Finally, in reply to questions asked on the floor of Congress after this same speech, Mr. Berger said: "Any interference by the government with the rights of private property is Socialistic in tendency," that is, that every step in collectivism is a step in Socialism. Yet this demand for the restriction of the rights of private property by a conservative government is the identical principle advocated by progressives who will have nothing to do with Socialism. (See Part I, Chapter III.)
Mr. Berger and the large minority of Socialist Party members that vote with him in Party Congresses and referendums may be said to represent a combination of trade unionism of the conservative kind, and "State Socialism," together with opportunistic methods more or less in contradiction with the usual tactics of the international movement.
These methods and the indiscriminate support of conservative unionism have been repeatedly rejected by the Socialists in this country. But very many Socialists who repudiate all compromise and will have nothing of Australian or British Labor Party tactics in the United States are in entire accord with Mr. Berger on "State Socialist" reform. It is thus a modified form of "State Socialism" and not Laborism that now confronts the organization and creates its greatest problem.
Mr. Charles Edward Russell, for example, says that "we are not striving for ourselves alone, but for our children," that "our aim is not merely for one country, but for all the world," that "we stand here immutably resolved against the whole of capitalism."[165] And Mr. Russell will hear nothing either of compromise or of a Labor Party. But when we come to examine the only question of practical moment, how his ideal is to be applied, we are astounded to read that, "every time a government acquires a railroad, it practices Socialism."[166]
Mr. Russell points out that "almost all the railroads in the world, outside of the United States, are now owned by government," yet in his latest book, "Business," he refers to Prussia, j.a.pan, Mexico [under Diaz], and other countries as having boldly purchased railways and coal mines when they desired them _for the common good_.[167] Mr. Russell here seems to overlook the fact that the history of Russia, j.a.pan, Mexico, and Prussia has shown that there is an intermediate stage between our status and government "for the Common Good," a stage during which the capitalist cla.s.s, having gained a more firm control over government than ever, intrusts it (with the opposition of but a few of the largest capitalists) with some of the most important business functions.
Yet Mr. Russell himself admits, by implication, that government by Business "properly informed and broadly enlightened" might continue for a considerable period, and therefore directs his shafts largely against Business Government "as at present conducted," and he realizes fully that the most needed _reforms_, even when they directly benefit the workingmen, are equally or still more to the benefit of Business:--
"In the first place, if the ma.s.ses of people become too much impoverished, the national stamina is destroyed, which would be exceedingly bad for Business in case Business should plunge us into war. In the second place, since poverty produces a steady decline in physical and mental capacity, if it goes too far, there is a lack of hands to do the work of Business and a lack of healthy stomachs to consume some of its most important products.
"For these reasons, a Government for Profits, like ours, incurs certain deadly perils, _unless it be properly informed and broadly enlightened_.
"Something of the truth of this has already been perceived by the astute gentlemen that steer the fortunes of the Standard Oil Company, a concern that in many respects may be considered the foremost present type of Business in Government. One of the rules of the Standard Oil Company is to pay good wages to its employees, and to see that they are comfortable and contented. As a result of this policy the Standard Oil Company is seldom bothered with strikes, and most of its workers have no connection with labor unions, do not listen to muck-rakers and other vile breeders of social discontent, and are quite satisfied with their little round of duties and their secure prospects in life....
"Unless Business recognizes quite fully the wisdom of similar arrangements for its employees, Business Government (_as at present conducted_) will in the end fall of its own weight."[168] (My italics.)
Surely n.o.body has given more convincing arguments than Mr. Russell himself why Business Government should go in for government ownership and measures to increase the efficiency of labor. Surely no further reasons should be needed to prove that when a government purchases a railroad to-day, it does not practice Socialism. Yet the reverse is sustained by a growing number of members of the Socialist Party (though not by a growing proportion of the Party), which indicates that the Socialism of Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Guesde, Lafargue, and the International Socialist Congresses is at present by no means as firmly rooted in this country as it is on the Continent of Europe.
FOOTNOTES:
[144] _Journal of Political Economy_, October, 1911.
[145] In her "American Socialism of the Present Day" (p. 252) Miss Hughan _denies that there are many varieties of American Socialism_, and says that the a.s.sertion that there are is justified only the many shades of _tactical policy_ to be found in the Party, "founded usually on corresponding gradations of emphasis upon the idea of catastrophe."
I do not contend that there are _many_ varieties of Socialism within the Party either here or in other countries, but I have pointed out that there are _several_ and that _their differences are profound, if not irreconcilable_. It is precisely because they are founded on differences in tactics, _i.e. on real instead of theoretical_ grounds that they are of such importance, for as long as present conditions continue, they are likely to lead farther and farther apart, while new conditions may only serve to bring new differences.
[146] Eugene V. Debs in the _International Socialist Review_ (Chicago), Jan. 1, 1911.
[147] The _Social-Democratic Herald_ (Milwaukee), Oct. 12, 1901.
[148] The _Social-Democratic Herald_, Feb. 22, 1902.
[149] The _Social-Democratic Herald_, May 28, 1904.
[150] _Press Despatch_, Aug. 26, 1911.
[151] _New York Journal_, April 22, 1910.
[152] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, No. 12.
[153] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, No. 12.
[154] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, March 24, 1906.
[155] The following account is taken from the Garment Workers"
Bulletin:--
"Recently the hod carriers in San Francisco presented a pet.i.tion to their employers for increased pay and pressed for its consideration.
This gave the members of the National a.s.sociation of Manufacturers the opportunity they longed for to open war in San Francisco, and they promptly availed themselves of it. The pet.i.tion was refused, of course, and two large lime manufacturers in the city took a hand. The contractors resolved on heroic measures, and work was stopped on some sixty buildings to "bring labor to its senses." Then Mayor McCarthy came into the controversy. He called his board of public workers together and remarked: "I see all the contractors are tying up work because of the hod carriers" request. Better notify these fellows to at once clear all streets of building material before these structures and to move away those elevated walks and everything else from the streets." The board so ordered. Then Mr. McCarthy said: "Notice that those lime fellows are taking quite an interest in starting trouble. Guess we had better notify them that their temporary permits for railroad spurs to their plants are no longer in force." And due notice went forth. The result was that the trouble with the hod carriers was settled in a week, and the contemplated industrial war in the city was indefinitely postponed...."
[156] The _Bridgeport Socialist_, Oct. 29, 1911.
[157] The _New York Times_, Oct. 20, 1911.
[158] _New Yorker Volkszeitung_, Dec. 9, 1911.
[159] _New York Evening Post_, Nov. 13, 1911.
[160] _Collier"s Weekly_, Dec. 9, 1911.
[161] _Sat.u.r.day Evening Post_, Nov. 18, 1911.
[162] The _Outlook_, Aug. 26, 1911.
[163] The _New York Call_, Aug. 14, 1911.
[164] W. R. Shier in the _New York Call_, Aug. 16, 1911.
[165] Speech at Carnegie Hall, New York, Oct. 15, 1910.
[166] _Hampton"s Magazine_, January, 1911.
[167] "Business," p. 290.
[168] "Business," p. 114.
CHAPTER V
REFORM BY MENACE OF REVOLUTION
An American Socialist author expresses the opinion of many Socialists when he says of the movement: "It strives by all efforts in its power to increase its vote at the ballot box. It believes that by this increase the attainment of its goal is brought ever nearer, and also that _the menace of this increasing vote_ induces the capitalist cla.s.s to grant concessions in the hope of preventing further increases. _It criticizes non-Socialist efforts at reform as comparatively barren of positive benefit_ and as tending, on the whole, to insure the dominance of the capitalist cla.s.s and to continue the grave social evils now prevalent."[169] (My italics.)
Because non-Socialist reforms tend to prolong the domination of the capitalist cla.s.s, which no Socialist doubts, it is a.s.serted that they are also comparatively barren of positive benefit. And if, from time to time and in contradiction to this view, changes are bought about by non-Socialist governments which undeniably do very much improve the condition of the working people, it is reasoned that this was done by the _menace_ either of a Socialist revolution or of a Socialist electoral majority.
"A _Socialist_ reform must be in the nature of a working-cla.s.s conquest," says Mr. Hillquit in his "Socialism in Theory and Practice"--expressing this very widespread Socialist opinion. He says that reforms inaugurated by small farmers, manufacturers, or traders, cause an "arrest of development or even a return to conditions of past ages, while the reforms of the more educated cla.s.ses if less reactionary are not of a more efficient type."
"The task of developing and extending factory legislation falls entirely on the organized workmen," according to this view, because the dominant cla.s.ses have no interest in developing it, while the evils of the slums and of the employment of women and children in industry can be cured only by Socialism. Such reforms as can be obtained in this direction, though they are not considered by Mr. Hillquit "as the beginnings or installments of a Socialist system," he holds are to be obtained only with Socialist aid. In other words, while capitalism is not altogether unable or unwilling to benefit the working people, it can do little, and even this little is due to the presence of the Socialists.
Another example of the "reformist"s" view may be seen in the editorials of Mr. Berger, in the _Social-Democratic Herald_, of Milwaukee, where he says that the Social-Democrats never fail to declare that with all the social reforms, good and worthy of support as they may be, conditions _cannot be permanently improved_. That is to say, present-day reforms are not only of secondary importance, but that they are of merely temporary effect.