[113] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 1.
[114] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 114.
[115] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 116.
[116] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 130.
[117] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 91.
[118] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 4.
[119] Report on Fabian Policy, p. 13.
[120] The _Socialist Review_, January, 1909, p. 888.
[121] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 46.
[122] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 6.
[123] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 133.
[124] Editorial in the _Socialist Review_ (London), May, 1910.
[125] "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 12.
[126] Andrew Carnegie, "Problems of To-day," pp. 123 ff.
[127] The _New Age_, Nov. 4, 1909.
[128] "Fabian Essays," p. 180.
[129] "Fabian Essays," p. 187.
[130] "Fabian Essays," p. 184.
[131] "Fabianism and the Empire," p. 5.
[132] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.
[133] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.
[134] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," pp. 116, 132.
[135] H. G. Wells, "First and Last Things," p. 242.
[136] The _New Age_ (London), June 23, 1910.
[137] The _New Age_, June 2, 1910.
[138] The _New Age_, Dec. 23, 1909.
[139] The _New Age_, Jan. 4, 1908.
[140] The _New Age_, June 23, 1910.
[141] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22 and 29, 1911.
[142] The _New Age_, March 26, 1910.
[143] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22, 1911.
CHAPTER IV
"REFORMISM" IN THE UNITED STATES
Because of our greater European immigration and more advanced economic development, the Socialist movement in this country, as has been remarked by many of those who have studied it, is more closely affiliated with that of the continent of Europe than with that of Great Britain.
The American public has been grievously misinformed as to the development of revolutionary Socialism in this country. A typical example is the widely noticed article by Prof. Robert F. Hoxie, ent.i.tled, "The Rising Tide of Socialism."
After a.n.a.lyzing the Socialist vote into several contradictory elements, Professor Hoxie concludes:--
"There seems to be a definite law of the development of Socialism which applies both to the individual and to the group. The law is this: The creedalism and immoderateness of Socialism, other things being equal, vary inversely with its age and responsibility. The average Socialist recruit begins as a theoretical impossibilist and develops gradually into a constructive opportunist. Add a taste of real responsibility and he is hard to distinguish from a liberal reformer."[144]
On the contrary, the "theoretical impossibilists," however obstructive, have never been more than a handful, and the revolutionists, in spite of the very considerable and steady influx of reformers into the movement, have increased still more rapidly. That is, revolutionary Socialism is growing in this country--as elsewhere--and a very large and increasing number of the Socialists are become more and more revolutionary. From the beginning the American movement has been radical and the "reformists" have been heavily outvoted in every Congress of the present Party--in 1901, 1904, 1908, and 1910, while the most prominent revolutionist, Eugene V. Debs, has been its nominee for President at each Presidential election, since its foundation (1900, 1904, and 1908).[145]
Aside from a brief experience with the so-called munic.i.p.al Socialism in Ma.s.sachusetts in 1900 and 1902, the national movement gave little attention to the effort to secure the actual enactment of immediate reforms until the success of the Milwaukee Socialists (in 1910) in capturing the city government and electing one of its two Congressmen.
There had always been a program of reforms indorsed by the Socialists.
But this program had been misnamed "Immediate Demands," as the Party had concentrated its attention _almost exclusively_ on its one great demand, the overthrow of capitalist government.
In the fall elections of 1910 it was observed for the first time that certain Socialist candidates in various parts of the country ran far ahead of the rest of the Socialist ticket, and that some of those elected to legislatures and local offices owed their election to this fact. This appeared to indicate that these candidates had bid for and obtained a large share of the non-Socialist vote. A cry of alarm was thereupon raised by many American Socialists. The statement issued by Mr. Eugene V. Debs on this occasion, ent.i.tled "Danger Ahead," was undoubtedly representative of the views of the majority. As Mr. Debs has been, on three occasions, the unanimous choice of the Socialist Party of the United States as its candidate for the Presidency, he remains unquestionably the most influential member of the Party. I, therefore, quote his statement at length, as the most competent estimate obtainable of the present situation as regards reformism in the American Socialist movement:--
"The danger I see ahead," wrote Mr. Debs, "is that the Socialist Party at this stage, and under existing conditions, is apt to attract elements which it cannot a.s.similate, and that it may be either weighted down, or torn asunder with internal strife, or that it may become permeated and corrupted with the spirit of bourgeois reform to an extent that will practically destroy its virility and efficiency as a revolutionary organization.
"To my mind the working-cla.s.s character and the revolutionary integrity of the Socialist Party are of the first importance. _All the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to be a revolutionary party or became only incidentally so, while yielding_ more and more to the pressure to modify the principles and program of the Party for the sake of swelling the vote and hastening the day of its expected triumph.... The truth is that we have not a few members who regard vote getting as of supreme importance, no matter by what method the votes may be secured, and this leads them to hold out inducements and make representations which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncompromising principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give offense to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for votes rather than as a means of education, and _votes thus secured do not properly belong to us and do injustice to our Party as well as those who cast them_.... The election of legislative and administrative officers, here and there where the Party is still in a crude state and the members economically unprepared and politically unfit to a.s.sume the responsibilities thrust upon them as the result of popular discontent, will inevitably bring trouble and set the Party back, instead of advancing it, and while this is to be expected and is to an extent unavoidable, we should court no more of that kind of experience than is necessary to avoid a repet.i.tion of it. The Socialist Party has already achieved some victories of this kind which proved to be defeats, crushing and humiliating, and from which the party has not even now, after many years, entirely recovered [referring, doubtless, to Haverhill and Brockton.--W. E. W.].
"Voting for Socialism is not Socialism any more than a menu is a meal....
"The votes will come rapidly enough from now on without seeking them, and we should make it clear that the Socialist Party wants the votes only of those who want Socialism, and that, above all, as a revolutionary party of the working cla.s.s, it discountenances vote seeking for the sake of votes and holds in contempt office seeking for the sake of office. These belong entirely to capitalist parties with their bosses and their boodle and have no place in a party whose shibboleth is emanc.i.p.ation."[146] (My italics.)
After Mr. Debs, Mr. Charles Edward Russell is now, perhaps, the most trusted of American Socialists. His statement, made a few months later (see the _International Socialist Review_ for March, 1912), reaches identical conclusions. As it is made from the entirely independent standpoint of the observations of a practical journalist as to political methods, it strongly reenforces and supplements Mr. Debs"s conclusions, drawn chiefly from labor union experience. As I have already quoted Mr.
Russell at length in the previous chapter, a few paragraphs will give a sufficient idea of this important declaration:--