills, factories, and modern machinery. This is the main program, and the ultimate aim of the whole Socialist movement, the political creed of all Socialists. It is the unfailing test of Socialist adherence, and admits of no limitation, extension, or variation. Whoever accepts this program it a Socialist; whoever does not, is not"

On the basis of this definition, no doubt many persons who did not suspect themselves to be socialists will discover that they are. They will see that socialism and common sense have a closer connection than some reports have led them to believe.

The program of socialism rests both on a material and a moral foundation. The material foundation of socialism as expounded in the philosophy of Karl Marx is not the theme of the following chapters. They are concerned more particularly with the moral foundation, which deserves greater attention than it has heretofore received because the justification of any pro-

385285 vi PREFACE

i i

posed program must, in the final analysis, be a moral one. The moral foundation of socialism is to be found in the philosophy of utility, which tests all acts or courses of action by their presumable power to promote the happiness of mankind ; and if socialism cannot be justified by its usefulness it cannot be justified at all. Reasons for claiming that a socialism grounded in the philosophy of utility embodies the best traditions of Americanism will be found in the pages to follow. These reasons have not been generally recognized heretofore because the Americanism of die men who founded, and those who saved, this Republic has in the last generation or so been superseded by a Toryism identical in spirit with that against which they contended. Indeed, the proportion of Tories in America to-day is greater than in the time of our Revolution. But true Americanism during the last generation has not been dead ; it has merely been sleeping. With the entrance of this country into a war for democracy it has once more revived, and already is beginning to rebuild our Tory economic institutions on the old American principles. Such a revival of Americanism should not only be everywhere encouraged to the utmost, but should be recognized for what it really is; and it is the main object of the following exposition [therefore to point out how the original principles of j Yankee democracy, applied to modern industrial cqn- / ditions, not only justify the program of socialism, but / supply a practical American tactic for bringing it to / pass.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction z

I Americanism and Socialism . . . • . 5 II The Perversion of Property . ... 31

Introduction

Applying Old Principles to New Issues. That land is fortunate which can appeal to tradition and reason at the same time. So far as the principal domestic issue now before its people is concerned, our land is thus fortunate. The problem presented by the issue of capitalism vs. socialism in this country is an old problem in a new form, and the main purpose of this book is to suggest how the solutions found practical in the past may be applied in the present

What America Needs to Learn. The practice of democracy in this country has revealed both the - strength and the weakness of the principle. It has proven to be, not an assurance, but only a condition, of national well being, a necessary, but not a sufficient, guarantee of the success of nations. The test of the value of a means is the achievement of its end, and democracy can. only meet this test by adopting the practice of efficiency, for both democracy and efficiency are essential to the happiness of peoples.

A hundred and forty years ago America learned the lesson of democracy from hard experience with the principle of European monarchy. To-day from a similar source of instruction she is given the opportunity to learn the lesson of efficiency.

What European Experience can Teach. The wisdom of nations as of men may be measured by their

• * *

- * .

e AMERICANIZED SOCIALISM

ability to learn from thte* experience of others, and the present workings of the principle of monarchy in Europe, if the lessons they are adapted to teach are learned, may be turned from a curse into a blessing.

Modern war is fought by machinery ; it is but industrialism applied to destructive instead of constructive ends, and only a vast preponderance of other favorable factors will enable an industrially inefficient nation to prevail over an efficient one.

The war in Europe has plainly proved that the key note of industrial efficiency is collectivism. Germany with her inferior resources prevailed over her enemies so long, because through the more perfect centralization and co-ordination of her powers she was better able to focus the whole effort of the nation on a single object Individualism against collectivism in modern war, or in any other branch of modern industry, is a bow and arrow against a repeating rifle; a lesson which all the nations of Europe are now rapidly learning, some of them much against their theories and therefore against their will.

Although Germany's industrialism is highly collectivist it is not democratic, and therefore does not seek a democratic goal. It employs modern means to medieval ends. Germany is combining efficiency with autocracy, and that means efficiency for the benefit of autocracy. Her victory, had she achieved it, would only have glorified her king at the expense of her own as well as other peoples, just as all wars urged and won by kings have always done. This is as true of Austria and Turkey as of Germany. Their rulers all seek autocratic ends, even if less efficiently than Germany. If this war benefits the cause of democracy it is only because kings have rashly loosed educational forces too strong for them to control.

INTRODUCTION 8

i

The fact that Germany at present is an intelligent autocracy which has sought the material well being of its people as one means to the well being of their rulers, mitigates, but does not reverse, the rule. In the long run autocracy is a ghastly failure, as the history of Europe, particularly the history now in the making, proves. It perverts whatever it touches, causing the best of means to serve the worst of ends. The greatest service kings have ever rendered a people is to teach them that it is better for them to rule themselves.

Efficiency Not Inseparable from Oligarchy. Because in the case of Germany efficiency is associated with autocracy, many persons infer that it is peculiar to that form of government, overlooking the wretched inefficiency of almost every other autocracy in the world or in history. There is in fact no necessary connection between oligarchy and efficiency. There is no reason why efficiency cannot be combined with democracy and applied as successfully to the service of the people as to that of kings. Democratic collectivism can do for peoples what oligarchic collectivism can do for oligarchs, either in peace or war, for collectivism is only a means, and can be devoted as well to a useful as to a harmful end.

America Should Reject Inefficiency as Well as Oligarchy. How to combine efficiency with democracy, then, how to induce men to work together for good as effectively as in Germany they have worked together for evil, is a problem that may well occupy the thought of our country in its present condition of transition. The United States has made the best start in democracy of all the great nations of the earth. She is the logical country to solve this problem, and she can solve it by showing the same willingness to accept the teachings of experience that she showed four generations ago. It is well to love your enemies, but also well to learn from them. Let us adopt the good, while opposing the evil, in German institutions, emulating the efficiency of Germany while rejecting her perversion thereof, thus devoting science to the salvation, instead of the subjection, of mankind.

Socialism "Made in America." Not long ago I was talking to a typical old time Yankee farmer, a veteran of the Civil War, and a man imbued from his youth with the traditional American way of thinking. He asked me to tell him what socialism was. He said he had read about it in the newspapers but could not make out what it meant. I told him in brief that it meant the operation by public officials in the public interest of the railroads, coal mines, steel works, cotton mills and similar industrial activities by which the public would supply themselves with substantially all the things they needed at cost, in much the same way as they now supplied themselves with postal facilities through the postoffice.

"Is that socialism?" said he. "Why, I have believed in that for years. I have often talked it over down at the store, and lots of folks around here think as I do about it/'

This experience is quite a common one with me. I find wherever I go among old time Americans that the essentials of socialism are understood and accepted, often with enthusiasm. Indeed, there are rather good reasons for thinking that a large minority, perhaps a majority, of the people of this country already are disposed to believe in the program of socialism, and would vote for it if it were presented to them in the terms in which they think. I am at least aware that i

the majority of men with whom I am well enough acquainted to know their real views, including business, professional, working men and farmers, are believers in socialism, though very few vote the socialist ticket.

Now why is this? Is it because they are not really socialists at heart and do not really understand the issues involved? By no means. While they have no thorough grasp of the principles underlying socialism they understand it at least as well as the average member of the Socialist party, though they think in a very different, not to say a more practical, way about it. The Socialist party, though seeking a splendid ideal, and one which must appeal with particular power to people reared among American traditions — the ideal of a co-operative commonwealth — employs tactics so defective that it may be seriously questioned whether its activity is not more of a harm than a help to the progress of industrial democracy in this country. To the average party socialist practical socialism is little more than a tail to the labor union kite, a movement to make the manual worker dominant in politics ; while theoretical socialism is more a matter of words than of ideas. It is a language rather than a philosophy or a plan. A few formulas containing the words working class, exploitation, class struggle, surplus value, class consciousness, economic determinism, and some others "made in Germany" constitute his philosophy of socialism, and with these he seeks to convince the American people. Of course he fails, not because the people are not ready for the issue, but because the Socialist party does not know how to present it, does not grasp the American way of thinking, nor speak the traditional American language.

The old time American of whom I just spoke and those like him all over the United States make nothing out of the orthodox socialist lingo. It is all Greek to them. It may be all right in Europe where the democratic tradition does not generally exist, but in this country men think in terms of the traditions common to the country, and to them the reasoning which leads to socialism is much shorter, clearer and easier than that furnished by the Marxian philosophy. A brief glance at the development of American institutions will show how genuine socialism rationally follows from universally accepted American traditions familiar to every American school-boy. Indeed the American theory of popular government, which no politician in the country would dare in terms to oppose, furnishes the necessary and sufficient premises on which the doctrine of socialism rests. All the socialist need do is to draw the conclusion. It will not take a very long story to show this.

Monarchy, Slavery, and Capitalism. When our fathers settled the wilderness which is now the United States of America they transplanted here the institutions of seventeenth century England. Some of these institutions were good, some were bad, some took root and flourished, others languished and decayed, according as they were well or ill adapted to the environment of the new land. In addition to these, others were adopted from the natives or the neighboring colonies.

Among these institutions were three which constituted grave menaces to the welfare of the American people, because they were institutions of privilege, by which I mean institutions in virtue of which one individual, class or aggregate of men can live upon the labor and control the lives of other individuals, classes or aggregates. In colonial times two of these institutions were in an advanced stage of development and the third in its infancy.

i ■ l >

The most revered of the three was a practice by which the control of the lives and property of the people of the colonies was in large measure in the power of the imperial government, consisting of a small class of persons in Great Britain, the landed aristocracy, represented by the king and parliament. Within wide limits this small class could, if they willed, control the life and liberty and by taxation dispose of the property of any citizen of America without his consent. This variety of oligarchy is known as the institution of autocracy or monarchy, because of Its concentration of power in the person of the autocrat or monarch.

The second of these institutions of privilege, which was falling into disrepute in late colonial times, was one by which control of one person over another was realized through actual ownership of the person controlled. Thus the life and labor of one class was at the disposal of another in the same way that the life and labor of horses or oxen is at the disposal of their owners. This practice goes by the name of the institution of slavery. It was borrowed from the Spanish colonies.

The third institution of privilege, which in the eighteenth century was in an embryonic state, was embodied in the custom of vesting the ownership of things used by the community and essential to its welfare in individuals, or small aggregates thereof. This institution bore a resemblance both to monarchy and to slavery. To monarchy because the owners of these publicly important instrumentalities could, by virtue of their control of prices, tax the community for the use of things essential to the community's welfare without its consent. To slavery because these instrumentalities were operated, not by their owners, but by hired employes whose labor was at the disposal of the owners, not because of ownership of their persons, but because of ownership of the instruments of production through which the product of the workers' labor became the property of the owner. The institution thus resembling both the maturer institutions of privilege is called capitalism, and has to-day so developed that as an oppressor of the people its power is probably not less than that of its predecessors.

The Abolition of Monarchy and Slavery. Everyone knows what the American people did with the first two institutions of privilege. They abolished them. The Revolutionary War ended monarchy and the Civil War ended slavery.

In place of monarchy our fathers erected in this country a democracy which sought, and with considerable success, to place the control of government in the hands of the governed, to take the public business out of the hands of irresponsible private parties — kings and lords — and vest it in the hands of public officials, elected by, or otherwise responsible to, the people.

Of course the machinery of democracy which they devised and put into operation was crude and imperfect. To a properly constructed instrument of democracy it bore about the same relation that Franklin's printing press bears to a modern Hoe newspaper press. Unfortunately while our people have applied the scientific method to mechanical affairs they have failed to apply it to political affairs, with the result that our machinery of democracy has advanced little beyond the crude devices of the eighteenth century; but there are reasons for hoping that the time will come when they will wake up politically as they have already waked up mechanically, and will no more think of invoking Hamilton's constitution as a model instrument of democracy than they think of invoking Franklin's press as a model printing press. For such

! 1

an awakening we all should labor, nor grow discouraged at the moderate benefits thus far attributable to democracy. It is always possible to give a good principle a bad reputation by carrying it out in a defective manner, and the defects of democracy are not defects of principle but of machinery. Even with its present archaic methods our democracy will compare very favorably with the average monarchy. If you don't think so, go and live in Austria or Turkey awhile. They are about an average.

As to slavery the American people had nothing better to substitute for it than the competitive wage system then, and now, prevailing in the north. It was, and is, a much better system than slavery, but its advantages are personal rather than economic. Men and women can no longer be whipped like horses nor bought and sold like sheep, and this is a great advance ; but, as in the case of the Revolutionary statesmen, those who engineered emancipation had only an imperfect substitute to offer. Economically the average Southern black is little better off than he was before the war because he has merely escaped from the oppression of slavery into that of capitalism.

But again, let us not be discouraged at the rather disappointing results of emancipation. The American people have not reached the goal, but they are moving in the right direction. They are groping, but they are groping toward and not away from the light. They have only to be consistent, to follow up their own best traditions, in order to complete the work which their abolition of monarchy and slavery has begun.

Of course in speaking of American traditions and ideals I do not mean to imply that Americans have always thought the same about everything, much less

\ z

about the three institutions of privilege which, following rather blindly the traditions of their ancestors or neighbors, they had drifted into. There was a time when Americans thought well of the institution of monarchy, but they changed their minds about it. There was a time when they thought well of the institution of slavery, but they changed their minds about that too. And in both cases they are well satisfied that their revised estimate of these institutions is the correct one. It is to these revised and confirmed traditions, not to the outgrown and repudiated ones, that I refer when I speak of Americanism, and I think you will agree that this is the only proper use of such a term. To-day it is true most Americans seem to think pretty well of the institution of capitalism, but there are signs that they are changing their minds about it, and when they have suffered and pondered its evils a little longer they are likely to think the same about it as they do about its kindred institutions monarchy and slavery.

Lincoln's Method of Handling Issues. Now it is important to prove to the American people, if possible, this proposition that socialism is consistent and capitalism is inconsistent with Americanism as embodied in traditional American ideals, and the only way I know by which to prove a proposition is to reason it out — to apply lo&ic to it. At least, I take it this is an old-fashioned American way, and in order to support this contention I wish to point out the way. in which the ablest of our old-fashioned American statesmen handled the issues paramount in his time. In his debate with Douglas at Galesburg, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln in answering one of his opponent's arguments used the following language :

"Nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States.

'The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States.

"Therefore, nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave."

Lincoln then proceeded to point out that the fault in this argument was not in the reasoning but in the premises, but I am not concerned with this particular argument. I cite it merely to show Lincoln's method of getting at the truth. He appeals to reason, to logic ; he even throws his reasonings into strict syllogistic form, as in this instance. Throughout Lincoln's addresses and messages we find this constant use of reason as a test of truth, and until it can be shown to the contrary, I shall assume it to be the best of all traditional American ways of getting at the truth.

I would not be at such pains to insist on this point were it not for the fact that we live in an age which holds reason in some disrepute. There are many persons about who contend that we must not try to be too consistent, that there are limits beyond which reason should not be used, that we must not carry logic too far, the implication being that unreason is sometimes better than reason, that illogic is better than logic, that belief is a good substitute for evidence as a guide to human affairs.

Socialism and American Democracy. Abandoning this un-Lincoln-like method, let us examine the issue of socialism vs. capitalism in the light of American doctrines as expressed by Lincoln, using Lincoln's syllogistic methods and taking him for our guide. We might if we pleased use various other American leaders as our authority on what true Americanism is, but i =s

time does not permit, and Lincoln epitomizes without misrepresenting the other prophets of Americanism.

And first let us apply the test of democracy, beginning by asking what Lincoln's conception of democracy was. In Chicago in 1858 under the name of "self-government" he referred to it as follows :

"I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights; that each community, as a State, has a rignt to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no other State; and that the General Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole/'

At Cincinnati in 1859 under the name of "popular sovereignty/' he gave this definition of it:

"I think a definition of popular sovereignty in the abstract, would be about this — that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them."

And in his message to Congress of July 4, 1861, he handled the matter in this way :

'This relative matter of National power and State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole — to the General Government; while whatever concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle about it"

In brief, then, Lincoln's position is this : Democracy means the rule of the people. The rule of the people over what? Over what concerns or pertains to them, of course; over their own affairs, their own business.

Whatever concerns any given group of the people should be ruled by that group; proportionally if the concern is shared by other groups, exclusively if it is not. This is the traditional American meaning of democracy. "This is all there is of original principle about it." And this gives us at once the minor premise of our syllogism, which may be condensed to the following proposition :

The people should rule over what concerns them.

Now just to get in practice, let us apply this principle to the issue of the American Revolution, the issue of political democracy vs. autocracy.

Are the powers exercised by the king and parliament any concern of the people of America? Is the power to tax, to regulate commerce, to appoint the governors and judges in the colonies and exercise other political powers, any affair of the people of the colonies? The answer is obviously yes, and this gives us the major premise of the reasoning upon which our revolutionary forefathers acted, the complete syllogism being as follows :

The people should rule over what concerns them.

The conduct of the political affairs of America concerns the American people.

Therefore the American people should rule over the conduct of the political affairs of America.

Now in the same way let us again use Lincoln's method in applying the test of American democracy to the more modern issue of socialism vs. capitalism.

Is the manner in which the great industries of this country, the railroads, coal mines, packing plants, textile and steel mills, etc., are operated any concern of the people of this country? Are the interests of the people in any material manner affected by the mode in which the products of their socialized industries are produced and exchanged? Are the operations by which the people are supplied with the material conditions of their existence, their food, fuel, clothing, transportation, etc., any of their business? Again the answer is obviously yes, and this gives us the major premise of the reasoning upon which sane socialists ask the American people to act, the complete syllogism being as follows :

The people should rule over what concerns them.

The conduct of the industrial affairs of America concerns the American people.

Therefore the American people should rule over the conduct of the industrial affairs of America.

Comparing this argument with the corresponding one for political democracy it is clear that socialism is not an inference from the American political system, but that both are inferences from a common premise — the. premise of democracy. The people should rule over their industrial affairs for the same reason, and in the same sense, that they should rule over their political affairs.

Now there is just one way in which the argument for industrial democracy is met in this country. It is by the denial of the premise of democracy — the minor premise. The major premise is too obviously true to deny. But this denial is in the form of two separate contentions. First, the contention for absolute industrial oligarchy; second, the contention for limited industrial oligarchy.

Unlimited Industrial Oligarchy. Those who hold the first position contend that while the American people know enough to attend to their own political affairs they do not know enough to attend to their own industrial affairs, and that private individuals perform public industrial functions as incidents of money-seeking in a manner more in the public interest than public officials working only in the service of the public are able to do. They claim the premise of democracy should not be what Lincoln said it was, that the people should rule over what concerns them. They claim it should read this way :

The people should rule over some of the things that concern them, and let private individuals, not responsible to them, rule over others.

Here and now I will not attempt to reply to this contention, except to say that if those who thus contend can prove just enough without proving too much, if they can apologize for capitalism without at the same time apologizing for monarchy, if, in short, they can discredit industrial, without at the same time discrediting political, democracy, they will do what has not heretofore been done to my knowledge. The weakness of their contention will appear more clearly later. Just now I desire to consider a little the proposals of a class in the community who hold the second position.

• •

Limited Industrial Oligarchy. I refer to those persons who believe in ruling the public industries of the country by public regulation or control through commissions or courts, instead of through ownership as socialists propose. Their instruments of control are such bodies as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the United States Supreme Court The fact that they believe in public control indicates that they admit the conduct of these industries is somehow the concern of the public, and they propose a means by which the public shall rule what concerns it. They give signs of believing in the control of the people over their own business, but they do not believe in the way of controlling it proposed by socialists.