Taxation.
Credit.
Agriculture.
Conservation of Natural Resources.
Labor Legislation.
Prisons.
The Negro.
The immediate demands are so numerous as to require a booklet of 24 pages, published by the National Office, Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill.
It is very hard to find a single reference to Socialism itself in the entire 24 pages of the Congressional Platform.
In a letter of Moses Oppenheimer, published in "The Call," New York, April 14, 1919, we are told that under the opportunist leadership of men like Hillquit, Berger, Ghent, and Robert Hunter the struggle for reforms has gradually overshadowed and supplanted the demand for the abolition of wage slavery. The writer continues:
"More and more it has resulted in petty tactics for vote catching.
Berger"s Old Age Pension bill was a glaring exhibit of opportunist incapacity.
"Immediate demands are a tactical problem! Comrade Lee knows that the tactics change with changed conditions. There was a time when the opportunists expected to win the votes of the bulk of A. F. of L. workers. Hence the sugar coating of the Socialist pill and three years of Chester M. Wright in control of "The Call."
"That is now ancient history. Lee could not repeat that chapter if he would. Nay, I believe he wouldn"t if he could.
"The powerful impulse from the movement in Europe makes itself felt over here. There is great need for reforming our front, for recasting our tactics. The old roar of opportunism led us nowhere, except to barren failure. If nothing else the experience with our Ten in Albany and our Seven in the City Hall should open our eyes.
The time for picayune politics is irrevocably gone."
In an article published in "The Proletarian," Detroit, April, 1919, page 4, Oakley Johnson thus criticises the Socialist policy of reformism as manifested in the immediate demands of the party platform:
"Socialists have been dazed time and again by the glitter of reformism. In every country the question has been an ever-present one, and, as a result, the rainbows of reform have found many chasers in the ranks of the workers. The matter seemed, up to near the end of the war, to involve more an academic dispute on tactics than a principle of vital importance. There seemed too many good reasons why immediate demands for slight concessions should not be worked for, as a step in the direction of proletarian emanc.i.p.ation.
"When, however, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia showed the stand taken by the reformist groups--a stand in defense of capitalism when capitalism was about to fall--the uncompromisingly revolutionary att.i.tude of Marxian Socialists toward reform in the past was amply justified. And when, in the course of a few months, the reformistic Majority Socialists of Germany took exactly the same stand as the Kerensky crowd had taken, there could no longer be any doubt that the purpose of reform parties in capitalistic society is to function as the last obstacle to the victory of the proletariat....
"The fact is, there is a threefold objection to reformism as a working-cla.s.s policy. In the first place it is a waste of effort, for the same zeal displayed by short-sighted reform-Socialists would, if applied in the propagation of straight Socialism, treble the strength of the movement in a few months" time. In the second place reformism obscures the real end in view, develops confusionists rather than revolutionists, gives capitalist political parties a chance to steal a few "Socialist" planks and thus bid for the Socialist vote, and, worst of all, paves the way to such tragedies as are now occurring in Germany, where Liebknecht and Luxemberg have been murdered by their "reform" comrades(?). And finally, in the third place, even if reform be the sole object in view, reformism is the poorest policy to follow to get it. A proletariat organized for revolutionary ends has no difficulty in securing reforms; it does not need to ask for them, for an awakened and apprehensive bourgeoisie will shower reforms upon them like the proverbial manna. If, indeed, workers want only reforms, why take the longest way around?"
"The New Age," Buffalo, April 10, 1919, page 4, rejoices that the reformists of the Socialist Party, whose policy it is to pay more attention to the immediate demands than to the principles of Socialism, have now a serious rival in the New Labor Party:
"Now that the New Labor Party is established (and in Chicago recently they polled more votes than the Socialists), we wonder what the old machine will do to combat this new octopus that threatens the big vote that used to belong to "US." Answer: Teach the working cla.s.s real Socialism, the Socialism of Marx and Engels."
The millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, of Chicago, has a very interesting article on "Socialist Platforms" in "The Communist,"
Chicago, April 1, 1919:
"Confession is good for the soul. Let the Socialist Party of the World now stand up and confess that it bears a close resemblance to other political parties in that, like the others, its platforms are mostly bunk.
"The difference between its platforms and others is that the others mean nothing while its platforms mean anything. The difference between Socialists and other politicians is that the Socialists mean what they think their platforms mean while the others mean only to get office.
"This follows from the state of affairs we have had in the world since 1914, when Socialists became so diverse in words and deeds.
Most of those on both sides are honest. The trouble is the vagueness of the words of the Socialist propaganda.
"Socialist thought should be so clearly stated in its platforms that no one can doubt its meaning. This will eliminate from the party the reformers and compromisers who are such a source of weakness to the movement. It will also make clear to the workers that the movement really means something.
"Take, for instance, the case of the party"s att.i.tude toward war.
Socialists are said to be opposed to all wars--then come the exceptions: wars of "defense," "invasion," "emanc.i.p.ation,"
"liberation," and all the meaningless tribe. Confusion results. We have the German Majority Socialists, i.e., so-called Socialists, supporting their government in a war of "defense" against "invasion" and of the maintenance of their "liberties"--G.o.d save the mark--against Russian autocracy....
"Without knowing the precise intention of those who drafted the St.
Louis platform, I infer that it was partly written in the hope--if not belief--that the American workers would rise against their oppressors and the situation to which they have been subjected. It was a ringing declaration--a "ma.s.s movement" of the delegates to the convention, later endorsed by the party membership. And as these delegates separated hot-foot for home, they got cold feet as they dispersed into the cold-footed isolation of the individual Socialist scattered here and there throughout this land. The platform contained no statement of individual duty, no individual program of action Each Socialist began to ask as his feet got colder and colder: "Where are these "ma.s.s movements;" what are the others going to do?" The situation was made worse by the action of the National Executive Committee which told every Socialist to read the St. Louis platform and then act as his conscience dictated.
Fine business for a revolutionary ma.s.s movement seeking to establish the co-operative commonwealth. No anarchist could be more individualistic.
"The party"s att.i.tude toward war should be cleared up. It should definitely provide for ma.s.s action, and bind the individuals of the party as units of the party ma.s.s. This war platform should be followed by a Workers" Mobilization plan carefully worked out in detail and laying down action in response to each step taken in approach to war. For instance, on the introduction of the War Declaration in Congress, a one-day general strike just to show the rulers what was in store. On pa.s.sage of the War Declaration a general strike, refusal to serve in the military forces, and such other measures as may be effective."
"The Appeal to Reason" some years ago was the leading Socialist paper of the United States. In 1917 it came out in favor of war with the Central Powers. Either because of this, or because it violently a.s.sailed Bolshevism for a long while, it is now outlawed by the greater part of the Socialist Party.
On the editorial page of "The Call," New York, April 24, 1919, we read:
"Instead of the "Appeal to Reason" asking for a pardon for Debs, it should ask a pardon from Debs."
In "The Bulletin," Chicago, March 24, 1919, there appears on page 12 a bitter attack on "The Appeal" by no less a personage than Adolph Germer, National Secretary of the Socialist Party. In this official paper, issued by the National Office, Socialist Party, we read:
"An Open Letter to "The Appeal."
"_March_ 19, 1919.
"Editor Appeal to Reason,
"Girard, Kans.:
"Sir.--In the issue of the "Appeal to Reason," March 15, 1919, you publish an appeal for $30,000 CASH, for an alleged "Amnesty and Construction Fight."
"You give yourself credit for having "won" the first skirmish in the amnesty fight and on the basis of this unfounded claim, you justify your appeal for $30,000 CASH. To make your appeal seem legitimate, you use such names as Eugene V. Debs, Kate Richards O"Hare, Rose Pastor Stokes and refer to "many of our comrades." I happen to be one of those who is facing a prison sentence and if you have included me in "many of the comrades," I want you to strike my name from your list. I loathe to be a "comrade" of yours.
You and your paper helped to create a hatred against the Socialist Party and you wilfully and maliciously lied about the National Executive Committee when it refused to follow a course that would put more of our members in prison. In other words, you and your paper must bear a part of the responsibility for the prosecution and persecution of the Socialists and it is rank hypocrisy for you to prate about your fight for amnesty.
"Others may speak for themselves, but I scorn any effort that you make in my behalf. A thousand times would I rather spend the rest of my life behind prison bars than to have one word from you whom I hold responsible for the persecutions of which my colleagues and I are victims.
"I look upon your appeal for $30,000 CASH, in the name of "Amnesty," as a sinister method of filling your own coffers.
"You have lied to us and about us and betrayed us in the past and I resent your hypocritical prattle about amnesty.
"Yours without respect,
"Adolph Germer,
"_National Secretary, Socialist Party_."
Judging from the bitter attacks that Socialists are making upon each other, it would seem that there might be a little harmony in the party if their platforms were limited to the principles of Socialism and were not concerned with "immediate demands" to the almost total exclusion of Socialism itself.
CHAPTER VII
SOCIALISM IN PRACTICE