The essentials of socialism

Front matter

I

THE ESSENTIALS OF SOCIALISM

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO

Preface

The ordinary volume on socialism is either biased in its presentation of the subject or it covers too small a portion of the field by being an historical sketch, a bit of propaganda literature, or merely a discussion of its theoretical foundation. In the following pages I have endeavored to avoid these objectionable features, in the hope that the volume may serve as a handbook to the busy reader or as a textbook for the classroom. My object has been to cover the field usually discussed and to present the subject in such a manner that the reader or instructor may be free to form and express his own opinions and to elaborate or to curtail any part of the discussion that he may desire.

An effort has been made to state fairly and accurately both sides of the issues involved, and although I realize the practical impossibility of attaining this ideal, I cherish the hope that the following statement may prove satisfactory to the advocates as well as to the opponents of this widely discussed and much misunderstood subject.

Viii PREFACE

In the text only American and English publications have been cited. This has been deemed advisable because the ordinary reader does not possess a reading knowledge of Italian, French, or German. With but a few exceptions, magazine articles and pamphlets have also been omitted from the list of references, because the former are without number and the latter are very difficult to obtain. Asterisks (*) have been used to point out the references especially recommended.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to my colleagues, Professors Alvin S. Johnson, Harry A. Millis, and Burt Estes Howard, all of whom have given much kindly criticism and many helpful suggestions in the preparation of

this small volume.

IRA B. CROSS.

Stanford University, November, 1911.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Introduction 1

II. The Socialist Indictment of Capitalism 11

Introduction

Few movements in the world's history have attracted the attention or have aroused such bitter opposition as has Marxian or scientific socialism. Various reform measures, popularly called " socialistic," and numerous Utopian schemes for social betterment have always been mildly opposed, but it has been against Marxian socialism that the most strenuous and unending battle has been waged. And like most movements whose followers have been grievously persecuted, it has grown marvellously strong and active, until at the present time it is undoubtedly one of the most widely discussed subjects before the public.

Marxian or scientific socialism is, as Professor Veblen says, "the socialism that inspires hopes and fears to-day. ... No one is seriously apprehensive of any other so-called socialistic movement." 1 Its position of prominence has been attained within a comparatively short time. The roots of its teachings are found in earlier writings, but as a fairly well defined movement it may be said to date from the publication of the " Communist Manifesto " in 1848. This small pamphlet, a manifesto of a revolutionary organization, " The Communist League," was jointly written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It contains in brief and concise form much that was later developed through the writings and speeches of these two German radicals into those principles which to-day form the foundation of the socialist movement throughout the world. The words "socialism" and "socialist" are also of comparatively late origin, no trace of their use having been found prior to 1833. 2 At first the term " socialist " was applied on the one hand to "the adherents of various Utopian systems — Owenites in England, and Fourierists in France ; and on the other hand, [to] the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts

1 Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. xxi., p. 229.

2 International Socialist Beview, vol. vi., p. 45.

INTRODUCTION 3

of social grievances, — in both cases men outside the working class movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classes for support." 3 That portion of the working class which had become convinced of the insufficiency of such Utopian and variegated reform measures, and which had " proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion then called itself 'Communist.'" Thus socialism was a middle-class movement; communism was a working-class movement. Socialism was " respectable " ; communism was not. 4 A reversal in the meaning and application of these terms has taken place in later years, so that to-day the advocates of Utopian colony or communistic experiments are called "communists," while the followers of Marx and Engels, the former communists, are now called "socialists." Failure to recognize this change accounts for certain errors on the part of some of the critics of modern socialism.

The socialist movement, young though it is, has spread very rapidly, until at the present time there is scarcely any part of the globe free from its enthusiastic, self-sacrificing, and proselyting members. It recognizes no lines of nationality,

8 Engels, Preface to the Communist Manifesto, p. 7. * Ibid.

color, race, or creed. The latest available statistics show that the voting strength of the socialists throughout the world is about as follows : 5 —

United States 600,000 9 6

Greece — 20

Switzerland 100,000 7

Holland 82,000 7

Argentina 5,000 1

Bulgaria 3,000 —

Australian Commonwealth . — 62

South Africa Union ... — 4

6 HazelVs Annual places the number of socialist parliamentary representatives in the United States at nine. This is incorrect. At the close of 1910 there were seventeen socialists in state legislatures and one socialist congressman.

7 1906 returns.

INTRODUCTION 5

In the United States it is only within the last decade that the socialist movement has attained a position of prominence. During the first half of the nineteenth century the existence of cheap land, political liberty, and freedom of conscience caused this country to be used as an experimental ground by the followers of Owen, Cabet, Fourier, and other Utopians. Numerous colonies were established and many members were enlisted, but almost without exception the outcome proved to be failure of the most dismal and discouraging sort.

It was not until 1876 that any serious attempt was made in the United States to form a political party for the purpose of propagating the principles of socialism. During the next twenty-five years this organization, which later became the Socialist Labor Party, received slight support at the hands of the voters. The causes which contributed to its failure may be summarized as having been the dominance of a strongly individualistic point of view among the American people ; the existence of the freedom of the press, of assembly and of speech, the right of trial by jury and of equal manhood suffrage, — all of which removed many of those sources of oppression which abroad had served to unite the working-class under the banner of socialism ; the presence of large areas of cheap and free land ; the existence of a large land-owning farming class essentially conservative in its point of view ; the absence of fixed class lines ; a uniformly high rate of wages, and a high standard of living ; the antagonistic attitude of the Socialist Labor Party towards " pure and simple " trade-unionism ; and the " foreign " character of the movement, led as it was almost entirely by German immigrants.

With the progress of industry and the growth of population have come changed conditions which have made for an increase in the socialist following. Free and cheap lands of satisfactory quality, which previously served as a sort of safety valve for the discontent of the masses, no longer exist. Coupled with this is a very noticeable increase of tenancy in both city and country. Strikes, lockouts, boycotts, the "union busting" activities of the capitalists, the seeming partiality shown the latter class by every branch of the government, the difficulty which the unions have had in obtaining labor laws and factory legislation and in having them upheld by state and federal courts, all of these things, and more, have added to the unrest of the working-class and have made its members more willing than ever before to listen to the

INTRODUCTION 7

arguments of the socialists, who have never neglected an opportunity of driving home the application of their teachings to current problems. Another matter which must not be overlooked is the changed attitude of the socialists towards trade-unionism. Previously it was one of opposition; to-day it is, for the most part, one of approval. Many of the most prominent socialists are also the leaders of the trade-unionists. The dissatisfaction of the voters with the Republican and Democratic parties has caused many to sever their connections with those political organizations and to ally themselves with the socialists as a method of protest. The publication by the popular magazines of articles dealing with the subject of socialism has not only attracted the attention of the public to the growing importance of the issue, but it has also led many to accept its principles and engage in their propagation.

In 1908 the Socialist Party of the United States polled about 500,000 votes. Since that time its following has increased, so that in 1911 there were no less than 435 socialist office-holders in the United States, coming from 33 states and representing about 160 municipalities and election districts. Professor R. F. Hoxie of the University of Chicago, writing under the title of

"The Rising Tide of Socialism," states that in point of function these office-holders include "1 congressman, 1 state senator, 16 state representatives, 28 mayors, village presidents and township chairmen, 3 city commissioners, and 167 aldermen, councillors, and village and township trustees. Sixty-one others occupy important executive, legislative, and departmental positions, so that considerably more than one-half may be said to hold major legislative or municipal positions. Of those remaining, it is noteworthy that 15 are assessors, 62 are school officials, and 65 are connected with the work of justice and police." 8 i. General References to the History of Socialism.

* Ely. French and German Socialism.

* Guthrie. Socialism before the French Revolution.

* Hunter. Socialists at Work.

* Kirkup. History of Socialism.

Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Chs. 10-11.

Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement. Pp.

224-272.

Woolsey. Communism and Socialism.

2. Australia.

Clark. The Labor Movement in Australasia. Hirsch. Democracy versus Socialism.

* Hunter. Socialists at Work. Pp. 354-356.

8 Journal of Political Economy, vol. xix., pp. 610-611.

INTRODUCTION 9

Le Rossignol and Stewart. State Socialism in New

Zealand.

Reeves. State Experiments in Australia and New

Zealand.

St. Ledger. Australian Socialism. Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement. Pp.

253-256.

* Stoddart. The New Socialism. Supplementary chap-

ter on " Notes on Australian Socialism."

, England.

* Anonymous. The Case Against Socialism. Ch. 2. Barker. British Socialism. Chs. 33-34. Forster. English Socialism of To-day.

* Hunter. Socialists at Work. Ch. 4.

Laveleye. Socialism of To-day. Appendix on " Socialism in England," by G. H. Orpen.

Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Pp. 229-234.

Villiers. The Socialist Movement in England.

Webb. Socialism in England.

Woods. English Social Movements. Pp. 38-78.

. France.

* Ely. French and German Socialism. Chs. 1-8.

Socialism and Social Reform. Appendix X. Ensor. Modern Socialism. Chs. 7, 25, 28.

* Hunter. Socialists at Work. Ch. 3. Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Pp. 217-220.

* Peixotto. The French Revolution and Modern French

Socialism.

Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement. Pp. 156-164, 233-239.

. Germany.

Dawson. German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle.

* Ely. French and German Socialism. Chs. 9-15.

IO ESSENTIALS OF SOCIALISM

Ensor. Modern Socialism. Chs. 22, 28.

* Hunter. Socialists at Work. Ch. 1,

* Kirkup. History of Socialism. Especially ch. 9. Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Pp. 213-216.

* Russell. German Social Democracy.

6. United States.

Debs. The American Movement.

* Ely. The Labor Movement in America. Chs. 8-11. Engels. The Working-class Movement in America. Gilman. Socialism and the American Spirit. Chs. 1-6.

* Hilquit. History of Socialism in the United States.

Socialism in Theory and Practice. Appendix. Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement. Pp. 272-278.

* Stoddart. The New Socialism. Supplementary chap-

ter on " Recent Developments of American Socialism.' '

7. Other Countries.

For notes on the socialist movement in other

countries see: — Hunter. Socialists at Work. Pp. 327-363. Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Chs. 10-11. Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement. Pp.

256-272.

Chapter II The Socialist Indictment Of Capitalism

The socialists criticise the present system of society most severely, pointing out its weaknesses and vigorously assailing its very foundations. In so doing they make use of the same destructive arguments as are employed by the single taxers, anarchists, and reformers of all sorts, differing from them only in that they lay more stress than do the others upon the element of profits as the fundamental cause for the existence of those conditions which they propose to remedy. The word " profits," as used by the socialists, includes both rent and interest as well as that which is ordinarily designated as profits.

Some of the more important counts in their indictment of capitalistic society may be briefly summarized as follows : —

The existence of slums and sweat shops in our large cities ; the prevalence of child and woman labor ; the fact that thousands of men, williug to work, are daily unemployed ; the increasing concentration of industry and the centralization of

ii wealth ; the lack of equality of opportunity ; the frequent recurrence of panics and " hard times " ; the anarchy and wastes of competition and of capitalistic production ; the universality of adulteration and of commercial dishonesty; the injustice of rent, interest, and profits, by means of which the workers are "exploited"; the presence on all sides of poverty, misery, insanity, crime, drunkenness, and degeneracy ; the breaking up of the home as the result of industrial conditions; the growing seriousness of the divorce evil; the traffic in " white slaves " ; the prevalence of graft and corruption; and the inequality of classes before the law.

This by no means exhausts the list of charges which the socialists bring against capitalistic society ; there are few things in the world to-day which do not suffer criticism at their hands.

Almost all volumes dealing with the subject of socialism contain data on " The Socialist Indictment." See especially the following: —

Benson. Socialism Made Plain.

Boudin. Theoretical System of Karl Marx. Especially ch. 7.

Brooks. The Social Unrest.

Call. The Concentration of Wealth.

SOCIALIST INDICTMENT OF CAPITALISM 1 3

Chiozza-Money. Riches and Poverty. Devine. Misery and its Causes.

Engels. The Condition of the Working-class in England in 1844.

Ghent. Mass and Class.

Our Benevolent Feudalism.

Socialism and Success.

* Hunter. Poverty.

Kauffman. What is Socialism ? Ch. 1. Kelly. Twentieth Century Socialism. Book 2. Ladoff. American Pauperism and the Abolition of

Poverty.

Macdonald. The Socialist Movement. Chs. 3-5.

* Richardson. Industrial Problems. Part 1.

* Skelton. Socialism. Chs. 2-3.

* Spargo. The Common Sense of Socialism.

* Capitalist and Laborer.

Tugan-Baranowsky. Modern Socialism, etc. Pp.

35-83.

Veblen. Theory of the Leisure Class. Theory of Business Enterprise.

Chapter III

SOCIALISM; ITS DEFINITION AND DIFFERENTIA- TION FROM OTHER SCHEMES FOR SOCIAL BET- TERMENT

It is difficult accurately to define or to use the word "socialism," because, as ordinarily used, it may refer, and that correctly, to three distinct things : (1) to a certain set of principles or theories ; (2) to a movement, usually a political party, whose members advocate those theories and are eager to attain the goal which the latter represent; and (3) to the prophesied stage of society (socialism), the next after capitalism, which the members of the above movement are striving to bring about. Thus the stage of socialism, or the socialist state, is the goal of the socialist movement, a movement based upon the principles or theories of socialism.

In the ideal socialist state, all of those things employed in the production of wealth, which are used in common, would be owned collectively, while all of those things which the individual uses directly for the satisfaction of his personal wants, or which he uses in his capacity as an individual, would remain the property of the individual.

Thus factories, mines, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, etc., those instruments of production which to-day are being used by millions of people, and upon which countless millions depend for a livelihood, would be owned and operated collectively under socialism ; but a carpenter's tools, or a man's lawn-mower, his clothing, and many other things used solely by him, would be owned by him. The situation would differ from the present primarily in the fact that to-day the greater or more important instruments of production are owned by individuals called capitalists, who hire thousands of men to work for them, and who manage industry with an eye only to their individual profit, while under socialism the industries would be owned collectively by the workers through the medium of the government, and would be managed by them by means of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, 1 with the interests of the

1 At present the socialists of the United States use the initiative, the referendum, and the recall in conducting the affairs of their political party, the idea being always to keep the control of the organization in the hands of its dues-paying members. Strange to say, however, these stanch advocates of Democracy are bitterly opposed to the adoption of the direct primary, the reason being that they fear that some other political party, by means of it, might succeed in capturing the socialist organization as soon as it became strong enough to justify the attempt being made.

l6 ESSENTIALS OF SOCIALISM

public always in mind. Thus, under socialism, there would be no capitalist class, because there would be no private ownership of the greater means of production. Socialism, however, would not abolish capital, for there would still remain as great a need for its use in the production of wealth as exists to-day under capitalism. The only change that would occur in this connection is that capital would be collectively, instead of privately, owned.

Socialism is not Government Ownership, although by many people, and strange to say even by some so-called socialists, they are considered as being identical.

The socialists declare that government ownership is a reform which merely substitutes the government, controlled by the capitalists, for the capitalist as an employer of labor. It brings about only a change of taskmasters, and in many respects a most unsatisfactory change, for under government ownership the workers have less control over wages, hours, and the conditions of employment than under private ownership and operation. As a rule, governmental employees are not permitted to form trade-unions, nor can they actively participate in politics. At times of strikes, armed force can be used more effectively

SOCIAL BETTERMENT \J

to compel them to return to work. The socialists also argue that any great amount of government ownership would seriously hinder the concentration of industry, and thereby prolong the life of capitalistic society, by doing away with many unfair discriminations, thus enabling the small corporation to compete on an equal footing with the large corporation. It is because of these things that they ordinarily oppose government ownership, although by some it is advocated as a stepping-stone to the establishment of socialism.

The Socialist Movement must not be confused with the Cooperative Movement. They are not the same, although the principle of cooperation lies at the very root of the socialist teachings. Socialists have consistently opposed the policy of laissez-faire both in theory and in practice, and declare against all industrial competition. They do not, however, seek to abolish competition in any field other than the industrial, because they feel that under proper conditions competition tends to develop the best that lies within the individual.

The proposed socialist state is known by many as the "Cooperative Commonwealth," because in such a stage of society the principles of cooperation would be carried out to the fullest extent. Nevertheless, there are many regards in which these two movements differ from each other. Cooperation, or the application of cooperative principles, has been tried many times in the past. Socialism has never been tried, although communistic or cooperative colonies and certain social experiments have been frequently and incorrectly referred to by the opponents of socialism as evidences of its failure and impracticability. Cooperation does not represent a stage in the evolution of society ; socialists claim that socialism does. Cooperation is a social reform measure, and can and does exist side by side with capitalism. Socialism is not a social reform measure and cannot exist under capitalism. Cooperation is the voluntary association of interested individuals for the purpose of carrying out some definite object, such as the establishment and operation of cooperative stores, factories, mines, and similar enterprises. Socialism is not a voluntary association of a small number of individuals. Under it all society would be organized upon a cooperative basis, the cooperation being compulsory rather than voluntary.

Socialism is not Profit-sharing. In a profit-sharing establishment, the workers have no direct control over the industry in which they are employed. They labor for a capitalist or for a group of capitalists and receive at the end of the year, in addition to wages, a portion of the profits of the business. Like cooperation, profit-sharing is a social reform measure which has been tried and which is in no way opposed to the existence or the continuance of capitalism. Under socialism, there would be no capitalist class ; the workers would control the industries of the nation and would work entirely for themselves, or for what would then be the same thing, society.

Socialism is not Anarchism. Although radically opposed to each other, these two ideals of the future state of society have been and still are constantly confounded with each other. This is to be explained on the following grounds : — (a) Both are based upon radical principles. (J) The destructive arguments of both follow

the same lines of thought. (<?) In the early days communistic colonies or experiments were proposed and also established by both socialists and anarchists. (cT) It has not been more than two or three decades since these two ideals became distinct in the minds of their followers. As late as the middle '80's, men who were anarchists thought and called themselves socialists.

A belief in anarchism is based upon the doctrine of Individualism carried to its logical conclusion. Anarchism places the rights and interests of the individual above those of society and leads finally to the ideal of no government. Socialism, on the other hand, is collectivism. From its point of view the rights and interests of society are paramount and must be conserved under all circumstances. Socialism proposes an ideal state in which the collectivity acting through the government carries on the production and exchange of wealth, as well as the greatest possible number of other activities consistent with the welfare of the people. In brief, from the standpoint of the socialists the government is to be all in all, while from that of the anarchist is to be non-existent; the individual is to do everything.

The two ideals also differ on the subjects of religion and the family relation. Anarchism, denying all authority, divine as well as temporal, leads logically to an acceptance of the idea of free love and to a denial of the authority of the Church. It claims that the individual is above the State and the Church, and that consequently he should not be forced to obey the mandates of either. Socialism, on the other hand, is not opposed to religion although there are some socialists, as there are some Democrats and some Republicans, who are infidels or even atheists. Socialist congresses and party declarations have steadfastly maintained that religion is a matter with which the socialist party does not concern itself. It is a question that should be settled solely by the individual. The prevalent conviction that socialism is atheistic is due, no doubt, to the fact that a large number of socialists oppose, not religion, but the activity of the Church in behalf of the interests of the capitalist class and in opposition to economic and political reforms. Nor is socialism opposed to the home and the monogamous family, although a few radical and eccentric socialists have expressed ideas to the contrary. The socialists hold that the home is being broken up because of the industrial and social conditions which prevail under capitalism. The employment of women and children in factories and stores, the low wages and long hours, the highly unsatisfactory housing conditions of the working class, the " he " towns of the West and the "she" towns of the East, all make for the breaking up of the home. The socialists argue that only under socialism would it be possible to have more and better homes and consequently a better family relation. Higher wages, a shorter work day, steady employment, the elimination of profits from the industrial world, all of which they claim would come with socialism, would aid greatly in developing a higher and more ideal home life for the people.

There are two general groups of anarchists : (1) the Individualist or Philosophical Anarchists, and (2) the Anarchist Communists. Briefly, the former believe in the peaceful propagation of anarchistic doctrines, and maintain that a stage of anarchism will come as the result of the gradual extension of the laissez-faire policy on the part of the government. The latter advocate the use of violent and revolutionary measures as a means of bringing about the desired ideal.

Nihilism is often confused with both socialism and anarchism, but strictly speaking it is neither. As Kirkup has pointed out, 2 the name of nihilism "is often erroneously applied to the whole revolutionary movement" in Russia, although it should properly be restricted to the agitations of the period 1855-1870. The nihilists bowed before no authority of any kind, and accepted no principle on faith. "They weighed political institutions and social reforms, religion and the family, in the balances of that negative criticism, which 2 History of Socialism, pp. 257-258.

was their prevailing characteristic, and they found them all wanting. With revolutionary impatience they rejected everything that had come down from the past, good and bad alike. They had no respect for art or poetry, sentiment or romance." They were interested in the matters of "daily bread for all" and an elementary education for the common people.

Socialism is not Communism. Under socialism, although there would be collective ownership of the means of production and exchange, there would still be private ownership of income. Communism, however, goes one step further and proposes common ownership of income. It usually advocates equality in the division of the products of society. Socialism, on the other hand, is opposed to any and all schemes of "dividing up." Communism also differs from socialism in that those who believe in it do not accept the doctrines of the evolutionary development of society or of the necessity of appealing primarily to the working class in order to bring about the adoption of communistic ideas.

Communism usually takes the form of colony or community experiments, and is most frequently known as Utopian Socialism. 3 In the United

8 See pp. 39-40 for a more detailed explanation of Utopian Socialism.

States it is represented by a long line of unsuccessful attempts to introduce the colony mode of life, and reached its point of greatest popularity in the Bellamy or Nationalist movement during the later '80's and the early '90's.

Socialism is not Social Reform. The present day sees a widespread interest in social reform measures in all countries. Social reform retains the dominant features of capitalism, i.e. the private ownership of industry and the two economically antagonistic classes, the workers and the capitalists. It seeks to remove only the more flagrant evils of capitalism. Its advocates propose such remedial measures as labor and factory legislation, municipal and political reforms, and an extension of the functions and powers of the government. Socialism, on the other hand, would supplant capitalism by a state of society in which there would be a democratically organized collective ownership and operation of the means of production and exchange. It proposes a complete and radical change from our present system, but only by peaceful means.

For a number of years social reform measures were vigorously opposed by the socialists, but of late there has been considerable discussion regarding the necessity or the advisability of using such

"half-way" means as a method of gradually bringing about the socialist state. But even though some of the socialists, possibly a majority, take this position, they differ from the social reformers in that they consider such measures only as a means to an end, the end being socialism, while the reformers look upon these measures as an end in themselves and feel that their adoption would result in the improvement and retention of the present system of capitalistic industry through the removal of its more glaring evils.

Socialism is not the Single Tax. The advocates of the single tax propose to abolish all taxes save one, a single tax levied upon the value of land exclusive of improvements. It is claimed that such a tax would be just and expedient ; that it would greatly increase production by exempting improvements from taxation ; that it would abolish speculation in land; that it would be simple and easy of administration ; and that it would materially assist in bringing about a more equitable distribution of wealth. The single taxers accept the doctrines of laissez-faire, and consequently believe in Individualism, Competition, and Free Trade.

It is argued by the opponents of the tax that it would be difficult to administer ; that it would not supply a sufficient revenue for the government; that it would be unjust because it would tax only the landowners; that it would tend to weaken the idea of private ownership of land ; and that it would lead ultimately to the government ownership of land with private use or cultivation.