Social democracy explained; theories and tactics of modern socialism

Front matter

HI

OfartteU Uniueraitg ISibrary

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE

Contents

CBAP. PAGE

Preface vii

I. The Definition of Socialism i

Preface

This volume is an attempt to state in simple, popular, and untechnical language the essentials of the Socialism of the Marxian school. I have tried to present a clear and comprehensive view not only of the philosophical and economic theories of Socialism, but of the principles underlying the policies of the Socialist movement.

In justice to the reader as well as to the writer, it should be stated that these pages were written prior to the outbreak of the European war. I was at the time a member of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, and by invitation of the General Committee of the party organization in New York City I delivered a course of ten lectures which were designed to assist in the education of the party membership. Given under official party auspices as they were, the lectures attracted a good deal of attention and favorable comment, so that by request I repeated most of the course in

PREFACE

several other cities. In response to numerous requests I undertook to prepare the addresses for pubhcation in book form, and that work was nearly completed when the great war broke out. The chaos and demoralization in the Socialist ranks which occurred as a result of the virtual breakdown of the Socialist International, and the betrayal of the movement by the German Socialist majority, caused me to lay the manuscript aside until a more propitious season. Now that we are recovering from the shock, and in all countries the Socialist movement is undergoing a process of readjustment and reorganization, I find myself deeply involved in the struggles incidental to that readjustment. Having severed my connection with the Socialist Party because I believed that the party had been unfaithful to the principles of Socialism, it is perhaps necessary for me to say what otherwise would be superfluous — namely, that I am still a Socialist and an Internationalist, and that I am in the main a believer in the principles of Marxian Socialism.

The war has modified my views upon some matters, so that there is not a little in the following pages which I would now change. I have preferred to leave the volume in its

PREFACE

original form rather than to rewrite it, because it does represent the average Marxian Socialist's position. Another and more personal reason for not attempting to rewrite -the volume is that by presenting it in its original form I can point my Socialist comrades and former comrades to the fact that the position I have taken in this war controversy is entirely consistent with that taken in these lectures, delivered under official party auspices, long before the war began. The view of internationalism, for which I have contended against a majority of the Socialist Party of this country, is precisely the same as that outlined in these pages. Moreover, the conception of the spirit and guiding principles of Socialist policy is the same.

It is impossible at this time to forecast the future development of the International Socialist movement. As these lines are being written, an invitation reaches me to join with other Socialists in other lands, including Germany and Austria, in the formation of a new Socialist International which will be a competitor to the existing Socialist International so long dominated by the Germans. Whether this project will be carried out, or whether I shall assist it, I am unable to

PREFACE

say. This much, however, is certain : the Sociahst movement will be revived and restored and the Socialist program will be realized. That the radical extremists with their destructive attitude of mind are likely to achieve anything worth while it is impossible to believe. Bolshevism is a form of romanticism which cannot be of lasting influence. It seems probable that the schism which has developed in the Socialist ranks during the war will outlast it and continue in the period of reconstruction: on the one hand, the dogmatists, hidebound and insisting upon their special formulae; on the other hand the practical opportunists, freely and gladly embracing every opportunity to share in the work of actually applying Socialist principles. The first of these elements will constitute a noisy, truculent, ineffective minority. The second may prove to be of inestimable value in the building up of industrial democracy.

I hope to follow up this volume with another in which the new phases of our American social democracy will be interpreted.

John Spargo.

New York, End of January, 191 8.

OF the making of definitions of Socialism there is truly "no end." Each new recruit to the army of Socialist propagandists strives to reduce the essentials of Socialism to a formula; to compress an accurate description of its meaning in the narrow confines of a brief statement of easy intelligibility and memorability. To formulate a definition which meets these requirements, and, at the same time, secures the approval of his fellow Socialists, is an ambition that is born anew in the heart of every Socialist.

The libraries teem with definitions of Socialism as numerous and as varied as the books which contain them. It is well that it should be so. It is well that every Socialist propagandist should regard it as the most important part of his work to crystallize his own concept of Socialism and make his statement of that concept concise and luminous. Just as the sculptor chisels away from the rough marble every superfluous particle, but is careful to retain every necessary particle, until at last the perfect form appears, so the propagandist who aims to make a definition of Socialism must rigorously eliminate the non-essential and carefully preserve every particle of the essential truth in order that the result may be a perfect representation.

II

The multitude of definitions of Socialism has suggested a criticism which has discouraged and deterred many a prospective student. The criticism is that hardly any two Socialists agree in defining their beliefs and their aims, and that there are as many varieties of Socialism as there are Socialists. There is hardly a weapon in the armory of the opponents of Socialism which is more frequently used than this. "Why does Socialism suggest So-and-so's pickles?" asks the clever and facetious critic. "Why, because there are so many varieties of it!" comes the answer.

Like much of the criticism of Socialism indulged in by the clever young men who write and talk on the subject, this criticism is far less true than plausible. Its sole support is the difference of expression and emphasis which belongs to, and is inseparable from, individuality. Its fatal defect lies in the fact that, underlying the differences of form and emphasis of statement which mark the definitions of Socialism, there is a remarkable degree of agreement upon fundamental principles.

The man who is mainly interested in Socialism as a political movement naturally emphasizes the political aspects of Socialism in defining it. The man who is inspired by the splendor of its forecast of the future of society will naturally emphasize that aspect of Socialism in his definition. The man to whom Socialism appeals as a great system of philosophy will as naturally emphasize that aspect of his subject in defining it, and perhaps slight the political movement on the one hand and the beautiful ideal on the other hand. Each in his definition treats as most important that which means most to him. But the differences in the three definitions are not contradictions. The definitions are partial and incomplete: a perfect definition would include them all.

I venture to claim here, at the very outset of our study of Socialism, that candid investigation will reveal the fact that the representative expositors of its doctrines have shown quite as much unanimity in defining Socialism, and quite as little fundamental disagreement, as the advocates of any movement, secular or religious, at all comparable to Socialism. We shall search the vast literature of political science in vain for a greater unity of understanding and interpretation of essential principle and purpose.

For adding another to the vast number of definitions of Socialism we may not plead inability to find among the definitions already existing one with which we can wholly agree. Indeed, there are many such. Our justification must rest upon very different reasons: First of all, there is the lure of the hope that, profiting by all previous experiments, we may succeed in formulating the ideal definition — accurate, comprehensive, intelligible and invulnerable to criticism. That is the cherished hope of every Socialist. Secondly, and of greater immediate importance, is the belief that through the labor of constructing our own definition we shall gain fuller and more certain knowledge than could be acquired by much study and exposition of existing definitions. The principle is the well-known law of pedagogics, that learning comes best by doing.

Ill I

■wem

The first step toward definition is a survey of the field, an appreciation of the subject of definition. So our first task must be to delimit the scope of our inquiry. We are concerned only with that great modern movement represented by Marx, Engels, Lassalle, Liebknecht, Bebel, Kautsky, Guesde, Jaures, Vandervelde, Hyndman, Plechanoff, Adler and others — in a word, with the international Socialism which is the greatchallenging movement in modern politics. |we are not concerned with the dream-castles of the numerous Utopian architects from Plato onward. We have nothing to do with schemes and plans devised by ingenious social inventors. Nor are we concerned with that mysticism which inspires the rehgious devotee with an optimistic faith in the coming of a millennial age of universal brotherhood and peace. That which we are to define is the Socialism which marshals the workers of the world under one banner proclaiming their purpose to be the use of their power to reorganize the political and economic structure of society.

As we observe that movement, study its programs, listen to its advocates in the parliaments, note its struggles for political power and its active participation in the battles of organized labor for economic betterment, we learn the necessary scope of our definition. It must clearly and comprehensively indicate the essential characteristics of Socialism as (i) a criticism of society as it is at present constituted; (2) a philosophy of social progress; (3) an ideal to be attained; (4) a movement inspired by the discontent reflected in the criticism, guided by the philosophy and aiming at the attainment of the ideal.

IV

I. Socialism as a criticism of existing joczV^y.— Social discontent is an essential condition of Socialism, but social discontent is not, per se, socialistic. Social criticism does not of necessity lead to Socialism. The preacher who arraigns the existing social order and attributes its poverty and other evils to the wickedness of men, to their unregenerated human nature, is not a Socialist, no matter how savage or sweeping his attack m^y be. The Anarchist whose social indictment points to the extremities of wealth and poverty, to vice, crime, and other evils, attributing them all to the existence of government based upon law backed by force and authority, with a resulting denial of absolute individual freedom, is not a Socialist. He may attack the same evils which the Socialist attacks, and use very similar language, with the result that the two criticisms appear alike to the superficial observer. But in reality they are fundamentally unlike and antagonistic, and they lead logically to radically different proposals. The Socialist criticism of society, then, is a particular criticism, peculiar to Socialism. Its distinctive characteristic is class consciousness, an insistence upon the fact that such evils of capitalist society as poverty, vice, crime, unemployment, overwork, industrial crises, war, and social warfare by such methods as strikes, boycotts and lockouts, arise from the class domination of society. It emphasizes the fact that in the economic organization of present society one class, a relatively small part of society, owns and controls the natural resources and , the machinery of production and excha nge. J The actual producers of wealth are depeitdent upon this owning class and subject to exploitation by it.

Thus, we have in society a great conflict of interests. One class, the producing class, is exploited by a smaller class of non-producers. The actual producers do not receive the sum of values which they create, but a far smaller sum in the form of wages. The difference between product and wages constitutes the revenue of the exploiting class as a whole. The affluence of this class, rather than the comfort and well-being of the producers, is the end to which industry is directed. In other words, the primary aim of modern industry is profit for the nonproducing but owning class. The genius of capitalism is not exerted to see that all the members of society are well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well equipped with all the advantages and blessings of civilization. It is exerted, rather, to the end of adding to the luxury and power of the owning class. From this fundamental fact arise most of the evils which harass modern civilization.

As a criticism of the present social order Socialism is an expression of the natural discontent of the producing class. It is, therefore, strictly a class criticism, and inevitably supplies the necessary basis for clasS' revolt. Yet, as we shall see, it does not condemn the individuals comprising the ruling class, nor assert that the individuals comprising the class in revolt are beings of superior virtue. It does not inspire the individuals of the working class with hatred of the individuals of the capitalist class, but, on the contrary, teaches the folly of such hatred. The philosophy of the Socialist enables him to draw a sharp line between the evils of the system and the responsibility of its beneficiaries. It enables him to see that economic classes are developed by economic necessity, that individuals are not responsible for the basic evils of class rule, and that the remedy for those evils lies in changing the system.

r

2. Socialism as a philosophy of social progress. — -We cannot understand the philosophy of Socialism, or its bearing upon the practical movement, without a comprehension of the fact of evolution and the universality of its laws. For Socialism is an interpretation of human progress, a theory of social evolution. The forecast of the future development of society which we call the Socialist ideal, and the program and policies through which the attainment of the ideal is striven for, are based upon a study of the laws governing the evolution of human society.

When we trace the evolution of mankind from pure savagery, through the various stages of barbarism to the great civilizations of antiquity onward to the civilization of the modern world, it is natural that we should seek the motive force of progress. To explain the ascending spiral of human progress has long been the objective of the profoundest thought of mankind. What is the nature of the ladder upon which man has risen from the lowest depths of savagery ? Has he risen upon a ladder of beautiful ideals, of dreams, woven by spinners in the sun, or upon a ladder whose rungs are material, a ladder composed of his own material accomplishments .''

The Socialist philosophy is based upon the materialistic hypothesis. Its fundamental tenet is the theory of historical development formulated by Karl Marx. The central proposition of this theory is that the methods of producing and exchanging wealth and the social relations which they involve condition the general character of society, and that the rate and direction of social evolution are conditioned mainly, but not wholly, by the development of production and exchange. Thus, the political and legal institutions of a particular historical epoch, and its general character, depend upon its economic structure. And only an understanding of that economic structure will enable us to understand and explain the characteristics of the epoch. The theory does not deny the influence of other factors, but it does ascribe to economic conditions a controlling influence in social evolution^^ It is part of the theory that the g^^at decisive social changes which mark distinct epochs in human history are actually achieved through class conflict. Ever since the introduction of private property and the passing of rude tribal communism, the economic organization of society has resulted in a division of mankind into economic groups or classes with opposing interests.

Whenever a subjugated class has thrown off the yoke of the class by which it was ruled and itself become the ruling class, a comprehensive epochal change has been ushered in. New legal and political institutions have been developed and corresponding social and ethical conceptions. Thus history is, from one point of view, essentially the record of class conflicts and their outcome, each decisive conflict marking a definite historical epoch, a stage in the ascending spiral.

Every ruling class, therefore, has in its turn played an important role in the great drama of human progress. Each new ruling class has broken down old tyrannies and widened the area of freedom. Then, having firmly established its own rule and power of exploitation, it has resisted every attempt to further progress made by the classes below. New economic developments — ^generally the result of discovery or invention — have made it possible for some subject class or group to revolt successfully and to become in its turn the ruling and exploiting class. It was thus that the modern capitalist class, developed by new economic forces, was enabled to overthrow the feudal nobility and was obliged as a condition of its own success to greatly enlarge the freedom of the individual, opening a new and in many respects splendid epoch.

The modern proletariat differs from every other class in history in one important particular: it is not struggling to acquire the power of exploitation. There is no class beneath it to be exploited. Like all revolting classes, it is struggling to free itself from exploitation and oppression; but, unlike any other revolting class, it can have no hope of becoming an exploiting, oppressing class. It can only free itself by destroying the possibility of economic exploitation altogether. Its victory, therefore, must put an end to all forms of class rule. Therefore, the triumph of the proletariat will mean the end of that cycle of class struggles which began with the dissolution of primitive tribal communism.

VI

3. Socialism as an ideal to he attained. The modern Socialist ideal is a social state free from all forms of class domination. It may be objectively defined as a perfect political and industrial democracy, in which there is no economic exploitation of one class by another, but a complete communism of opportunity. In such a society the worst evils of our present social order could not exist. The class antagonism of to-day would find no place in such a society, nor is it conceivable that poverty, vice, and crime could flourish in it.

Before this perfect political and industrial democracy can be established there must be a complete readjustment of our economic system. That readjustment is the immediate concern of the Socialist movement, which aims at substituting for the present system of production for the profit of a class production for the common good. This involves the abolition of the private or class ownership and control of those agencies of production and exchange which are essentially social in their nature because their functions are social, and the substitution therefor of a system of collective ownership and control.

/ It is no part of the Socialist ideal to es- ''^tablish and maintain an artificial equality. Therefore, it does not involve the suppression of the private ownership of consumption goods. In this material respect Socialism differs from pure communism. Nor does the Socialist ideal involve the forcible suppression of individual enterprise in production and exchange in the interest of a vast state monopoly. The impeUing motive of Socialism is the destruction of class rule based upon economic exploitation. Production and exchange by methods which do not involve such exploitation, whether carried on by individuals or by voluntary autonomous groups, is not at all incompatible with the realization of that aim. ^

4.. Socialism as a movement. Of the distinctive features of the modern Socialist movement the most vital is its class character. It is essentially a class movement, having for its aim the emancipation of a particular class, the proletariat. It is not the fact that the majority of its adherents belong to that class which makes it a proletarian movement, and its proletarian character is not lessened, necessarily, by the fact that among its adherents are many who are not proletarians.

One of the remarkable features of fHS* Socialist movement in all lands is the increasing number of non-proletarians to be found in its ranks. This non-proletarian element consists of members of the prois fessional class, small merchants, and manufacturers, farmers, people with moderate incomes derived from investments, together with a relatively small number of active capitalists.

These non-proletarian elements are inspired by a variety of motives. Some are drawn into the movement by intellectual conviction. The intellectual training of the professionals makes it comparatively easy to interest them in the theoretical literature of Socialism. Others are actuated by motives of self-preservation and enlightened self-interest. This applies especially to the small manufacturers and merchants, who see clearly that if capitalism continues to develop along the lines of its recent development they will be forced into the ranks of the wage-earners. Others, like the farmers, join the movement because they are exploited by the great capitalist combinations as surely as the wage-earners are, though in other ways. Finally, many join the movement for purely ethical reasons. They are appalled by the evils of capitalism, its poverty, vice, crime, and strife. They believe that Socialism will destroy those evils and bring nearer the Golden Age of Brotherhood. Probably most of those who come to the

i6 movement from the ranks of the active capitalists, and most of those whose incomes are derived from investments, are thus inspired by ethical considerations.

In some places these non-proletarian elements constitute a very considerable part of the movement. It is easy enough to see that their influence might be exerted to very materially modify the program and policies of the movement, and its temper, or even to destroy its class integrity altogether. But while it is conceivable that this might happen, it is not a necessary result of the presence of these Jmp-proletarian elements in the movement. fWhat gives the Socialist movement its proretarian character is not the external fact that it is mainly composed of wage-earners, but the fact that its sole reason for being is to destroy the system of capitalist exploitation and effect the emancipation of the proletariat. So long as the movement aims steadily at that goal, to bring about the collective ownership and control of the means of production and exchange, and refuses to limit its activities to the achievement of reforms within the existing order, it will be a proletarian movement, regardless of its personnel. -^^m

r Quite as surely as it is a class movement,

Socialism is an international movement. Wherever economic evolution develops a capitalist class and a proletariat Socialism inevitably appears. But the movement is not merely international in this physical, external sense. It is international in spirit, consciously proclaiming and aiming at international solidarit y^ I It does not, indeed, spend its strengtG attempting to realize Utopian schemes of world -federation, like Fourier's ingenious hierarchy, but it ceaselessly proclaims the unity of interests of the working classes of all lands against th e int erests of the master classes of all lands. IFrom the very first, the movement has b*n inspired by the ideal of international working-class solidarity. "Working-men of all countries, unite!" the exhortation of the famous Communist Manifesto is an expression of that ideal. That the Socialist movement is, in consequence of its fundamental internationalism, the greatest force in the world making for universal peace is admitted on I all sides. j

But while the movement is inspired By the ideal of iwi(?rnationalism, it is not antinational. There is no reason why a sane and normal love of one's country, which does not involve hatred or envy of any other

l8 country, should be construed as being opposed to the wider ideal of international solidarity, any more than the love of one individual for another should be construed as being opposed to a loyal attachment to the nation. Socialists everywhere have defended the independence of nations while vigorously championing international unity.

vin

Finally, the Socialist movement is revolutionary in its character. This feature of the movement is less obvious and more difficult to understand. The popular concept of revolution is still identified with violent uprisings, with bloodshed, arson, and fighting behind barricades. Thus the rebellious outbreaks in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century, the struggles of the "red forties," are regarded as revolutionary.

With such a concept of the meaning of revolution, it is difficult to see wherein the Socialist movement with its more pacific and less dramatic methods is revolutionary. For the activities of the movement are almost everywhere bounded by legal forms. Whether we confine our definition of tne movement to the political parties of the

3 19 proletariat which aim to destroy capitalist exploitation through the reconstruction of the state upon the basis of collective ownership and control of the principal means of production and exchange, or broaden it to include all other forms of proletarian effort to that general end, the result is the same. They are all striving within the bounds of law. This is as true of the "mass strikes" of the Socialist unions as it is of the programs and policies of the Socialist parties, or of the industrial and business enterprises

the Socialist co-operatives.

Obviously, if we are to call Socialism a revolutionary movement we must adopt another concept of the meaning of revolution. This is precisely what the Socialist does. He means by revolution not a method of change, but the change itself. He is not concerned with the means, but the end. What he means by social revolution is such a thorough transformation of the basis of society as will necessarily involve a corresponding change in social relations. /He seeks to make the social forces of production social property, subject to social control, in order that all class divisions which treat upon economic exploitation may be abolishej,,*'' — This is the revolution. It is not the less revolutionary if its accomplishment is as peaceful as the coming of daylight after the blackness of the night. _

Another feature of the movement tencTs* to obscure its revolutionary nature and purpose. Everjnvhere the energies of the movement seem to be largely devoted to the task of securing reforms which, while beneficial to the proletariat, can be realized within the existing social order, without any fundamental, revolutionary change, and are, therefore, not essentially revolutionary. In the parliaments its representatives fight for social legislation for old-age pensions and the like. The unions and the co-operative societies strive to increase wages, lessen the hours of labor, and raise the standard of living. All of these purposes can be realized without abolishing the capitalist system.

It cannot be doubted, I think, that in every country where the Socialist movement is strongly developed it has reached this condition by a remarkable change. In the early stages the emphasis was upon the urgent need of fundamental revolutionary changes, while reforms within the existing order were treated with marked indiff^erence as relatively unimportant. With the growth of power and responsibility more emphasis is laid upon the things which can be done now and here. This is the fact upon which the charge that the movement has ceased to be revolutionary is based.

The explanation of this change is obvious enough. The essence of Socialism, the governing principle of the movement, is not an elaborate theory of social action, but a living reality, the class struggle itself. The Socialist movement is the expression of the proletariat, its fighting arm. And because the proletariat must fight here and now, must resist every force which tends to depress his condition and seize every opportunity to improve his condition, the Socialist movement becomes, apart from theoretical considerations, an agency for the present advancement of the interests of the proletariat. It is of necessity committed to a very definite and comprehensive policy of social reform.

If we take the program of social reform advocated by the Socialists in any country we shall find that it contains very few specific proposals which are not somewhere or other advocated by non-Socialist reformers. But we shall find that the program as a whole has certain qualities which are not to be found in any non-Socialist reform programs; qualities, that is to say, which stamp it as a Socialist program. In the first place, it is not a thing of shreds and patches, a medley of reforms, unrelated to one another, each one adopted as a cure-all for a particular evil, as though social ills bore no relation to one another. The measures advocated are logically connected with one another like the various parts of a watch. In the second place, every measure in the program is obviously devised for the benefit of the proletariat. There are no proposals aiming to bolster up the middle class, for example ; no proposals which aim at "good government." Every measure proposed bears the mark of its birth in the class struggle. Its aim is to increase the power of the working class, and to enable it to win its battles with the master class. The aim of the political reforms proposed is to increase the political power of the proletariat in order that it may wrest control of the state from the master class. The aim of all the other reforms is to raise the workers to a higher economic, intellectual, and moral level in order that their fighting strength may be increased and their victory made certain.