What is socialism? An exposition and a criticism, with special reference to the movement in America and England

Front matter

Copyrights

COPYRIGHT DEPOSHV

What is Socialism?

CHAPTER I Two Remarkable Pronouncements .... 15

Socialism in England 15

Relation to Religion and Morality ' . . . . 17

Variations and Agreements 20

— In America 22

Is Revolution Imminent? 24

- Labor and Socialism . ... ... 25

-Developments in America 26

Socialism Already Here! 29

Robert Owen, the Father of Modern Socialism . 30

CHAPTER VI Bismarck and State Socialism 102

German Workmen's Insurance and Old Age Pensions 103

State Socialism Defined 104

State Socialism Through Taxing the Rich . . 106

British Old-Age Pension Scheme .... 107

Where the Money Comes From 109

American State Socialism in

Municipal Socialism 114

A Costly Experiment . . . . . . .116

CONTENTS

Chapter VII

The Churches and Christian Socialism The Movement in England ....

American Christian Socialism .

Continental Christian Socialism

123 127 130

CHAPTER VIII The Fundamentals 135

Marx's "Capital" 137

The Marxian Theory of Values . . . .141

"Surplus Value" 145

Capitalism . . 147

Collectivism 149

The "Industrial Revolution" 150

How Will Collectivism be Established? . . 154

The Co-operative Commonwealth .... 159

Socialism as Affecting Religion and the Family 161

Socialism Involves Ethics as Well as Economics 166 Wages and Distribution of Products . . . .170

Chapter IX

Backwardism of American Socialism . . .176 The "International" and American Socialists . 179 The "International" Transferred to New York . 182

The Socialist Labor Party 183

The Socialist Party 186

Anarchism in America 192

The Moyer-Haywood Murder Case . . . .197

The McNamara Outrages . . . . . .199

Present Outlook 200 io CONTENTS

CHAPTER X The Most Active Force in England .... 203

Characteristics . . 204

Socialism Essentially English in Origin . . 207

John Ball, the First English Socialist . . . 210

The "Industrial Revolution" in England . . 213

The "Luddites" . 215

The "Chartists" 217

The "International" in England .... 223

The Social Democratic Federation .... 227

"Fabianism" 236

The Independent Labor Party 239

The Labor Party 244

Socialism Submerges Trade Unionism . . . 248

Has Socialism Been Halted? 252

The Anti-Socialist Movement 256

CHAPTER XI In Germany 260

Modification of German Socialism .... 268

French Socialism . . . 275

The Movement in Austria 279

Italian Socialism 282

Russia's Revolutionary Socialism .... 284

Belgian Socialism 291

Socialism in Holland . . . . . . . 294

In Switzerland . . 296

In Denmark 3°°

In Norway 302

In Sweden 3°3

Spain and Portugal 3°5

CONTENTS II

Chapter XII The New "international" 307

Numerical Strength of Socialism .... 310

Foreword

While making some Consular investigations of the municipal ownership and operation of certain "public utilities" in Great Britain some years ago, the writer was attracted to the study of the entire range of Socialism. He can truly say that he approached and followed up the subject with an open and receptive mind. It is a boast of Socialists that no student can make an impartial examination of Collectivism without becoming an adherent at heart, even though he may never formally enroll himself as a "comrade." That has not been so in the case of the author. Profoundly impressed as he is with the idealism of the movement, and fully appreciative of the beneficence and sound policy of many of the State's activities in spheres formerly reserved for individual enterprise, yet he has become firmly convinced that so-called Scientific or Modern Socialism — in its ultimate aim — is both ethically wrong and economically unsound and impracticable. He is confident in his own mind that an actual Collectivist Commonwealth would be a tragic failure; and he is also confident that the establishment of such a State — even as an experiment — is an impossibility within any measurable distance of time — at any rate in America.

Of books on Socialism there are many; but almost without exception they are either too technical for the average reader or are distinctly one-sided. The aim of

14 FOREWORD

the author has been to present a popular and impartial exposition of the different schools and phases of Socialism, according to the recognized authorities; and he has endeavored to fairly and adequately state all propositions and arguments even though he might radically dissent therefrom. He has not intentionally misquoted or misrepresented any individual or school of thought.

WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Two Remarkable Pronouncements

Within recent years there have been remarkable pronouncements on Socialism by two famous men, who are representatives of the highest types of American and British citizenship — Ex-President Roosevelt and Ex-Premier Rosebery. Both vehemently denounced Modern Socialism. The pronouncement by Lord Rosebery was in a speech delivered at London, on March 12, 1908, he declaring that "Socialism is the end of all — Empire, religious faith, freedom, property; Socialism is the death-blow to all!" And since then he has repeated and amplified this declaration.

Socialism in England.

Lord Rosebery's view is certainly shared by the vast majority of British subjects, who have a traditional horror of French Revolutionary Communism, with which Socialism has been associated in the popular mind in the past. But time has wrought ominous changes; and within the last decade there has been an amazing growth of Socialism in England. It is only within the last few years that the British public have come to a full realization of the extent of the development of Socialism — this development being at first by a silent, unobtrusive, permeative, and almost stealthy Fabian process, but latterly by an open and defiant militant campaign, already boastfully confident of complete success. Thoughtful students of the times now recognize that the coming, if not the imminent, issue in England is not that of Tariff Reform, Home Rule, Female Suffrage, the Abolishment of the House of Lords, the Disestablishment of the Church — but Socialism! Having become alarmed, the British public are taking steps to meet the issue. Heretofore, Socialism has had the field practically to itself in England; but now, for the first time in its history, it is confronted with intelligent and organized opposition. The gigantic struggle which has commenced in Britain will be watched with absorbing interest on this side of the Atlantic. The tendency of much of the recent British legislation in response to demands of Labor-Socialists, must inevitably have a pauperizing influence upon the working people. Such virtues as self-help, thrift, personal independence, and individual initiative — and even national patriotism — are now openly laughed to scorn by many British Socialists as out of date. Not only in the creation of sentiment among the working people has the spirit of Socialism made tremendous progress in England during the last ten years, but in actual legislation, both national and local. Nevertheless, that Socialism in its quintessence, that is, Collectivism (the public ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange), will be adopted by the British people, is unthinkable.

As the greatest of all American economic Radicals, Henry George, wrote to an English editor: "Socialism is so vague and contradictory that it cannot stand argument. Its very vagueness commends it to men who will not or cannot take the trouble to think, but in the long run the men who do think will win, if the discussion is only kept up."

It can reasonably be expected that the critical discussion and organized opposition against which British Socialism has now to contend, will finally win the day, although nothing can stop the progress of practical ameliorative legislation. But, in the meanwhile, organized Labor has "cast the die"; and before it realizes that it has made a colossal blunder in surrendering itself to Socialism — before it is compelled by hard inexorable facts to understand that the "ultimate aim" of Socialism is wildly extravagant, destructively inconoclastic, and absolutely impracticable — there will probably be bitter times in the old Mother Land. Indeed, there have already been bitter times — in the unexampled Labor- Socialist outbreaks of 191 1.

Relation to Religion and Morality.

Ex-President Roosevelt's pronouncement against Socialism appeared as an editorial in The Outlook (New York), March 20, 1909, and was his parting message to his fellow-countrymen before he went on his African hunting expedition. Here is a sample sentence in Mr. Roosevelt's editorial:

The doctrinaire Socialists, the extremists, the men who represent the doctrine in its most advanced form, are, and must necessarily be, not only convinced opponents of private property, but also bitterly hostile to all religion and morality;

in short, they must be opposed to all those principles through which alone, even an imperfect civilization can be built up by slow advances through the ages.

When Ex-President Roosevelt wrote this fierce denunciation of Modern Socialism he was the voluntary spokesman of the vast majority of his fellow-countrymen. His condemnation is quite natural as coming from a sturdy Individualist, a vigorous thinker, a family man with old-fashioned ideas of morals, and a conservative in religious matters, whose conception of the Marxian theory is based on the writings and speeches of a certain group or school, which, it might be remarked, arrogates to itself the exclusive possession of "orthodoxy."

Still, there are many Socialists whose views most certainly cannot be stigmatized as immoral. They look upon the ultimate goal of Socialism, the Co-operative Commonwealth, as purely a political, an industrial and an economic condition of society, and deny that it would have any bearing upon religion or morals, except as improved environments naturally have a tendency to raise the social and ethical status of the human race; and, at any rate, they claim, morals and religion would be exclusively a private matter, under Socialism. This is the general professed public position of present-day organized Socialism in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany.

But it can well be protested that these professions and pleadings are out of harmony with doctrines laid down by nearly all of the brainiest and most logically consistent of the exponents of what is generally recognized as orthodox Socialism. The logical application of the theories of Marxism precludes the pre-determination, by conscious individual choice or concerted resolution, of the relation of the Co-operative Commonwealth toward morals or religion, or any of the ethical, social, or even political phases of public or private life. Orthodox Marxism asserts that the entire sociological and political structure can only take form as the logical outcome of a definite process of historical development, based upon the economic system prevailing at the time. Hence, the attitude of Socialism toward morality, the family, or religion, and the probable result of the application of Socialistic theories thereon, are to be judged not by the declarations or protests of individual Socialists, nor even of international or national Socialist congresses, — seeking votes — but by the general philosophy and tendency of the movement, and there is no mistaking that philosophy and tendency, either from observation and study or from the declarations of the founders and conceded leaders of the movement.

The doctrine of the materialistic propulsive force of Socialism, — almost Oriental fatalism — as expounded by all the acknowledged orthodox followers of Marx, is not neutralized by the later expositions of amiable "trimmers," who seek to reconcile Modern Socialism with firmly-grounded and tested economies and ethics.

It is a noteworthy fact that in the English elections of 1909 the partial reversals of the astounding Socialist triumphs of 1906 were largely the result of the expose of the real position of Marxism in relation to religion and ethics. As early as 1894 Prof. Ely had foreseen what has been the greatest stumbling-block to the extensive and permanent development of Modern Socialism in English-speaking countries, for in the first edition (issued in the year named) of Socialism and Social

Reform, he says: "Socialism in England and America can be appreciated in its full strength only when it becomes entirely emancipated from the materialistic conception of history advanced by Karl Marx; for in neither country can Socialism meet with favor when it finds its basis in materialism/' This is also the position of Kirkup, the English advocate of a "purified" Socialism ; but it is also the position which is bitterly resented by the greatest advocates of Modern Socialism, living and dead.

Variations and Agreements.

The student is confronted with the fact that there are a variety of schools of Socialism; and he cannot fail to notice that some members of certain schools are as intolerant toward other schools as some "religionists" are with respect to members of other sects. It is the fashion of many Socialist writers to adopt toward opponents either a lofty air of intellectual superiority, amounting to contemptuous patronage, or else a tone of abuse. They are impatient with disputants, and seem almost amazedly indignant that anybody should be so ignorantly presumptuous as to dare to question their assertions and deductions. When no other argument is handy, there is always the claim that the non-Socialist does not understand Socialism. This is especially true of those who proudly give the prefix "Marxian" to their particular brand. American Socialists are among the worst offenders in this regard. Most of the American Socialist journals are distinguished for abusiveness, and but few of them are worthy of perusal as exponents of a world-wide movement. It is quite in the order of things for Socialists to say that Mr. Roosevelt does not understand Socialism ; but he certainly has a knowledge of one kind. A leading representative of another variety, Bernard Shaw, the English Fabian, asserts that some of the self-styled Marxians are not fully read up in and probably could not understand the writings of Karl Marx, the arch-priest of Modern Socialism. And Bernard Shaw is probably correct. Kautsky, the German editor, is still hard at it issuing further volumes of Das Kapital, but there are probably very few men, either in America or England, who have read the entire half-dozen volumes forming the complete stupendous work, the notes of which (excluding the first volume) were turned over to Engels for compilation after the death of Marx, Kautsky taking up the work after the death of the former.

Yet, there is one central point, one cardinal doctrine, as to which practically all Socialists, of all schools, are agreed, as an abstract proposition, and that is the collective ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which can be operated "socially," for the equitable good of all. At first sight it would appear that an agreement upon this point — even though the agreement be only of a general nature — is sufficient reply to the charge that there are different and conflicting kinds of Socialism; but upon investigation it will be found that there are a number of radical differences growing out of not only the interpretation of Collectivism, but also as to its application. The Collectivist Commonwealth is such a nebulosity that no two Socialists can agree even as to its outline, let alone Its concrete substance.

As to the other aspects and phases of Socialism, there is hopeless disagreement. When Socialists say, as some do, that there is only one kind of Socialism — and that is always the kind which they themselves preach — they unconsciously or deliberately shut their eyes to the facts. Next to the followers of Mr. Hyndman in England, the most professedly orthodox of them all are the Social Democracy of Germany, and they have considerably modified their attitude if not their doctrines within recent years. As to the British Socialists, the overwhelming majority of them are avowedly Fabian Opportunists, notwithstanding the declarations of the "Laborites" in favor of "class-conscious" Revolutionary Socialism, and their recent admission into the ranks of "Internationalism/' the rallying cry of which is "class consciousness" and the downfall of Capitalism.

In America.

Coming to the United States, Socialism is "in the air." There is not, as yet, any American "school." The literary leaders of the movement in this country, are, with few exceptions, adherents of rigid, cold, German Socialist Calvinism. This is primarily owing to the fact that the establishment of Socialism in America was mainly through German revolutionary immigrants. Outside of the Christian Socialists — who are little else than sentimentalists — the prevailing Socialism in this country is dominated by what the Anglo-American expounder, Spargo, designates as "the handful of German Socialist exiles in America, who sought to make the American workers swallow a mass of ill-digested Marxian theory." In this connection, Spargo quotes the greatest of all authorities next to Marx himself, Engels, who makes the following remarkable criticism of the German presentation of Socialism in America: "The Germans have never understood how to apply themselves from their theory to the level which could set the American masses in motion; to a great extent they do not understand the theory itself, and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic fashion. . . . It is a credo to them, not a guide of action." As to the unscientific, Opportunist, Fabian Socialism of England, Engels has this to say: "Here an instinctive Socialism is more and more taking possession of the masses, which, fortunately, is opposed to all distinct formulation according to the dogmas of one or the other so-called organizations." The German Socialists in America have not kept up with their comrades of the Fatherland in economic evolution.

Theoretically, the leaders of Socialism in America are, as a rule, uncompromisingly revolutionary: not that they are in favor of a physical revolution to bring about the realization of their ideas, but that they believe — as Marx taught — that social and economic conditions will get worse and worse, until finally they will become unbearable; and then, by a catastrophic change, through the proletariat securing control of the machinery of government, the Co-operative Commonwealth will be established ; that, in fact, the present economic and social state is past being mended, but must be ended: and its ending, and the substitution of Collectivism, constitute the "revolution" referred to. In justice to the "advanced," "scientific" Socialists so vigorously condemned by Mr. Roosevelt, it is proper to keep this in mind, as many critics evidently interpret the word "revolution," used in this connection, to mean a resort to physical force. There are physical-force Socialists, but they are in an infinitesimal minority in such countries as the United States, Great Britain and Germany. Broadly speaking, the school in opposition to Revolutionary Socialism is that of the Fabians, who have shaped and directed the movement in England, and whose policy is, despite assertions to the contrary, considerably modifying Marxian Socialism throughout the world. This school — destined to be the predominant one — is also known as Opportunist and Constructive. American Socialism has already commenced to cast its hard Marxian shell, and is taking on the more adaptable garment of Fabianism, of a cut and color suited to American conditions.

Is Revolution Imminent?

Both in America and England there is a popular belief that Modern Socialism, irrespective of any particular school, is directly connected with, and is, indeed, the actual descendant of, French insurrectionary Communism. This is the view taken by one of the most slashing of the English critics, W. Lawler Wilson, in a remarkable book, The Menace of Socialism. Mr. Wilson considers it practically certain that —

i. A social revolution will break out in Europe within the next two or three years.

2. This revolution will be more extensive in area and terrible in character than any that has occurred for two generations past.

3. The revolutionaries will win great temporary successes and will succeed in establishing local governments.

4. The rebellion will be suppressed after much bloodshed, after which the Social Revolutionary movement as a whole will die out for the greater part of a generation.

It is noteworthy that some Socialist writers take the same view that Mr. Wilson does, except that they believe that the revolution will be permanently successful. But, at the same time, it is proper to repeat that most of the recognized representative authorities disclaim all idea of a physical revolution.

Labor and Socialism.

There are two different Socialist organizations appealing to the suffrages of the American people, and both of them are based upon the "class consciousness" of the working men. Here it is pertinent to remark that there is no country in the world where — at present, at any rate — there is less class consciousness than in the United States, whether among the working men or any other element of the general citizenship. As Socialism has been presented to the American people, it has never (until recently) appealed to any considerable number of them, especially among the native element — not even to a large number of what, for the sake of definiteness, may be classed as the "proletariat." Socialism must be "Americanized" — that is, it must be formulated and modified to meet American ideas and conditions — before it can become a potential force in the political and social life of this country. It must be confessed that there are now circumstances and conditions in process of development which will not unlikely bring this about, irrespective of the attitude of the present leaders of either Socialism or the Trade Union movement, which at present is not a mutually cordial one; and it is noteworthy that in this respect American organized Labor occupies an absolutely unique position, as this is the only progressive country in the world in which the two movements are not allied, to a greater or less extent. In England, Socialism was nothing but a shadowy, far-off theory or cult, held by but a few, until an "alliance" with organized Labor was formed; and the cause which brought about this alliance was a judicial decision which Trade Unionists looked upon as an assault upon their organizations, by destroying them through bankrupting their treasuries, as they claimed. The judgment in question is what is known as the "Taff Vale decision/' making Trade Unions financially responsible for damages in strikes and boycotts. Some such an incident may throw organized labor in this country into the arms of Socialism. It is a fact of grave significance that the special grievance of American organized Labor is one growing out of judicial decisions, it being claimed, indeed, that in this respect American Trade Unionists are at a great disadvantage as compared with their British comrades.

Developments in America.

The American people are only just beginning to appreciate the profound importance of the question of Socialism. But until the last two years, organized Socialism has been but little in evidence in this country except during Presidential elections. It not only lacks effective organization, but it is indefinite in expression and aim. Unquestionably, the peculiar form of the American system of government — Federal and State — has something to do with the difficulty of focussing the theory upon conditions here, A characteristic difficulty which Socialism — and also Trade Unionism — has to contend against in America, as compared, say, with England, is one arising from the written Federal and State constitutions in this country. This fact makes it impossible — in a practical sense — for a State legislature or even for Congress to pass laws similar to many which have been passed by the British Parliament within the last few years. Reference is here made to laws granting special privileges and immunities to organized Labor, as is done in the new British Trades Disputes Act. But, apart from these considerations, the Co-operative Commonwealth has been too visionary, too theoretical, for the average, practical, "hurry-up" American to take much interest in it. Nevertheless, the general principles and mode of thought of the Socialists are now appealing to an ever-increasing number of Americans — and native Americans at that. The time was when Socialism, to the native American mind, was associated exclusively with recent arrivals from the Teutonic Fatherland, who discussed Karl Marx and the "coming revolution" over steins of lager beer ; but that day has passed.

In the old countries it is mainly hatred of class distinctions which has turned the hopes of the proletariat to Socialism as the only means of their redemption, socially, industrially and politically. These class distinctions originally sprang from the hereditary privileges of the few, especially as to the possession of the land; and it was no less an American than John Adams who said, "Those who own the land will rule the country." When the "industrial revolution" came about, these hereditary distinctions in Europe were supplemented by another difference almost as great, — that of the possession of the means of production by the few and the lack of ownership of these means by the many. It is a matter of common remark among Americans, when they are frank with themselves, that class distinctions are now developing in this country. While there is an absence of hereditary privileges, the distinction between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is all the time growing; and while there is not the hopeless, squalid poverty and pauperism to be even approachably seen in America as compared with England, yet, on the other hand, great wealth in the hands of the comparatively few is more arrogantly ostentatious, and is also more vigorously denounced, in America, than in the older countries; and it is also a fact that in the attainment of great wealth the rights of the people are held in less respect in America than in most other countries — although a refreshing change in this regard is within sight.

To put the matter in a nutshell : the multi-millionaire is more unpopular in America than is the hereditary aristocrat in Europe. Every candid student of the times must come to the conclusion that as the development of the ownership of the means of production in the hands of vast combinations proceeds, so likewise will there develop a growth of the class-conscious feeling among the working people of America ; and it is the full recognition of this class consciousness which is the hope and mainstay of Socialism. It may be accepted as a settled thing that the time is near at hand when the working people of America will demand actual representation in the halls of legislation — Municipal, State, and National; — in fact, that time is already here. Heretofore, the American working man has been content to be included in the general body of the electorate and citizenry. It may be said that he ought to be still so satisfied — that there ought not to be any political class distinctions; and, in an ideal state of society, this is undoubtedly true. But, under existing conditions, and in the absence of any great overwhelming public questions, men will vote as they think their own personal, selfish interests are involved. There is no such great question dividing political parties these days, and the outlook is that the coming questions to be decided will be chiefly economic. It is therefore inevitable that the working people, dependent on wages for a living, will from now on begin to look at public questions from more of a class-conscious standpoint than they formerly did; and the first expression of this change of attitude will be in the struggle for special representation in legislative bodies. In this connection it should be borne in mind that about the only great special "interest" which is not represented at Washington is that of Labor.

Socialism Already Here!

The year 1910 will be historic in the history of American Socialism: For the first time a large city (Milwaukee) elected a Socialist Mayor and government, and the first Socialist Representative to Congress (Victor Berger, of the same city) was elected. And in 191 1 Socialism won some notable triumphs in local elections.

Let not the American people deceive themselves. Let them take warning from the experience of the British people, who complacently (and characteristically) ignored the existence and growth of Socialism until the elections of 1906 startled them; and then they were amazed to discover what a giant Socialism was, and how it was entrenched in the very citadel of the British Empire — in the Mother of Parliaments.

Socialism — the real article, Modern, Scientific, Revolutionary Socialism — has obtained a foothold in America; it is bound to grow, and probably to grow enormously, within the not distant future. So far, organized Labor has been the rock against which Revolutionary

Socialism has beaten in vain in its efforts to become an effective political force in America. But that impediment shows signs of yielding — as it has yielded in England. Indeed, in 1910, and still more so in 191 1, organized Labor and Socialism "pooled their issues" on many questions, and there is now an increasing tendency toward a practical alliance as to "immediate demands," if not an actual acceptance of the theory of Collectivism on the part of Trade Unionism. It is significant that avowed Socialists — sometimes of the extreme Revolutionary type — are often now found at the head of Labor organizations, and in their extravagances of expression it is often difficult to determine in which capacity they speak. Notwithstanding that the Socialists have a wordy war with the old-line Trade Unionists at each annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, and notwithstanding that there is much personal bitterness between the Socialists and the President of the Federation (Samuel Gompers), yet there is an unmistakable drift toward "getting together" on the part of the rival elements, the opposition being largely one of tactics and individual jealousy.

The late Senator Hanna is often quoted as saying that the coming conflict in America will be between the forces of Socialism and anti-Socialism; and 1912 was named by him as the date of the beginning of the Titanic struggle.

Robert Owen, the Father of Modern Socialism.

The foundation idea of Modern Socialism was chiefly humanitarian: — the expression of the philanthropic love for his fellow-beings by Robert Owen, who was born at Newton, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, May 14, 1771.

His name is intimately related to America, not only on his own account, but on account of his distinguished son, Robert Dale Owen.