THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM


                                    BY
                             ALLAN L. BENSON

 Author of “The Usurped Power of the Courts,” “The Growing Grocery Bill,”
                       “Socialism Made Plain,” etc.

[Illustration]

                                NEW YORK
                             B. W. HUEBSCH
                                  1913




                            Copyright, 1912
                     BY THE PEARSON PUBLISHING CO.

                            Copyright, 1913
                           BY ALLAN L. BENSON

[Illustration]

                     First printing, February, 1913
                      Second printing, March, 1913
                       Third printing, May, 1913




                                CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE
    I TO THE DISINHERITED                                              1
   II WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHY IT IS                                  4
  III THE VIRTUOUS GRAFTERS AND THEIR GRAVE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM   24
   IV WHY SOCIALISTS PREACH DISCONTENT                                43
    V HOW THE PEOPLE MAY ACQUIRE THE TRUSTS                           63
   VI THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY” BOGEY-MAN                                81
  VII SOCIALISM THE LONE FOE OF WAR                                   99
 VIII WHY SOCIALISTS OPPOSE “RADICAL POLITICIANS”                    120
   IX THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COAL QUESTION                              139
    X DEATHBEDS AND DIVIDENDS                                        153
   XI IF NOT SOCIALISM—WHAT?                                         166
      APPENDIX                                                       183




                       The Truth About Socialism




                               CHAPTER I
                          TO THE DISINHERITED


I am going to put a new heart into you. I am going to put your shoulders
back and your head up. Behind your tongue I shall put words, and behind
your words I shall put power. Your dead hopes I shall drag back from the
grave and make them live. Your live fears I shall put into the grave and
make them die. I shall do all of these things and more by becoming your
voice. I shall say what you have always thought, but did not say. And,
when your own unspoken words come back to you, they will come back like
rolling thunder.

This country belongs to the people who live in it.

The power that made the Rocky Mountains did not so make them that,
viewed from aloft, they spell “Rockefeller.”

The monogram of Morgan is nowhere worked out in the course of the Hudson
River.

Nothing above ground or below ground indicates that this country was
made for anybody in particular.

Everything above ground and below ground indicates that it was made for
everybody.

Yet, this country, as it stands to-day, is not for everybody. Everybody
has not an equal opportunity in it. A few do nothing and have
everything. The rest do everything and have nothing.

A great many gentlemen are engaged in the occupation of trying to make
these wrongs seem right. They write political platforms to make them
seem right. They make political speeches to make them seem right. They
go to Congress to make them seem right. Some go even to the White House
to make them seem right. But no mere words, however fine, can make these
wrongs right.

The conditions that exist in this country to-day are indefensible and
intolerable. This should be a happy country. It should be a happy
country because it contains an abundance of every element that is
required to make happiness. The pangs of hunger should never come to a
single human being, because we already produce as much food as we need,
and with more intelligent effort could easily produce enough to supply a
population ten times as great.

Yet, instead of this happy land, we have a land in which the task of
making a living is constantly becoming greater and more uncertain.
Everything seems to be tied up in a knot that is becoming tighter.

You do not know what is the matter.

Your neighbor does not know what is the matter.

Why should you know what is the matter?

You never listen to anybody who wants you to find out. You listen only
to men who want to squeeze you out. Their word is good with you every
time. You may not think it is good, but it is good. You may not take
advice from Mr. Morgan, but you take advice from Mr. Morgan’s
Presidents, Congressmen, writers, and speakers. You may not take advice
from Mr. Ryan, but you take advice from the men whom Mr. Ryan controls.
If you should go straight to Mr. Ryan you would get the same advice.
What these men say to you, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Ryan say to them. You
listen as they speak. You vote as they vote. They get what they want.
You don’t get what you want. But you stick together. You seem never to
grow tired. You were with them at the last election. Many of you will be
with them at the next election. But you will not be with them for a
while after the next election. They will go to their fine homes, while
you go to your poor ones. They will take no fear with them, save the
fear that some day you will wake up; that some day you will listen to
men who talk to you as I am talking to you. But you will take the fear
of poverty with you, and it will hang like a pall over your happiness.

If you have lost your hope of happiness, get it back. This can be a
happy nation in your time. This country is for you. It is big. It is
rich. It is all you need. But you will have to take it, and the easiest
way to take it is with ballots.




                               CHAPTER II
                    WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHY IT IS


The occupation of the scarlet woman is said to be “the oldest
profession.” If so, the robbery of man by man is the oldest trade. It is
as old as the human race. It had its origin in the difficulty of
producing enough of the material necessities of life. The earth was
lean. Man was weak. Never was there enough food for all. Many must
suffer. Some must starve.

What wonder that man robbed man? Self-preservation is the first law of
nature. We have always fought and shall always fight for those things
that are scarce and without which we should die. If water were scarce,
we should all be fighting by the brookside. If air were scarce, we
should all be straining our lungs to take in as much as we could.

But what wonder, also, that the robbed should resist those who robbed
them? The robbed, too, have the instinct of self-preservation. They,
too, want to live. All through the ages, they have fought for the right
to live. By the sheer force of numbers, they have driven their
exploiters from pillar to post. Again and again, they have compelled
their exploiters to abandon one method of robbery, only to see them take
up another. And, though some men no longer own other men’s bodies, some
men still live by the sweat of other men’s brows.

The question is: Must this go on forever? Must a few always live so far
from poverty that they cannot see it, while the rest live so close to it
that they cannot see anything else? Must millions of women work in
factories at men’s work, while millions of men walk the streets unable
to get any work? Must the cry of child-labor forever sound to high
heaven above the rumble of the mills that grind their bodies into
dividends? Must the pinched faces of underfed children always make some
places hideous?

No man in his senses will say that this situation must always exist.
Human nature revolts at it. The wrong of it rouses the feelings even
before it touches the intellect. Something within us tells us to cry out
and to keep crying out until we find relief. We have tried almost every
remedy that has been offered to us, but every remedy we have tried has
failed. The hungry children are still with us. The hungry women are
still with us. The hungry men are still with us. Never before was it so
hard for most people to live. Yet, we live at a time when men, working
with machinery, could make enough of everything for everybody.

Your radical Republican recognizes these facts and says something is the
matter. Your Democratic radical recognizes these facts and says
something is the matter. Your Rooseveltian Progressive also recognizes
these facts and says something is the matter. But if you will carefully
listen to these gentlemen, you will observe that none of them believes
much is the matter. None of them believes much need be done to make
everything right. One wants to loosen the tariff screw a little. The
others want to put a new little wheel in the anti-trust machine.

Socialists differ from each of these gentlemen. Socialists say much is
the matter with this country. Socialists say much is the matter with any
country, most of whose people are in want or in fear of want, and some
of whose people are where want never comes or can come. Some such
conditions might have been tolerated a thousand years ago. Socialists
will not tolerate them to-day. They say the time for poverty has passed.
They say the time for poverty passed when man substituted steam and
electricity for his muscles and machinery for his fingers.

But poverty did not go out when steam and electricity came in. On the
contrary, the fear of want became intensified. Now, nobody who has not
capital can live unless he can get a job. In the days that preceded the
steam engine, nobody had to look for a job. Everybody owned his own job.
The shoemaker could make shoes for his neighbors. The weaver could weave
cloth. Each could work at his trade, without anybody’s permission,
because the tools of their trades were few and inexpensive. Now, neither
of them can work at his trade, because the tools of his trade have
become numerous and expensive. The tools of the shoemaker’s trade are in
the great factory that covers, perhaps, a dozen acres. The tools of the
weaver’s trade are in another enormous factory. Neither the shoemaker
nor the weaver can ever hope to own the tools of his trade. Nor, with
the little hand-tools of the past centuries, can either of them compete
with the modern factories. The shoe trust, with steam, electricity and
machinery, can make a pair of shoes at a price that no shoemaker,
working by hand, could touch.

Thus the hand-workers have been driven to knock at the doors of the
factories that rich men own and ask for work. If the rich men can see a
profit in letting the poor men work, the poor men are permitted to work.
If the rich men cannot see a profit in letting the poor men work, then
the poor men may not work. Though there be the greatest need for shoes,
if those in need have no money, the rich men lock up their factories and
wave the workers away. The workers may starve, if they like. Their wives
and children may starve. The workers may become tramps, criminals or
maniacs; their wives and their little children may be driven into the
street—but the rich men who closed their factories because they could
see no profit in keeping them open—these rich men take no part of the
responsibility. They talk about the “laws of trade,” go to their clubs
and have a little smoke, and, perhaps, the next week give a few dollars
to “worthy charity” and forget all about the workers.

Now, the Socialists are extremely tired of all this. Their remedy may be
all wrong, but they are tired of all this. Put the accent upon the
_tired_ all the time. They say it is all wrong. Not only do they say it
is all wrong, but they say they know how to make it all right. They do
not propose to do any small job of tinkering, because they say that if
small jobs of tinkering were enough to cure the great evil of poverty,
we should have cured it long ago. They say we have been tinkering with
tariffs, income taxes and the money question for a hundred years without
reducing either want or the fear of want. They say we have made no
progress, during the last hundred years, in reducing want and the fear
of want, because we have never hit the grafters where they live. By
this, they mean that we have never cut the tap root upon which robbery
grows. The serfs cut off the tap root when they threw off chattel
slavery, but another tap root has grown and we have not yet discovered
where to strike.

The Socialists say they know where to strike.

“_Strike at the machinery of the country_,” they say, “_by having the
people, through the government, own the machinery of the country_.”

“_Cut out the profits of the private owners_,” they say. “_Let the
people own the trusts and make things because they want the things,
instead of because somebody else wants a profit, and there will never
again be in this country either want or the fear of want._”

This sounds like a nice, man-made program, cooked up late at night by
some zealous gentleman intent upon saving his country. It may be a
foolish program, but if it is, it is not that kind of a foolish program.
It is not man-made, any more than Darwin’s theory of evolution is
man-made. Darwin observed present animal life and thereby explained the
past. Socialists observe past and present industrial life and thereby
forecast the future. Paradoxically, then, the Socialist remedy is not a
Socialist remedy. If it is anything, it is the remedy that evolution is
bringing to us. Socialists see what evolution is bringing and proclaim
it, much as a trainman announces the coming of a train that he already
sees rounding a curve.

Let me tell a story to illustrate this point:

Seventy years ago, Socialist writers predicted and accurately described
the trusts as they exist to-day. Nobody paid much attention to the
predictions or the descriptions. Nowhere in the world was there a single
trust. Nowhere in the world was any one thinking of forming one. The
first trust was not formed until almost forty years later.

The trusts were predicted because the steam engine had been invented and
brought with it machinery. The invention did not mean much to most
people. It meant everything to these early Socialists. They saw its
significance. They saw that it meant a transformed world. Never again
would the world be as it had always been. Never again would the amount
of wealth that man could create be limited by his weak muscles. Steam
and machinery had come to do, not only what he had been doing, but what
he had never dreamed of doing.

The only lesson that the rich men of the day learned from steam was that
it meant more money for them. The rich men of the day, by the way, were
in need of a new method of exploitation. Serfdom had just gone down in
the Napoleonic wars, and some men were no longer able to exploit other
men by claiming to own the other men’s bodies. Exploitation, through the
private ownership of land, still continued, it is true, but a man
working by hand cannot be much exploited because he cannot make much.
What I mean by this is that he cannot be exploited of many dollars. Of
course, he can be exploited of so great a percentage of his product that
he is left starving, but the man who exploits him will not be much
richer. That is why there were no great fortunes, as we now know them,
in the days before the machinery age. Wealth was too difficult to make.

But, to return to our story. The invention of the steam engine gave the
rich men of the early eighteenth century the opportunity of which they
stood much in need. Factories cost money. The workers did not have any.
The rich men did. The rich men built factories. That is to say, they
thought they were only building factories. As a matter of fact, they
were taking over, from the hands of evolution, the poor man’s tools.
Never again were working men to own the tools of their trades. Their
tools had gone down in the struggle in which the survivors must be the
fittest. For centuries, the world had starved because of their old
hand-tools. They could not, for a moment, exist after steam and
machinery came. It was right that the hand-tools should go. It was
unfortunate for the workers only that the successors of hand-tools were
too expensive for individual ownership, and that they were also unsuited
to such ownership. No man can run a whole shoe factory, even if he owns
one. Many men are required to run many machines, and many machines are
required to make the labor of men most productive.

All of this, the early Socialists saw or reasoned out. They saw the rich
men of the day building factories. They saw those who were not quite so
rich joining together to build factories. Little co-partnerships were
springing up all over the world. Everybody competed with everybody else
in his line. Manufactures multiplied, and it became the common belief
that “competition was the life of trade.”

_Stick a pin here. The roots of Socialism go down somewhere near this
point._

The early Socialist writers who predicted the trusts did not believe
competition was the life of trade. They believed the inevitable tendency
of competition was to kill itself. Their reasoning took this form:

    _Manufacturers engage in business, not because they want to
    supply goods to the public, but because they want to make
    profits for themselves._

    _Inasmuch as the question of who shall make the profits depends
    upon who shall sell the goods, manufacturers will compete with
    each other to sell goods._

    _Manufacturers will be able to compete and still make a profit
    so long as the demand for goods far exceeds the supply._

    _But the demand for goods will not always far exceed the supply.
    The opportunity to make profits will tempt other capitalists to
    create manufacturing enterprises. The market will become glutted
    with goods, because more will have been produced than the people
    can pay for._

    _Competition among manufacturers will then become so fierce that
    profits will first shrink and eventually disappear._

    _Manufacturers, to regain their profits, will then cease to
    compete. The strongest will buy out or crush the weakest.
    Monopolies will be formed, primarily to end competition and save
    the competitors from themselves, but, having been formed, they
    will also be used to rob the people._

Mind you—this reasoning is not new. It is seventy years old. It sounds
new only because it has so recently come true. Nobody whose eyes are
open now believes that competition is the life of trade. The phrase has
died upon the lips of the very men who used to speak it. The late
Senator Hanna was one of the many who used to believe that good trade
could not be where competition was not. But, when the great trust
movement of 1898 was under way, Senator Hanna said: “It is not a
question of whether business men do or do not believe in trusts. It is a
question only of whether business men want to be killed by competition
or saved by coöperation.”

However, the existence of the trusts is ample verification of the
Socialist prophecy that they would come. And the trusts came in the way
that the early Socialists said they would come.

We may now proceed to consider what those early Socialist writers
thought of the trusts that they so accurately described before they
came, what they believed would become of them and what they believed
would supplant them.

No Socialist was ever heard finding fault with a trust simply for
existing. A Socialist would as soon find fault with a green apple
because it had been produced from a blossom. In fact, Socialists regard
the trusts as the green apples upon the tree of industrial evolution.
But they would no more destroy these industrial green apples that are
making the world sick than they would destroy the green apples that make
small boys sick. They pause, first because they are evolutionists, not
only in biology, but in everything; second, because they recall that the
green apples that make the boy sick will, if left to ripen, make the man
well. In short, Socialists regard trusts, or private monopolies, as a
necessary stage in industrial evolution; a stage that we could not have
avoided; a stage that in many respects, represents a great advance over
any phase of civilization that preceded it, yet a stage at which we
cannot stop unless civilization stops. Therefore, Socialists take this
position:

    _It is flying in the face of evolution itself to talk about
    destroying, or even effectually regulating the trusts._

    _Private monopolies cannot be destroyed except as green apples
    can be destroyed—by crushing them and staying the evolutionary
    processes that, if left alone, will yield good fruit._

    _Private monopolies cannot be effectually regulated because, so
    long as they are permitted to exist, they will regulate the
    government instead of permitting the government to regulate
    them. They will regulate the government because the great
    profits at stake will give them the incentive to do so and the
    enormous capital at their command will give them the power to do
    so._

In other words, Socialists say that the processes of evolution should go
on. What do they mean by this? They mean that the good elements of the
trust principle should be preserved and the bad elements destroyed. What
are the good elements? The economies of large, well-ordered production,
and the avoidance of the waste due to haphazard, competitive production.
And the bad elements? The powers that private monopoly gives, through
control of market and governmental policies, to rob the consumer.

Socialists contend that the good can be saved and the bad destroyed by
converting the private monopolies into public monopolies—in other words,
by letting the government own the trusts and the people own the
government. This may seem like what the foes of Socialism would call a
“patent nostrum.” It is nothing of the kind. It is no more a patent
nostrum than the trusts are patent nostrums. Socialists invented neither
private monopolies nor public monopolies. Socialists did not kill
competition. Competition killed itself. Socialists simply were able to
foresee that too much competition would end all competition and thus
give birth to private monopoly.

And, having seen thus far, they looked a little further and saw that
private monopoly would not be an unmixed blessing. They saw that under
it, robbery would be practised in new, strange and colossal forms. They
knew the people would not like robbery in any form. They knew they would
cry out against it as they are crying out against the trusts to-day. And
they believed that after having tried to destroy the trusts and failed
at that; after having tried to regulate the trusts and failed at that,
that the people would cease trying to buck evolution, and get for
themselves the benefits of the trusts by owning them.

This may be an absurd idea, but in part, at least, it has already been
verified. It has been demonstrated that private monopoly saves the
enormous sums that were spent in the competitive era to determine
whether this man or that man should get the profit upon the things you
buy. The consumer has absolutely no interest in the identity of the
capitalist who exploits him. But when capitalists were competing for
trade, the consumer was made to bear the whole cost of fighting for his
trade.

Private monopoly has largely done away with the cost of selling trust
goods, by doing away with the individual competitors who were once
struggling to put their goods upon the market. Private monopoly has also
reduced the cost of production by introducing the innumerable economies
that accompany large production.

What private monopoly has not done and will never do is to pass along
these savings to the consumers. The monopolists have passed along some
of the savings, but not many of them. What they have passed along bears
but a small proportion to what they have kept. That is what most of the
trouble is about now. The people find it increasingly difficult to live.
For a dozen years, it has been increasingly difficult to live.
Persistent and more persistent has been the demand that something be
done about the trusts.

The first demand was that the trusts be destroyed. Now, Mr. Bryan is
about the only man in the country to whom the conviction has not been
borne home that the trusts cannot be destroyed. The rest of the people
want the trusts regulated, and the worst of the trust magnates sent to
jail. Up to date, not a single trust has been regulated, nor a single
trust magnate sent to jail. Officially, of course, the Standard Oil
Company, the American Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust have been
cleansed in the blue waters of the Supreme Court laundry and hung upon
the line as white as snow. But gentlemen who are not stone blind know
that this is not so. They know the Standard Oil Company, the American
Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust have merely put on masks and gone on
with the hold-up business. Therefore, the Socialist predictions of
seventy years ago have all been verified up to and including the
inability of any government either to destroy or regulate the trusts.

So much for what Socialists believe Socialism, by reducing the prices of
commodities to cost, would do for the people as consumers. Socialists
believe Socialism would do even more for the people as workers. Behold
the present plight of the workingman. He has a right to live, but he has
not a right to the means by which he can live. He cannot live without
work, yet, ever he must seek work as a privilege—not as a right. The
coming of the age of machinery has made it impossible to work without
machinery. Yet the worker owns no machinery and can get access to no
machinery except upon such terms as he may be able to make with its
owners.

Socialists urge the people to consider the results of this unprecedented
situation. First, there is great insecurity of employment. No one knows
how long his job is destined to last. It may not last another day. A
great variety of causes exist, any one of which may deprive the worker
of his opportunity to work. Wall Street gentlemen may put such a crimp
in the financial situation that industry cannot go on. Business may slow
down because more is being produced than the markets can absorb. A
greedy employer may precipitate a strike by trying to reduce the wages
of his employees. Any one of many causes may without notice step in
between the worker and the machinery without which he cannot work.

But worse than the uncertainty of employment is the absolute certainty
that millions of men must always be out of work. Times are never so good
that there is work for everybody. Most persons do not know it, but in
the best of times there are always a million men out of work. In the
worst of times, the number of men out of work sometimes exceeds
5,000,000. The country cries for the things they might produce. There is
great need for shoes, flour, cloth, houses, furniture, and fuel. These
millions of men, if they could get in touch with machinery, could
produce enough of such staples to satisfy the public demand. If they
could but work, their earnings would vastly increase the amount of money
in circulation and thus increase the buying power of everybody. But they
cannot work, because they do not own the machinery without which they
cannot work, and the men who own it will not let it be used, because
they cannot see any profits for themselves in having it used.

Socialists say this is an appalling situation. They are amazed that the
nation tolerates it. They believe the nation would not tolerate it if it
understood it. Some things are more easily understood than others. If
5,000,000 men were on a sinking ship within swimming distance of the
Atlantic shore and the employing class were to prevent them from
swimming ashore for no other reason than that the employing class had no
use for their services—the people would understand that. Socialists
believe the people will soon understand the present situation.

Here is another thing that Socialists hope the people will soon
understand. The policy of permitting a few men to use the machinery with
which all other men must work or starve compels all other men to become
competitors for its use. If there were no more workers than the
capitalists must have, there would not be such competition. But there
must always be more workers than the capitalists can use. The fact that
the capitalist demands a profit upon the worker’s labor renders the
worker incapable of buying back the very thing he has made. Under
present conditions, trade must, therefore, always be smaller than the
natural requirements of the people for goods. And since, with machinery,
each worker can produce a vast volume of goods, it inevitably follows
that only a part of the workers are required to make all of the goods
that can be sold at a profit. That is why there is not always work for
all.

With more workers than there are jobs, it thus comes about that the
workers are compelled to compete among themselves for jobs. Only part of
the workers can be employed and the struggle of each is to become one of
that part. The workers who are out of employment are always willing to
work, if they can get no more, for a wage that represents only the cost
of the poorest living upon which they will consent to exist. It
therefore follows that wages are always based upon the cost of living.
If the cost of living is high, wages are high. If the cost of living is
low, wages are low. In any event, the worker has nothing left after he
has paid for his living.

Socialists say this is not just. They can understand the capitalist who
buys labor as he buys pig-iron, but they say labor is entitled to more
consideration than pig-iron. The price of labor, they declare, should be
gauged by the value of labor’s product, instead of by the direness of
labor’s needs. They say the present situation gives to the men who own
machinery most of its benefits and to the many who operate it none of
its hopes. Now. as of old, the average worker dare hope for no more than
enough to keep him alive. Again and again and again the census reports
have shown that the bulk of the people in this country are so poor that
they do not own even the roofs over their heads.

The purpose of Socialism is to give the workers _all_ they produce. And,
when Socialists say “workers” they do not mean only those who wear
overalls and carry dinner pails. They mean everybody who does useful
labor. Socialists regard the general superintendent of a railroad as
quite as much of a worker as they do the man on the section. But they do
not regard the owners of railway stocks and bonds as workers. They
regard them as parasites who are living off the products of labor by
owning the locomotives, cars and other equipment with which the workers
work. And, since the ownership of machinery is the club with which
Socialists say capitalists commit their robberies, Socialists also
declare that the only way to stop the robberies is to take away the
club. It would do no good to take the club from the men who now hold it
and give it even to the individual workers, because, with the principle
of private ownership retained, ownership would soon gravitate into a few
hands and robbery would go on as ruthlessly as ever. Socialists believe
the only remedy is to destroy the club by vesting the ownership of the
great machinery of production and distribution in the people, through
the government.

Such is the gist of Socialism—public ownership of the trusts, combined
with public ownership of the government. Gentlemen who are opposed to
Socialism—for what reasons it is now unnecessary to consider—lose no
opportunity to spread the belief that there are more kinds of Socialism
than there are varieties of the celebrated products of Mr. Heinz. This
is not so. There are more than 30,000,000 Socialists in the world. Not
one of them would refuse to write across this chapter: “That is
Socialism,” and sign his name to it. Every Socialist has his individual
conception of how mankind would advance if poverty were eliminated, but
all Socialists agree that the heart and soul of their philosophy lies in
the public ownership, under democratic government, of the means of life.
And, as compared with this belief, all other beliefs of Socialism are
minor and inconsequential. Public ownership is the rock upon which it is
determined to stand or fall.

Socialists differ only with regard to the means by which public
ownership may be brought about. A handful of Socialists, for instance,
believe that in order to bring it about it is necessary to oppose the
labor unions. All other Socialists work hand in hand with the labor
unions.

Also, there is a difference of opinion among Socialists as to how the
government should proceed to obtain ownership of the industrial trusts,
the railroads, telegraph, telephone and express companies and so forth.
Some Socialists are in favor of confiscating them, on the theory that
the people have a right to resort to such drastic action. In a way, they
have excellent authority for their position. Read what Benjamin Franklin
said about property at the convention that was called in 1776 to adopt a
new constitution for Pennsylvania:

  “Suppose one of our Indian nations should now agree to form a civil
  society. Each individual would bring into the stock of the society
  little more property than his gun and his blanket, for at present he
  has no other. We know that when one of them has attempted to keep a
  few swine he has not been able to maintain a property in them, his
  neighbors thinking they have a right to kill and eat them whenever
  they want provisions, it being one of their maxims that hunting is
  free for all. The accumulation of property in such a society, and its
  security to individuals in every society, must be an effect of the
  protection afforded to it by the joint strength of the society in the
  execution of its laws.

  “Private property is, therefore, a creature of society, and is subject
  to the calls of that society whenever its necessities require it,
  _even to the last farthing_.”

But one need quote only the law of self-preservation to prove that if
any people shall ever become convinced that their lives depend upon the
confiscation of the trusts that such confiscation will be justified.
When men reach a certain stage of hunger and wretchedness they pay scant
attention to every law except the higher law that says they have a right
to live.

I believe that most Socialists twenty years ago, were in favor of
confiscation. The trend now is all toward compensation. Not that
Socialists have changed their minds at all about the equities of the
matter. They have not. But they are coming to see that compensation is
the easier and quicker way. Victor Berger, the first Socialist
congressman, introduced in the House of Representatives an anti-trust
bill in which he proposed that the government should buy all of the
trusts that control more than forty per cent. of the business in their
respective lines, and pay therefor their full cash values—minus, of
course, wind, water and all forms of speculative inflation. In short the
differences in the Socialist party upon the question of compensation are
not unlike the differences which once existed with regard to the best
means by which the negroes might be emancipated. Years before the Civil
War, Henry Clay proposed that the government should buy the negroes at
double their market price and set them free. He said this would be the
cheapest and quickest way of settling the troubles between the North and
the South. The slave owners would not consent, and, eventually Lincoln
freed their slaves without paying for them.

When Socialists speak of buying the trusts, they naturally invite the
inquiry as to where they expect to get the money to pay for them. They
expect to get the money out of the profits of the trusts. That is the
way that Representative Berger provided in his bill. It is a poor trust
that does not pay dividends upon stock and interest upon bonds that do
not aggregate at least ten per cent. of the capital actually invested.
Most of them pay more, and some of the express companies occasionally
spring a fifty or a 100 per cent. dividend.

The Socialist proposal is that the government pay for the trusts with
two-per cent. bonds, and that each year, enough money be put into a
sinking fund to retire the bonds in not more than fifty years. The
burden of purchasing the trusts would thus be spread over a little more
than two generations, but Socialists say the burden would be a burden
only in name, since the prices of trust goods could be radically
reduced, even while the trusts were being paid for, and upon the
retirement of the bonds, all prices could be reduced to cost.

Those who know little or nothing about Socialism believe that Socialists
also differ as to the advisability of using violence to bring about
Socialism. Never was there a greater mistake. Above all others, the
Socialist party is the party of peace. When Germany and England, in
1911, were ready to fly at each other’s throats, it was the Socialist
party of Germany that assembled 200,000 men in Berlin one Sunday
afternoon and declared that if there were a war, the Socialists of
Germany would not help fight it. It was generally admitted, at the time,
that the attitude of the German Socialists, more than anything else, was
responsible for the avoidance of war.

Socialists are equally pacific when considering the best means by which
Socialism may be brought about. Socialists are, first, last and all the
time in favor only of political action and trade-union action. Wherever
there is a free ballot, they believe in using it, to the exclusion of
bombs and bullets. Socialists realize that they can win only by
converting a majority of the people to their belief. That is why they
begin one campaign the next morning after the closing of another. They
are busy with the printing press and their tongues all the while. For
them, there is no closed season.

Socialists realize that Socialism can be reared only upon understanding,
and that the use of dynamite would turn the minds of the people against
them for a hundred years. Any Socialist who believes otherwise is the
same sort of a potential criminal that can be found in any other
party—and equally as rare. The Republican party had its Guiteau and its
Czolgosz, but it repudiated neither of them more quickly than the
Socialist party would repudiate one of its own members who should commit
a great crime.

Socialists, as a party, stand for violence only in the same way that
Abraham Lincoln stood for it. If the Socialists should carry a national
election in this country, and, the capitalists, refusing to yield,
should turn the regular army at them, the Socialists would use all the
violence they could muster. While they are in a minority, they are
obeying the laws that the capitalists make, but when the Socialists
become a majority, they will insist, even with bullets, that the
capitalists obey the laws that the Socialists make.




                              CHAPTER III
     THE VIRTUOUS GRAFTERS AND THEIR GRAVE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM


It is an old saying that the tree that bears the best apples has the
most clubs under it. Enough clubs are under the tree of Socialism to
stock a wood-yard. Some of the clubs bear the imprints of honest men.
Some do not. The great grafters of the present day are the most
persistent foes of Socialism. The great grafters say, not only that
Socialism is anti-religious, but that it would destroy the family. The
grafters also say that Socialism stands for free love.

It may be amusing to hear a grafter oppose Socialism on the ground that
it is against religion. It may be diverting to hear gentlemen with Reno
reputations charge that Socialism would establish free love and thus
destroy the family. But such charges cannot be dismissed by laughing at
those who make them. Honest men and women want to know the truth.

The truth is that there is no truth in the charge that Socialism is
against religion. Socialism is purely an economic matter. It has no more
to do with religion than it has to do with astronomy. It is no more
against religion than it is against astronomy. Men of all religious
denominations are Socialists, and men of no religious denomination are
Socialists. Nor is there any reason why this should not be so. The very
pith and marrow of Socialism is the contention that the people, through
the government, should own and operate, for their exclusive benefit, the
great machinery of production and distribution that is now owned and
operated by the trusts. Either this contention is sound or it is not.
Whether it is sound or not, a man’s religious beliefs cannot possibly
have anything to do with what he thinks of it.

But while Socialism is in no sense anti-religious, it is in one sense
pro-religious. So good an authority as the Encyclopedia Britannica
declares that “the ethics of Socialism and the ethics of Christianity
are identical.” One of the concerns of Christianity is to establish
justice upon earth. The only concern of Socialism is to establish
justice upon earth. Socialism seeks to establish justice by giving each
human being an equal opportunity to labor, while depriving each human
being of the power to appropriate any part of the product of another
human being’s labor. If the Socialist program contains a word of comfort
for either grafters or loafers, neither the grafters nor the loafers
have found it.

Nor does the Socialist program contain a word of comfort for the Reno
gentlemen. Socialists beg leave frankly to doubt the sincerity of
certain wealthy men who profess to believe that Socialism would destroy
the family by bringing about free love. Socialists say the best proof
that these men believe nothing of the kind is that they do not make
application to join the Socialist party. The wives of some of them
certainly make enough applications for divorce.

Addressing themselves to the members of the capitalist class, Socialists
therefore speak as follows:

“If the preservation of the family depends upon you, God help the
family. If the preservation of womanly women depends upon you, God help
the women. You are not all bad, but you are all doing bad. Some of you
are doing bad without knowing it; some of you are doing bad though
knowing it. But, whether you know it or not, all of you are doing bad
because your capitalist system is bad. Your system makes those of you
who would do good do bad. It makes you fatten upon the labor of
children, because your competitors are fattening upon the labor of
children. It makes you fatten upon the labor of women, because your
competitors are fattening upon the labor of women. It makes you fatten
upon the labor of men because your competitors are fattening upon the
labor of men. It makes you keep men, women and children poor, because in
no other way could you become rich.

“And you are the ones who are so fearful lest Socialism shall destroy
the home. Why do you not worry a little lest the poverty caused by
capitalism shall destroy the home? Why are you so slightly stirred by
the spectacle of little children torn from their firesides and their
schools to work for starvation wages in factories and department stores?
Why are you so well able to control your grief when the census reports
tell you that more than 5,000,000 women and girls have been compelled to
become wage earners because their husbands and fathers receive so little
wages that they cannot support their families? Why are you so well able
to bear up when the white-slave dealer gets the little girl from the
department store?

“None of these facts, nor all of these facts seem to suggest to you
wealthy gentlemen who are opposing Socialism that the conditions under
which you have become rich are doing anything to disrupt the family or
to bring about free love. But you profess to be stunned to a stare when
Socialists present a program that is devoted to the single purpose of
preventing you, who do no useful labor, from robbing those who do it
all. If you have other grounds for opposing Socialism, state them. But
in the name of common decency, don’t come forward as the protectors of
women and children. Your hands are not clean.”

Socialists contend that Socialism would do more to purify, glorify and
vivify the family than capitalism has ever done or can do. Their
reasoning takes this form:

_Unless poverty is good for the family, capitalism is not good for the
family, because capitalism means poverty or the fear of poverty for all
but a few and can never mean anything else. Capitalism can never mean
anything else because capitalism is essentially parasitical in its
nature. It lives and can live only by preying upon the working class._

_If plenty for everybody, without too much or too little for anybody
will purify, glorify and vivify the family, Socialism will purify,
glorify and vivify it. Socialism will place all of the great machinery
of modern production in the hands of the people, to be used fully and
freely for nobody’s advantage but their own._

Of course, the family cannot be improved without changing it. Upon this
obvious fact is based the whole capitalist attack upon Socialism as a
destroyer of the home. Socialists believe that freedom from poverty
would have a profound effect upon domestic relationships. And Socialist
writers have tried to picture the world as it will be when all of the
hot hoops of want have been removed from the compact little group that
is called the family.

They have pictured woman standing firmly upon her feet, with the ballot
in one hand and the power under the law to live from her labor with
comfort and self-respect, either inside or outside of her home. But no
Socialist has ever pictured a world in which woman would be compelled to
work outside her home if she did not want to. Such a picture is reserved
for capitalism in the present day. Socialists merely contend that
Socialism would make women economically independent, by guaranteeing to
them the full value of their labor. No woman would be compelled to marry
to get a home. No woman who had a home would be compelled by poverty to
stay in it if she were badly treated. For the sake of her children, she
might do so if she wished, but she could not be compelled to do so. She
would simply be free to act as her judgment might dictate—to profit from
a wise choice or to suffer from an unwise one.

Briefly, such is the Socialist picture of the Socialist world for women.
No Socialist contends that it is a picture of a perfect world. A perfect
world could contain neither fools, hotheads, nor vicious persons. The
hard conditions of the present world, and the harder conditions of those
long past have created too many fools, hotheads and vicious persons to
justify the hope that all such persons can quickly be made wise, cool
and good. Socialists, with all their optimism, are not so optimistic as
that. They have absolutely no program, patented or otherwise, for making
people good.

Their only contention is that they have a program under which people can
be good if they want to. They know, only too well, that with the coming
of Socialism, everybody will not suddenly want to be good. They expect
to have to deal with the bad man and the bad woman. But they do not
expect to have to deal with so many bad men and bad women as we now have
to deal with. They do not expect to have to deal with any men or women
who have been made bad by poverty or the fear of poverty. They do not
expect to have to deal with women who have been forced into prostitution
because there seemed to be no other way to keep soul and body together.
Socialists say that if there are any prostitutes under Socialism they
will be women who deliberately choose prostitution as a vocation.
Perhaps women, better than men, can judge how many such women there are
likely to be.

It is this picture of economically independent womanhood that is hailed
by the wealthy detractors of Socialism as the sign that the Socialists
plan to destroy the home and supplant it with free love. Socialists say
that such conclusions can be based only upon these assumptions:

That nothing but poverty keeps women from being “free-lovers.”

That if women were given the power to support themselves decently and
comfortably outside of the home, they would at once desert their
children, their husbands and “destroy the family.”

Socialists believe women can safely be trusted with enough money to live
on. Yet the word “trust,” as here used, is not quite the word.
Socialists do not believe it is within their province either to trust or
to distrust women. Socialists believe economic independence is a right
that women should demand and get, rather than a privilege that man
should grant or deny, as he may see fit. If women do well with economic
independence, well and good. If they do ill with it, still well and
good. If they have not yet learned to use economic independence, they
cannot begin learning too quickly, nor can they learn except by trying
to use it.

In any event, Socialists do not claim the right of guardianship over
women. They do not believe any human being, regardless of sex, has a
right to coerce another when that other is not invading the rights of
some other. They believe that women to-day are being coerced. Coerced by
poverty. Coerced by fear of poverty. Coerced by men who presume upon
their own economic independence and the economic dependence of women.
They cite, as proof of their beliefs, the growing number of divorces,
together with the fact that women are the applicants for most of the
divorces.

And, the astounding circumstance about all of this is that because
Socialists hold these views, they are denounced by rich grafters and
their retainers as “destroyers of the family,” and “free-lovers.”

The Socialists have said no more than Herbert Spencer said about the
folly of trying to promote happiness with coercion. They say that
weakness pitted against strength and dependence against independence
invite coercion—no more in a family of nations than in a family of
individuals; that a woman whose economic dependence prevents her from
doing what all of her instincts call upon her to do is coerced. Here is
what Herbert Spencer says in _Social Statics_ (p. 76):

  “Command is a blight to the affections. Whatsoever of
  beauty—whatsoever of poetry there is in the passion that unites the
  sexes, withers up and dies in the cold atmosphere of authority. Native
  as they are to such widely-separated regions of our nature, Love and
  Coercion cannot possibly flourish together. Love is sympathetic;
  Coercion is callous. Love is gentle; Coercion is harsh. Love is
  self-sacrificing; Coercion is selfish. How then can they co-exist? It
  is the property of the first to attract, while it is that of the last
  to repel; and, conflicting as they do, it is the constant tendency of
  each to destroy the other. Let whoever thinks the two compatible
  imagine himself acting the master over his betrothed. Does he believe
  that he could do this without any injury to the subsisting
  relationship? Does he not know rather that a bad effect would be
  produced upon the feelings of both by the assumption of such an
  attitude? And, confessing this as he must, is he superstitious enough
  to suppose that the going through of a form of word will render
  harmless that use of command which was previously hurtful?”

Nobody ever called Spencer a “destroyer of the home,” or a “free-lover”
for that. Yet, if Spencer meant anything, he meant that coercion is
primarily wrong because it deprives the individual of the right to be
guided by his own judgment. Socialists contend that women have a right
to be guided by their own judgment, even if they make mistakes. Men do
so. Women rebel against the denial of their equal right. They rebel
against the coercion that is worked against them by their inability to
earn decent, comfortable livings outside of their homes. Socialists say
the family can never be what it might be or what it should be so long as
this warfare continues. They say that since the weak never coerce the
strong, there should be no economically weak members of the community.
Men and women should both be economically independent. Each is likely to
treat the other better if they are so.

Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard, has been
as fortunate as Spencer in escaping the charge of being a “destroyer of
the family” and a “free-lover.” The professor is quoted in the press as
follows:

  “One thing is certain, the family is rapidly becoming disorganized and
  disintegrated.... Divorces are being granted at an ever-increasing
  rate. It may be computed that if the present ratio of increase in
  population and in separation is maintained, the number of separations
  of marriage by death would at the end of the twentieth century be less
  than the number of separations by divorce....

  “Owing to industrial life, the importance of the family is already
  enormously lessened. Once every form of industry went on within the
  family circle, but as the methods of the great industry are
  substituted for work done in the home, the economic usefulness of the
  family is practically outgrown.”

Then, painting a picture of the world to come, as he sees it, the
professor said:

  “Thus with the coming of the social state, family unity will be for a
  higher end. The wife, being no longer doomed to household drudgery,
  will have the greater blessing of economic equality. Children will be
  cared for by the community under healthful and uniform conditions, and
  we shall arrive at what has been called the happy time when continuity
  of society no longer depends upon the private nursery.”

But what Professor Peabody has said, or what Socialists have said with
regard to the next step in the evolution of the family is a little
beside the point, and is mentioned so at length only because the
detractors of Socialism make so much of it. The point is: _Ought the
world if it can, to get rid of poverty, and will Socialism do it?_ If
Socialism will rid the world of poverty, ought we to retain poverty to
keep women good? Who knows that economic independence would make women
bad? The grafters intimate that they know. But who believes the
grafters? The grafters say the present status of the family is so good
that we should be content to remain poor in order to preserve it.
Professor Peabody says the present status of the family is so bad that
it is falling to pieces. The professor has proof of his statement in
every divorce court. The grafters have proof of their statement in no
court, nor anywhere else.

Besides, the testimony of the grafters is properly subject to suspicion.
If Socialism would remove poverty it would also remove the grafters. If
Socialism would not remove poverty or the grafters, but would bring
about free love, do you believe the grafters would oppose it? Is it not
more likely that the grafters believe Socialism would remove both
poverty and themselves and that they are trying to throw a scare into
the people by howling about the threatened destruction of the family? If
not, why do not the grafters themselves do something to stop their own
destruction of the family? A $100 bill will make more happiness in a
home than a sermon against Socialism. Why don’t they give up their
dividends and let the workers have what they produce? Why don’t they
drum Professor Peabody out of Harvard? If the Socialists are
free-lovers, Professor Peabody is a free-lover. Why don’t they put him
out? Is it because he does not also advocate Socialism?

“Ah,” say the grafters, “but the lives of Socialists do not bear out
their protestations of devotion to the family. Look at the ‘affinities’
that some of them have had.”

“Quite true,” say the Socialists, “but one affinity does not make a
fire, nor do two make a forest. What if one or two Socialists of more or
less prominence have been divorced? Are affinities and divorces unknown
among Democrats and Republicans? Is the percentage of divorces greater
in Socialist families than it is in Democratic or Republican families?
Where is your proof? What have you got on Debs? What have you got on
Berger? What have you got on Seidel, the former Socialist Mayor of
Milwaukee? These men are in the limelight. If they should make a
mismove, you would blazon it. What do you know against them?”

The foregoing pretty well sums up the situation, so far as the free-love
and destroying-the-family charges are concerned. There is nothing in
them. Socialists are trying to eradicate poverty _now_. They have no
other immediate concern. If the eradication of poverty should send the
world to hell, the Socialists, if they can, will send the world to hell.
They do not believe anything that can be kept only with poverty is worth
keeping. Their observation has taught them that poverty is always and
everywhere a curse. They believe no other curse is nearly so great
except the curse of excessive riches.

Let us now pass to objections to Socialism that are both pertinent and
honest. It is the common belief of those who do not understand Socialism
that, under a Socialist form of government, the government would do
everything and the people could therefore do nothing; that “everybody
would be held down to a dead level,” and that as a consequence of the
individual’s inability to rise, nobody would have an incentive to work.

Here are several kindred objections rolled into one. Let us pick them to
pieces and see what is in them.

Let it be conceded that under Socialism the government would own and
operate all of the great industries. What of it? The people would do
precisely what they are doing now, except that they would do it through
the government for themselves, instead of through capitalists for
themselves and the capitalists. The people are now engaged in useful
labor. A small body of parasites are appropriating much that the people
produce. Under Socialism, the parasites will have to go to work. The
people will simply continue to work, though under better conditions and
for a greater return than they now receive.

Now, let us see just what is meant by “keeping everybody upon a dead
level.” As the world stands to-day, people differ chiefly as to wealth
and to intellect. If one person is not on a “dead level” with another it
is because he is more intelligent or more stupid than that other, or
because he is richer or poorer. Nobody, of course, believes that
Socialism or anything else could put Edison on a dead level with the
boss of Tammany Hall. If Socialism is to establish a dead level, it must
therefore be by establishing equality as to wealth.

Capitalism has pretty nearly done that already. The great bulk of the
world is poor, living from hand to mouth, worrying about the increased
cost of living, and going to the grave as empty-handed as when it came
into the world. Only a few have any money, beyond their immediate needs,
and as a rule that few is composed of men who perform no useful labor.
Here and there is a man who combines a little useful labor with a great
deal of cogitation as to how he can appropriate something that somebody
else has produced. He may have enough to cause him to mortgage his house
to buy an automobile, and to make a little pretence of affluence. But
financially he is a faker and he knows it. On the other hand, the men
who are not financial fakers are not workers. That is to say, either
they do no work that is useful to society, or the work they do that is
useful justifies but a small part of their incomes.

To illustrate: The owner of a great industry devotes his time to the
management of that industry. So far as his managerial activities pertain
to the production and distribution of his product, they are socially
useful. So far as they pertain to obtaining a profit for himself upon
that product they are not socially useful. The value of the socially
useful part of his activities may be approximately measured by what he
would pay another man for managing the manufacturing and distributing
end of his business. The extent to which he is a parasite upon the
community may be approximately measured by the difference between his
net income from the industry and the sum he would pay another man to
manage the manufacturing and distributing end of his business. A hired
manager might receive $5,000 a year. The capitalist proprietor may
receive $50,000 a year or he may receive nothing—he is in a gambler’s
game and must take a gambler’s chances. If he receives $50,000 a year
$45,000 of it is because he owns the machinery. If he did not own the
machinery, he himself would be compelled to hire out as a manager at
$5,000 a year. In other words, $45,000 a year is the price that the
workers pay the capitalist for the privilege of working with his
machinery. Socialists therefore contend that we are already on a dead
level of wealth, except as to the fact that we have permitted a few who
do little or no useful labor to rise above those who do nothing else.

Socialists, however, are not opposed in principle to the economic dead
level, and they do not believe anybody else is. If it were desirable
that each human being should have a billion dollars, and, by pressing a
button, each human being could have a billion dollars, Socialists do not
believe there would be an extended Alphonse and Gaston performance over
the ceremony of pressing the button. Socialists are opposed only to a
dead level that is so nearly level with the hunger line. They want to
raise the level to the point where it will comfort, not alone the
stomach, but the heart and the brain.

Now, mind you, Socialists have no patented wage scales that they intend
to force upon the people. If Socialism stands for anything, it stands
for the expression of popular will, and therefore it will be for the
people to say, when Socialism comes, whether the manager of a railway
system shall receive greater compensation than a train conductor on that
system. I do not fear contradiction when I say almost every Socialist
believes extraordinary ability should be rewarded with extraordinary
compensation—not $10,000 a month for the manager of a railway system
that pays its conductors $100 a month, but enough more than the
conductor to show that the manager’s services are appreciated at their
worth. Socialists would also give garbage men and sewer diggers
extraordinary wages, on the theory that their work is vitally necessary
to everybody else and extremely disagreeable to themselves.

But to satisfy those who want the dead level objection analyzed to the
bone, suppose everybody were to receive equal compensation? Should we
not have less injustice in the world than we have now? Should we have
any suffering from hunger and cold? Should we have so many crimes due to
poverty? Should we have any women forced into prostitution by poverty?
Should we have a single human being upon the face of the earth haunted
by the constant fear that he could not get work and could not get food?

We have all of these evils now. Are they worth thinking about? Are they
serious enough to justify us in trying to be rid of them? Granted, for
the sake of argument, that we cannot get rid of them without doing an
injustice to the railroad manager who would be paid no more than a
conductor—is it not better to do injustice to an occasional person who
would still be treated as well as any of the others, than to compel all
the others to endure present conditions? If not, the “good of the
greatest number” is a fallacy, and majority rule is a crime.

But would anyone question either the right or the expediency of such
action if the situation were reversed? Suppose that the present system
under which a few men own almost everything had made almost everybody
rich. Suppose the few who were not rich—corresponding in numbers to the
present capitalist class—were to demand that the rules of the game be so
changed that they could be made rich by making everyone else poor. Let
us suppose, even, that the few were to say that the present system,
while it worked satisfactorily for everybody else, worked an injustice
to them. Let us go farther and say that the mere handful of objectors
were right in such contention. Would the 95 per cent. of the people who
were prospering under the system nevertheless voluntarily overturn it
and impoverish themselves merely that 5 per cent. might become wealthy?

But there is still another side to the “dead level” objection. Is not
enough enough? Who but a glutton wants more food than he should eat? Who
but a fop wants more clothing than he needs to wear? Who but a man who
has been pampered with riches, or spoiled by the envy that riches so
often produce, wants more than a comfortable, roomy, sanitary house in
which to live? Does the possession of more things than these make the
few who have them happier?

Socialists doubt it. If they did not doubt it, they would still be
against conditions that give such advantages to a few who are not
socially useful while denying even ordinary comforts to everyone else.
And, right here, Socialists again ask these questions: “Even if such
luxuries be conceded as advantages, are we not paying too great a price
to give them to a few? Is it well that so many should have no home in
order that a few should have many homes? And, if there is to be any
difference in homes, ought not the difference to be in favor of those
who are most useful instead of those who are the most predatory?”

Socialists contend that under Socialism, everybody could not only have
work all the time, but that everybody could live as well as now does the
man whose income is $5,000 a year. They point to the fact that the man
who now spends $5,000 a year on his living, does not consume the
products of very much human labor. He has a comfortable house, but
comfortable, sanitary houses are not hard to build. Machinery makes
almost all of the materials that go into them, and makes them cheaply.
And a house properly built lasts a lifetime.

The $5,000–a-year man and his family also eat some food. But the flour
is made with machinery at low cost, as are also many other articles. The
raw materials come from the earth at the cost of human labor, but the
profits that are added to them by capitalists represent no sort of
labor.

So is it with clothing, furniture and everything else that the
$5,000–a-year man and his family consume. Everything is made cheaply and
rapidly with machinery. The workers who make these things get little.
The consumer pays much. The difference between the cost of making and
the selling price is what eats up a large part of the $5,000. Socialists
believe that by cutting out all of this difference and cutting out
enforced idleness, everybody could live as well as the $5,000–man now
lives. This is only an approximation, of course.

Now we come to the question of rising. What chance would a man have to
rise under Socialism?

Let us see, first, what is meant by rising. A man can rise with his
fellows or he can rise without them. I am speaking now, of course, only
of rising in the financial scale. Habits of thought have been inculcated
in us which too often prevent us from thinking of rising in any other
way. When we think of bettering our condition, we usually think in terms
of money. We seldom think in terms of greater leisure and greater
freedom to do the things that make life really worth while; knowing that
rich men are usually the slaves of their money, we nevertheless want to
be slaves.

Socialism is not intended to help the man who wants to rise financially
above his fellows. It throws out no bait to him. A few men will
undoubtedly rise a little above their fellows during the early stages of
Socialism, but they will not rise very much and there will not be very
many of them. Socialism is for all, not for a few. It is devoted to the
task of raising the financial standing of everybody who does useful
labor and lowering the financial standing of everybody who does not.
Socialists say that if Socialism were otherwise, it would be no better
than the lottery which is provided by the capitalist system. Socialists
do not believe in the lottery principle. They have observed that the
gentlemen who run lotteries, rather than the ones who play them, wear
the diamonds. Nor does the fact that an occasional washerwoman draws
$22,000 with which she knows not what to do, change their minds about
the game.

See what a game it is that we are now playing. We teach our small boys
that this is a country of glorious opportunities. In picturing the
possibilities before them, we know no bounds. We go even to the brink of
the ultimate and look over. Away in the distance, we see the White
House, and point to it. “There,” we say to our boys, “there is where you
may some day be. Each of you has a chance to be President. And, if you
should not be President, each of you has a chance to be a Rockefeller or
a Carnegie. Carnegie began as a bobbin boy. Rockefeller began as a clerk
in an oil store. If you are honest and industrious, perhaps you can do
as much.”

Now, what are the facts? Not one of those boys has much more chance of
becoming the President than a ring-tailed monkey has of becoming Caruso.
It is not that the boys are worthless—they may have in them better
timber than any past President ever contained. But unless we shorten the
Presidential term, and shorten it a good deal, we cannot accommodate
very many of the lads with the use of the White House. During the next
eighty years, even if no President shall serve more than one term, there
can be no more than twenty Presidents. During the same time—if we go on
repeating such foolishness—perhaps a billion boys will be solemnly
assured that each of them has a chance to be President, though, as a
matter of fact, only twenty boys can cash in on their chances.

Do we never consider how ridiculous we make ourselves? Do we never fear
the crushing question that some bright boy some day will ask: “Dad, just
how much do you think twenty chances in a billion are worth?”

I mention this only to show at what an early age we begin to hold out to
our boys false hopes of the future. I cannot attempt to explain the fact
that no boy asks his father why, in such a country of glorious
possibilities as this, he contents himself with driving a truck—but that
does not matter. The point is that we go on fooling the boys until they
are old enough to know better. They are not very old when this time
comes. The world teaches them young. It is the exceptionally stupid
young man who does not know, at the age of twenty-five, that the chances
against him in playing for a Presidency, a Rockefellership, or a
Carnegieship are infinitely greater than would have been the chances
against him, if he had lived two generations earlier and played the
Louisiana Lottery. Beside such a prospect, the chance of winning a
fortune at the race track looks like a certainty. Yet we drove the
Louisiana Lottery from the country because it was such a delusion that
it amounted to a swindle, and we are beginning to drive the race tracks
out of the country for the same reason.

Socialists believe it would be better not to promise so much and to
perform more. They believe it would be better to promise each
industrious man approximately the present comfort-equivalent of $5,000 a
year _and give it to him_, than to hold out to him the hope of great
riches and give him, instead, great poverty or great uneasiness because
of the fear of poverty.

The Socialists may be wrong in all of this, but they cheerfully place
the burden of proof that the world is well upon those who make the claim
that it is well. They ask the capitalists to find more than the
exceptional, rare man who has realized more than a fraction of the
promises that were held out to him in his youth. For every such man that
the capitalists may produce, the Socialists will undertake to find
twenty men who are living from hand to mouth, either in poverty or in
the fear of poverty.

Such is the Socialist position with regard to “rising” in the world. So
far as Socialists are able to discover, all of the rising that most
persons do is done in the early morning—about an hour before the 7
o’clock whistle blows.

“Early to bed and early to rise” is not in violation of the Socialist
constitution, but Socialists respectfully contend that the rising should
be made worth while. And, they also contend that if the people must be
promised something to make them rise, it is better, in the long run, to
promise something and give it to them than to promise more and not give
it to them. The best that can be said for the latter plan is that it has
been a long time tried and until recently has worked satisfactorily for
those who made the promises they failed to keep.




                               CHAPTER IV
                    WHY SOCIALISTS PREACH DISCONTENT


Rich men tell poor men to beware of Socialism because Socialists preach
discontent. Rich men also tell poor men to beware of Socialism because
Socialists “preach the class struggle,” and try to “array class against
class,” politically.

It is all true. Socialists do these things. They make no bones about
doing them. They say they would feel ashamed of themselves if they did
not do them. If they had a thousand times the power they have, they
would do these things a thousand times harder than they do. Just so
rapidly as they gain power, they are doing these things harder.

What is it that they do? Let us see.

Socialists preach discontent. Discontent with what? Discontent with
home? Discontent with children? Discontent with friends? Discontent with
honest labor? Discontent with ambition? Discontent with life as a whole?
Why, nothing of the kind.

_Socialists preach discontent only with poverty that is made by robbery,
and the ills that follow in its wake._

The Hon. Charles Russell, of England, said in 1912 that 12,000,000 of
England’s 45,000,000 population were on the verge of starvation—shall we
be satisfied with that?

A recent investigation into the causes of the shockingly high rate of
infant mortality in Germany[1] shows that “the children of poverty
hunger before they are born. They come into the world ill-developed,
weaker than the children of plenty, and with such low resistant powers
that infant mortality rages in their ranks like an epidemic.” Shall we
be satisfied with that?

Footnote 1:

  “The Proletarian Child,” by Albert Langon, published in Berlin.

Here in the United States millions of men cannot get work, while
millions of men, women and children are compelled to work for starvation
wages. Shall we be satisfied with that?

The census reports show that most people do not own the roofs over their
heads, having nothing but the clothes upon their backs and their meager
furniture. Shall we be satisfied with that?

We are creating wealth rapidly, but what we make is concentrating into
so few hands that a few men hold us as in the hollow of their hands,
telling us whether we may work, telling us what wages we shall receive
if we work, telling us how much we shall pay for meat, sugar, lumber,
clothing, salt and steel. Shall we be satisfied with that?

The Stanley Steel Committee’s investigations showed that, by a system of
interlocking directorates, eighteen men control thirty-five billions of
industrial property—a third of the entire national wealth. Shall we be
satisfied with that?

In times of industrial depression more than 5,000,000 men who want to
work are refused the right to do so, because the few men who control
everything cannot see a profit for themselves in letting 5,000,000 men
work to support themselves. Shall we be satisfied with that?

The cost of living, mounting higher and higher, is crowding an
increasing number of unorganized workers into the bottomless pit in
which men, women and children suffer the tortures of hell. Shall we be
satisfied with that?

Mr. Morgan, with the tremendous money-power that is behind him, is a
greater power in this country than the President of the United States,
or the Congress of the United States. Shall we be satisfied with that?

Some gentlemen are satisfied with these facts, but Socialists are not.
They are preaching discontent. Should we not be worthy of your scorn and
contempt if we did not preach discontent? If such discontent is wrong,
contentment with the facts against which Socialists cry out must be
right. Who has both the candor and the effrontery to say that
contentment with such facts is right? Should we be contented with the
woolen mill owners of New England who, fattening upon high Republican
tariffs, starve men, women and little children with low wages? Should we
be contented with the cotton-mill owners of the South, who, under the
protection of Democratic state administrations, fill both their mills
and the graveyards with little children? Should we be contented with a
world in which a few own everything and the rest do everything—a world
in which the worker is but a fleeing fugitive from inevitable fate,
owning neither his job, nor the roof over his head?

The cry of this wronged worker has come down through the ages, but never
was his hold upon the means of life so slight as it is to-day.

                  “Every creature has a home home—
                  But thou, oh workingman, hast none.”

So Shelley sang before machinery came. And, oh, the truth of it—the
truth of it still! And the pity of it! In these days the inexcusability
of it! Yet when we Socialists cry out against it—when we try to awaken
the workingman to a realization that a new world was born when the steam
engine was born, and that this new world may be and should be for him—we
are rebuked by the capitalists because we are “preaching discontent.”

Of course we are preaching discontent. We are going to preach it, if
present conditions persist, so long as we have breath with which to
preach. We respectfully decline to permit capitalists, as such, to tell
us what we may or may not preach. We preach what we please without their
leave. They preach what they please without our leave. At intervals,
they preach a good deal, through some of the magazines, about religion.
Big capital is behind the “Men and Religion Forward” movement, and some
other similar movements. These gentlemen who are living in luxury off
what they take from us tell us to take religion from them in the
magazines and be happy. “In the sweet by and by” we are to get our own,
while they get their own now. Socialists are willing to stand in on all
of the sweet by and by they can get by and by, but they are also
determined to make a prodigious fight for the sweet here and now.

Socialists regard poverty, in this day, as nothing less than a scandal.
Before the age of machinery there was reason for some poverty. Now there
is none. We can make all the wealth we need and more. We could cut our
workday in two and still make all we need. Yet poverty is scourging the
world as wars never scourged it. In Germany, England, the United
States—wherever capitalism has reached a high state of development—men,
women and children are pursued to the grave by poverty or the fear of
poverty.

Some gentlemen believe this is all right. They believe this is as it
should be. With such gentlemen Socialists do not hope to make headway.
With such gentlemen Socialists do not seek to make headway. They belong
to the rich class who are grafting off the working class. From them
Socialists expect no quarter, nor will they give any. The conflict must
go to a finish. There will be no surrender upon the part of the
Socialists. The Socialist party will never fuse with any of their
parties. If the Socialist party were standing still, instead of going
ahead, it would stand still alone for a thousand years before it would
go a foot with any capitalist party.

Make no mistake. This is all true. You saw the Greenback party wither
and blow away. You saw the Populist party swallowed by the Democratic
party. But you will never see the Socialist party wither, nor will you
ever see it swallowed. Its members are not composed of material that
withers or fuses. Right or wrong, they are actuated by the highest ideal
that can move a human being—the ideal of human justice. And they are
going down the line on their ideal, regardless of the length of the line
or of the obstructions that may be placed in their way. After a man has
seen Socialism, he can never thereafter defend capitalism. That is to
say, he cannot if he is honest. Two or three out of a million are not.
Such persons, not infrequently, are hired by capitalists to “expose”
Socialism.

But while Socialists do not hope to make any progress among the rich,
they do hope to make progress among the working class. Again, I must
explain that Socialists do not consider the working class to be
exclusively composed of those who wear overalls. Socialists include in
the working class all of those who do useful labor. It matters not
whether such labor be done by the digger in the ditch or by the general
superintendent of a railroad. Socialists place all of those who do
useful labor in the working class. Workers are creators of wealth.
Creators of wealth differ from capitalists in this: workers make;
capitalists take. Capitalists are profit-seekers. The small merchant
takes a profit, but it is not the kind of a profit that the big
capitalist takes. The small merchant’s profit represents only his labor,
and is, therefore, really wages. The big capitalist’s profits represent
no sort of labor. It is such profits that set capitalists and workers at
war, because the profits come out of the workers. Socialists call this
war the class struggle.

Socialists are opposed to class war. Socialists believe there should be
no classes. There would be no classes if everybody worked at useful
labor and took no more than belonged to him. But if some men will not
work at useful labor, choosing, instead, to make war upon those who are
working, who is to blame? Certainly not the workers. They are trying to
get nothing that belongs to anyone else. They have never yet been able
to keep what belonged to them.

Socialists recognize these facts. They say a class struggle is in
progress. Anybody who denies their statement must necessarily know
nothing of the existence of trusts, labor unions, courts, lobbyists,
crooked legislators, millionaires, paupers, overworked workers, or men
who are underworked because they can get no work. Anyone who recognizes
the existence of these things cannot well deny either the existence of
classes or the existence of a struggle. The dead of this warfare are
upon every industrial battlefield, where the fierce desire for profits
sends workers to their doom for lack of the safeguards that would have
saved their lives. The wounded are in every poverty-stricken home.

Either these statements are true or they are not. If they are true, is
it wiser to recognize their truth, or, ostrich-like, to stick our heads
in the sand and deny both the existence of classes and the class
struggle? Socialists believe it is wiser to recognize the existence of
the facts. They deplore the existence of the class struggle, but they
can see only harm in closing our eyes to it. If their contention is
correct a small body of capitalists are robbing the great working class.
If the working class has not found out who is robbing it it cannot find
out too quickly. Nor can the working class find out too quickly the
methods by which it is being robbed.

It is the advocacy of these ideas that has caused the Socialists to be
censured by the rich for trying to “array class against class.” If one
class is being robbed by another ought not the class that is being
robbed to be politically arrayed against the class that is robbing it?
Do we not array those whose houses are broken into by burglars against
the burglars? Is not the existence of police forces sufficient proof
that we do? If capitalists, working through laws they have made, are
robbing the workers of thousands, where burglars take cents, why should
not the workers be politically arrayed against the capitalists even more
solidly than they are arrayed against burglars?

The workers, either singly or collectively, as in their unions, are
already arrayed against the capitalists, so far as fighting for more
wages is concerned. Without any help from Socialists, we thus have here
class arrayed against class. Socialists seek only to extend this
conflict to the ballot-box. They ask the worker to remember when he
votes as well as when he strikes that he belongs to the working class.
They point out to him that he is robbed under the forms of law and that
the robbery cannot be stopped until the operations of capitalist laws
are stopped. The operations of capitalist laws cannot be stopped until
working men stop them. Working men can stop them only by uniting at the
ballot-box and wresting from the capitalist class the control of the
government.

In this way only do Socialists try to “array class against class.” They
do not try to array men against men. They do not try to engender hatred
of Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller, or any other great capitalist.
Socialists have nothing against any rich man individually. They regard
all great capitalists as the natural and inevitable products of the
capitalist system. If the great capitalists are sometimes bad, it is
because the capitalist system makes them bad. If the particular
capitalists who are bad had never been born, the capitalist system would
have made others do the same bad acts. Therefore Socialists are opposed
to the system that makes man bad rather than to the men who have been
made bad by the system. If every capitalist in the world had gone down
with the _Titanic_, Socialists would have expected absolutely no
improvement in conditions, because the capitalist system would still
have remained. Other men would simply have taken their places, and the
wrongs would have gone on. Therefore, Socialists leave it to Democratic
and Republican politicians to point out “bad men” and say if this man or
that man were in jail we should have no more robbery. The slightest
reflection should reveal the fallacious character of such comment. Where
are all of the “bad men” of the last two generations? Where are William
H. Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, E. H. Harriman and the others? They are not
simply in jail—they are dead. But who noticed the slightest abatement of
robbery when they died? Who will note the slightest improvement of
conditions when the “bad men” of the present day are dead? Then how
ridiculous it is to say that if Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller and some
others were in jail we should have no more robbery. So long as we have a
system that makes men bad we shall have bad men.

Let us now inquire what it is about the capitalist system that makes men
bad. We shall not have far to look. It is the private ownership and
control, for the sake of private profits, of the means of life. Think
how gigantic is this power! All of our food, clothing and shelter is
made with machinery. A few own the machinery. The others cannot use it
without permission. And, if permission be given, it can be used only
upon such terms as the owners offer. Those terms are always the lowest
wages for which anybody can be found to work.

Is it any wonder that the few who control this machinery go mad with the
desire to accumulate wealth? Is it any wonder that they press their
advantage to the limit? Are you sure you would have done less if you had
been placed in the same circumstances? I am not sure I should have done
less. In fact, I am quite sure I should have done as much, or more, if I
could. I say this because I take into account the tremendous power of
habit and environment.

An environment of money makes those whom it surrounds forget men. The
_Titanic_ was not raced through icebergs to her doom because her owners
were indifferent to the loss of human life. The _Titanic_ was raced to
her doom because her owners _forgot_ human life. They thought only of
the money that would come from the advertisement of a quick trip across
the Atlantic. If they had not been made mad by this thought they would
at least have remembered their ship, with its cost of $8,000,000. But in
their money-madness they forgot not only their passengers, but their own
ship. Yet, if the manager of the company had been sailing the ship for
the government, without thought of profit, he would have thought of the
passengers, the crew, the ship and the icebergs. And if the trusts were
owned by the government, the men in charge of them would think of the
workers when they fixed wages and of the consumers when they fixed the
prices of finished products.

So easy is it to dispose of the argument that Socialism is impracticable
because it could not be made to work “without changing human nature.”
Some men believe we must forever go on grabbing, grabbing, grabbing,
while others go on starving, starving, starving. Human nature will
“change” just so rapidly as conditions are changed. If one sits on a
red-hot stove, it is “human nature” to arise. But if the stove be
permitted to cool, one who sits on it will not arise until other reasons
than heat have made him wish to do so. Yet, the human nature of the man
in each case is the same. It has in no wise changed. It is only the
stove that has changed.

Precisely so will the actions of men change when the production of the
necessities of life by the government has demonstrated that no one need
ever fear the lack of the means with which to live. The very knowledge
that the stomach is taken for granted—that with free opportunity to
labor, the material necessities and comforts of life are as assured as
the air itself—will destroy the incentive to accumulate more wealth than
is needed. Even the richest now consume and waste but a fraction of the
wealth they possess. Yet they are spurred on to seek still further
accumulations, because it is only so recently, comparatively, that the
whole race was fighting for the means of life, that the madness for
money is still in the air.

The madness for money will not always be in the air. Human nature is
wonderfully adaptive. As soon as the workers take control of the
government for the benefit of their class, and demonstrate the perfect
ease with which enough wealth can be produced to enable everybody to
live as well as the $5,000 a year man now lives, the scramble for wealth
will quickly subside. It will not subside instantly, but it will
subside. A few may grumble, as their industries are bought and taken
over by the government, but they will have to take it out in grumbling.
They will not even have to work if they don’t want to. They will have
enough money obtained from the sale of their plants to enable them to
live without working. But none of their successors will ever be able to
live without working, because no opportunity will exist for anyone to
obtain the products of another’s labor. Goods will be made and sold by
the government at cost. No capitalist will stand between producers and
consumers. The people will be their own capitalists, owning their own
industrial machinery and managing it through the government.

Those who are opposed to Socialism ask what assurance we have that,
under Socialism, the people would be able to manage their government.
Others ask why we should not be as likely to have grafters in office
under Socialist government as we are now under Democratic or Republican
government? Still others believe that a Socialist government would
inevitably become tyrannical and despotic, destroying all individual
liberty and eventually bringing down civilization in a heap.

Let us answer these objections one by one. And let us first inquire why
the people are not now able to manage and control their government.

In the first place, our form of government does not permit the people to
control it. The rich men who made our constitution—and they were rich
for their day; not a working man among them—purposely made a
constitution under which nothing could be done to which the rich might
object. That is why the United States senate was created. It was frankly
declared in the constitutional convention that the senate was intended
to represent wealth. The house of representatives was to represent the
people, but the senate was to represent wealth, and the house of
representatives could enact no legislation without the consent of the
senate. Moreover, the United States supreme court, over which the people
have absolutely no control, was created to construe the laws made by
congress.

That is the first reason why the people do not now control their
government—the framers of the constitution did not intend that they
should control it, and the rich men of our day are taking advantage of
their opportunity to control it themselves. The second reason is that
the capitalist system, based, as it is, upon private profits, makes it
highly profitable for the capitalist class to control the government.
The robberies of capitalism are committed through laws, and control of
the government is necessary to obtain and maintain the laws.

Socialists would abolish the senate, thus vesting the entire legislative
power in the house of representatives. They would take from the
President the power to appoint justices of the supreme court, and give
the people the right to elect all judges. They would take from the
United States supreme court the usurped power to declare acts of
congress unconstitutional, and give to the people the power to say what
acts of congress should be set aside. They would make the constitution
of the United States amendable by majority vote, and they would make
every public official in the country, from President down, subject to
immediate recall at any time, by the vote of the people.

Socialists respectfully offer these reasons, among others, for believing
that under Socialism, the people would be able to control their
government. Another reason is that, under Socialism, there would be no
trust senators or representatives, no representatives of great private
banking interests or other aggregations of private capital, because
there would be no such private interests.

The reasons are equally plain why, under Socialism, we should not be as
certain to have Socialist grafters in office as we are now to have
Democratic and Republican grafters. But not one of these reasons is that
Socialists believe themselves to be more nearly honest than anyone else.
Socialists have no such delusion. Socialists simply point to the fact
that all of the present grafting is to secure private profits. When the
profit system is abolished, and goods are made for use instead of for
profit, nothing will be left to graft for. Public officials could still
steal, of course; they could falsify pay-rolls, and probably in many
other ways rob the people. But, in the first place, public officials now
do little of this sort of clumsy stealing, and, in the second place,
whatever stealing of this sort that may be done under Socialism will be
punished in precisely the same way that it now is, except more
vigorously. Moreover, Socialists do not believe there will be much such
stealing, or that it will long continue. And so far as grafting is
concerned, when the private profit system that makes grafting is
abolished, grafting will be abolished along with it.

Let us now examine the charge that a Socialist government would become
tyrannical, despotic, destroy individual liberty, and thus destroy
civilization itself.

With all legislative power vested in the house of representatives which
is elected by the people, all judges elected by the people and the
United States supreme court shorn of its usurped power to declare laws
unconstitutional, it is difficult to see how the government could become
tyrannical. It is still more difficult when it is considered that, under
the Socialist government, the people would have these additional powers:

The power to recall, at any time, any official.

The power to enact, by direct vote, any laws that their legislative
bodies might refuse to enact.

The power, by direct vote, to repeal any law that their legislative
bodies had enacted.

And the power, by direct vote, to amend their constitutions, both
federal and state, any time they wished to do so.

If there could be any tyranny or despotism under such a form of
government, gentlemen who profess to believe so are entitled to make the
most of it.

Many good persons believe, however, that if Socialism were to come, all
individual liberty would be lost. Such persons lack, not only a
knowledge of Socialist plans, but a sense of humor. They assume that we
now have individual liberty. They do not seem to realize that the
average boy, as soon as he is old enough to work, if not before, is
grabbed off by necessity and chucked into the nearest job at hand. The
boy may have preferred to work at something else; perhaps even he is
better fitted for something else. But the pinch of necessity both
compels him to work and to take what he can find. He may rattle around
in two or three occupations before he finds one in which he stays for
life, but the other occupations, like the first one, are not of his
choosing. He takes each of them simply because he must have work.

If Socialism would enable the head of every family to earn as good a
living as the $5,000–a-year man now gets, the head of no family would be
compelled to send his children out to work until they had completed, at
least, the high school course. If boys were not compelled to go to work
so young, does it not seem likely that, with added years, they would be
better able to choose an occupation that would be more nearly suited
both to their tastes and their abilities? And if we should destroy the
power of poverty to push boys into the occupation nearest to them,
should we be justly subject to the charge that we had destroyed, or even
impaired, the boys’ individual liberty?

Persons who derive their knowledge of Socialism from capitalist sources
have strange, and sometimes awful, ideas of what Socialism is setting
out to do. They are told, and many of them believe, that under
Socialism, the individual would be a mere puppet in the hands of the
government, not arising in the morning until the ringing of the
governmental alarm clock, doing during the day whatever odd jobs might
be assigned to him by a governmental boss, and going to bed at night
when the boss told him to.

Suppose we shake up this trash and let the wind blow through it.

Who would thus tyrannize over the people? “The Socialists,” it is
answered. But who, at that time, will the Socialists be? They will
constitute at least a majority of the people, will they not? The
Socialists will never gain control of the government until they become a
majority—the Milwaukee coalition plan of the old capitalist parties can
be depended upon to prevent that. Then what you are asked to believe is
that a majority of the people will deliberately go about it to create
and afterwards maintain a form of government and industry under which
the majority as well as the minority will be slaves.

Remember this: Socialism will never do anything that at least a majority
of the people do not want done. This is not a promise, it is fact. A
Socialist administration could do nothing to which a majority of the
people objected. If such an act were attempted, the majority would
instantly recall the administration, wipe out its laws, and assert its
own will.

And, also, remember this: If the Socialists, after the next election,
were to control every department of the government there would be no
upheaval, no paralysis of industry. Everybody would go to work the next
morning at his accustomed task. The business of socializing industry
would proceed in an orderly, deliberate manner. One industry at a time
would be taken over. Perhaps the railroads would be taken over first. A
year might be required to take them over. But not a wheel would stop
turning while the laws were being changed.

Gentlemen who talk about the blotting out of individual liberty under a
Socialist government make this fatal mistake. They assume that a
minority would control a Socialist government, precisely as a minority
now controls this government. And having made this error they naturally
easily proceed to the next error—the assumption that if Socialists were
to establish such a crazy government, they would not suffer from it as
much as anyone else, and, therefore, would maintain it against the will
of the others.

There is absolutely no foundation for this
“tyranny-loss-of-individual-liberty” charge. A government controlled by
the people cannot tyrannize over the people, nor can the abolition of
poverty curtail, under democratic government, the individual liberties
of the people. Who now has the most individual liberty—the man who is
poverty-stricken or the man who isn’t?

Yet Socialists make no pretense of a purpose to create a world in which
the worker may blithely amble up to the governmental employment office
and demand a job picking a guitar. The worker may amble and demand, but
he will not get the job unless there is a guitar to pick. In other
words, Socialists expect to exercise ordinary common sense in the
conduct of industry. Broadly speaking, the man who is best fitted to do
certain work will be given that work to do. It would be absurd to plan
or promise anything else. At the same time, the destruction of poverty,
and the multiplication of the mass of manufactured goods that will
follow the satisfaction of all of the people’s needs, will give the
workers greater freedom in exercising their discretion in the choice of
an occupation.

At this point in the proceedings somebody always inquires, “Who will do
the dirty work?”

Socialists do not expect ever to make the cleaning of sewers as pleasant
as the packing of geraniums. They do expect, however, to offer such
extraordinarily good compensation for this extraordinarily unpleasant
work that the sewers will be cleaned. Why should anyone expect that plan
to fail, since the present plan does not fail? We now offer very poor
wages for this very unpleasant work, yet the sewers do not go uncleaned.
Is it to be supposed that the same men who are now doing this dirty work
for low wages would refuse to do it for high wages? Most certainly the
government would be compelled to offer wages high enough to get the
dirty, but important, work done. It is lack of work that now makes men
take dirty work at dirty wages. Under Socialism there can be no lack of
work, because the people will own their own industrial machinery and
will be free to use it. Furthermore, machinery is now doing much of the
dirty work, and, as time goes on, will do more of it.

Socialists are often asked what they will do with the man who will not
work. If facetiously inclined, they usually reply that one thing they
will certainly not do with him is to make him a millionaire. But,
really, the question is absurd. What do the opponents of Socialism
believe a Socialist government would do with the man who would not work?
Do they believe such a man would be given a hero medal, or be pensioned
for life? What is there to do with such a man, but to let him starve? I
mean a man having the ability to work and having work offered to him,
who would nevertheless refuse to work.

But, outside the ranks of criminals, there is no such man, nor will
there ever be. Socialists would punish thieves precisely as capitalists
punish them, except for the fact that Socialists would not discriminate
in favor of the biggest thieves. To answer the question in a single
sentence, Socialists would depend upon the spurs afforded by the desires
for food, clothing and shelter, to keep most of the people at work, and
the odd man who might choose to steal would be treated in the ordinary
way—imprisoned.

But the question, “What will you do with the man who will not work?”
reveals a strange belief that is held by those who do not hold much of a
clutch upon the facts of life. I have a very dear old aunt who believes
from the bottom of her honest heart that the great mass of unemployed
are either drunkards or loafers. In discussing the problem of the
unemployed with gentlemen who are living upon the sunny side of the
street, they almost invariably fire this question, “Why don’t those
fellows get out into the country where the farmers are crying for help
and can’t get any?”

I was brought up on a farm, and I still remember that not much farming
was done in winter. The great demand for extra help comes in mid-summer,
when the crops are harvested. During six or eight weeks there is a
demand from the farms for more help than they can get. But what man who
has a family in the tenements of New York or Chicago can afford to pay
his railroad fare to Iowa, Nebraska, or even Ohio, to get six weeks’
work?

In the first place, they have not the money with which to pay their
fare. These men live from hand to mouth in the city, running in debt
during the week, and paying their debt with the wages they receive
Saturday night. If their fares were advanced by the farmers who wanted
to hire them they would have little or nothing left from what they might
earn on the farms, and, in the meantime, their families in the cities
would be starving. Furthermore, farm-work is a trade of which these city
workers know nothing. They could learn the trade of farming, of course,
but they could not learn it in six weeks. At any rate, in panic times
there are more than 5,000,000 out of work in this country, and in no
conceivable circumstances is it possible that any considerable part of
this number could find work upon the farms even six weeks of the year.

The fact is that the conditions of modern industrial life are so hard
that an increasing number of unorganized workers are barely able to
live, even when they work. The constantly increasing cost of living,
brought about by the trusts through their control of markets and prices,
robs these men to the limit, and they have no labor unions to increase
their wages. Still, they do not refuse to work, even for a bare,
miserable living. On the contrary, they are eager to work. So are the
great bulk of the unemployed eager to work for a miserable living.

If, under these horrible conditions, men are willing to work, what
reason have we to suppose that any great number would refuse to work
under a Socialist government for compensation that would enable each of
them to live as well as the $5,000–a-year man now lives? Gentlemen who
want to worry about this may worry about it. Socialists are not
worrying. If, under Socialism, a few dyed-in-the-wool loafers should
appear, Socialists are prepared to deal with them. They do not propose
to cease their attempts to rid the world of poverty, merely because of
the possibility of the appearance of an occasional loafer.




                               CHAPTER V
                 HOW THE PEOPLE MAY ACQUIRE THE TRUSTS


Most men are not interested in private profits, because they don’t get
any. Profits are only for capitalists, and the number of capitalists
bears but an insignificant proportion to the whole number of people.
Most men are wage-workers, of one sort or another, or small farmers.

Yet we are living under a system that makes private profits the basis of
business. If profits are good, business is good. If profits are only
fair, business is only fair. If profits are bad, business is bad. And,
when business is bad, the whole country suffers, though the country has
the men, the machinery and the land with which business might be made
good.

Socialists liken the present business edifice to an inverted pyramid
resting upon its point—the point of private profits. Socialists have
observed that the steadiest pyramids do not rest upon their points. They
do not believe the pyramids of Egypt would have stood as long as they
have if they had not been right side up. Socialists therefore propose
that the pyramid of business shall be turned right side up. They believe
it would stand more nearly steady if placed upon the broad basis of the
people’s needs than it now does upon the pivot-point of private profits.

That is all that Socialists mean when they talk about the
“revolutionary” character of their philosophy. They want to make a
revolutionary change in the basis of business. They want goods produced
solely to satisfy the public need for goods, rather than to satisfy any
man’s greed for profits. They do not see how business can be thus
revolutionized, so long as a few men own all of the great machinery with
which goods are produced. Socialists, therefore, propose that the
ownership of all the great machinery shall be acquired by the people, by
purchase, and thus transferred from a few to all.

Those who are not in favor of this program may be divided into two
classes. One class, desiring to cling to the private profit system, is
opposed, upon principle, to the Socialist program. The other class,
while eager enough, perhaps, to be rid of present conditions, does not
believe the Socialist plan is practicable. The reason why so many men
believe the Socialist plan is impractical is because so many men do not
know what the Socialist plan is. The newspapers, owned as they are by
capitalists, do not take the pains to tell the people much about the
plans of Socialism. Even so great a trust lawyer as Samuel Untermyer of
New York, apparently did not know much about the plans of Socialism
until he debated Socialism in Carnegie Hall with Morris Hillquit. Mr.
Untermyer, in his opening statement, made the colossal mistake of
declaring that the Socialists had no definite plan for transferring the
industries of the country from private to public ownership; that no one
knew whether they meant to take over all industries, or whether they
meant to take over only the trusts, while leaving the small concerns
that are now fighting the trusts to compete with the government. In
short, Mr. Untermyer left the impression that in the matter of putting
their program into practice the Socialists were whirling around in a
fog.

Let us see who was whirling around in a fog.

Victor L. Berger, the Socialist congressman from Milwaukee, introduced
in the House of Representatives a bill embodying the following features:

  The government shall immediately proceed to take over the ownership of
  all the trusts that control more than 40 per cent. of the business in
  their respective lines.

  The price to be paid for these industries shall be fixed by a
  commission of fifteen experts, whose duty it shall be to determine the
  actual cash value of the physical properties.

  Payment for the properties shall be proffered in the form of United
  States bonds, bearing 2 per cent. interest payable in 50 years, and a
  sinking fund shall be established to retire the bonds at maturity.

  In the event of the refusal of any trust owner or owners to sell to
  the government his or their properties at the price fixed by the
  commission of experts, the President of the United States is
  authorized to use such measures as may be necessary to gain and hold
  possession of the properties.

  A Bureau of Industries is hereby created within the Department of
  Commerce and Labor to operate all industries owned by the government.

Mind you, this is but the barest skeleton of the Berger bill. The bill
itself may have no sense in it. But that is not the point. Samuel
Untermyer, great trust lawyer and presumably well-read man, said that
the Socialists had no definite plan for taking over the industries of
the country. He made this statement in Carnegie Hall before thousands of
people. And there was not one word of truth in it. If he had taken the
slightest pains to inform himself, he might easily have learned that the
Socialists have an exceedingly definite plan for taking over the
ownership of the nation’s industries.

But Mr. Untermyer took no pains to inform himself. Ignorant as an Eskimo
of the Socialist program, he just went to Carnegie Hall and talked. What
he did not know, he guessed. What he could not guess right, he guessed
wrong. He could guess almost nothing right. Mr. Hillquit made him look
ridiculous. He was ridiculous. He was more than ridiculous. He was an
object for pity. A great lawyer, having a great reputation to sustain,
discussing a great subject of which he had only the most meager
knowledge!

Mr. Hillquit riddled him, of course, but he did not riddle much because,
speaking Socialistically, Mr. Untermyer is not much. But, unfortunately,
only the 5,000 or 6,000 who heard the debate knew that Mr. Untermyer had
been riddled. Millions of New Yorkers who read the capitalist newspapers
the next morning received the impression from the headlines that
Untermyer had riddled not only Hillquit but Socialism. “Socialists have
no definite plans for doing the things they want to do” was the parroted
charge. The charge was not true, but the public did not know the charge
was not true. The capitalist newspapers would not let the public know.
The newspapers had good reasons for not letting the public know. The
newspapers are owned or backed by millionaires who are interested in
maintaining present conditions. Socialism would interfere with these
newspaper millionaires as much as it would interfere with any other
millionaires. Yet it is from such sources that the public receives most
of its information with regard to Socialism. It is because of this fact
that the public knows so much about Socialism that is not so.

It emphatically is not so that the Socialists have no definite plan for
taking over the management and control of the industries of the country.
They know precisely what they are trying to do and how they are trying
to do it. They have not drafted all of the laws that would be required
under a Socialist republic for the next 500 years, but they have
formulated certain general principles that, once established, will
endure for centuries. I shall endeavor to make these general principles
plain.

Socialists want to end class warfare. They want to prevent one class
from robbing any other class. They do not see how class warfare can be
ended so long as a small class controls the means of life of the great
class. The means of life is the machinery and materials with which men
work. Socialists, therefore, purpose that the means of life shall be
owned by all of the people, through the government.

If this program be put into effect, a start must be made somewhere.
Socialists purpose that the start be made with the trusts. They propose
that the start be made with the trusts because the trusts have advanced
furthest along the road of evolution. The trusts have already sloughed
off the multitude of primitive, competitive managers. They are
concentrated. Only the slightest shift will be necessary to concentrate
the managements a little more and vest them in the government. Besides,
the trusts control the bulk of the production of the great necessaries
of life. Get the trusts and we shall have life. We shall have food. We
shall have clothing. We shall have shelter. We shall have all of these
things, because we shall have the machinery with which we may make all
of these things.

Long before Congressman Berger’s bill was drafted, the cry of the
Socialists was “Let the nation own the trusts.” Among Socialists, this
cry was as insistent and as common as the cry of “Let us stand pat” was
insistent and common among the Hanna Republicans of 1896 and 1900. That
Socialist cry showed where the Socialists planned to begin. Congressman
Berger’s bill only echoed the cry and made it more definite. The
Socialist cry was “Let the nation own the trusts.” Congressman Berger’s
bill told what trusts were, within the meaning of Socialist demands, and
how to get them. Berger’s bill declared that a trust should be construed
to mean any industry or combination of industries that controlled 40 per
cent. or more of the national output of its product. And, Berger’s bill
also laid down the principle that the easiest way to acquire the trusts
is to buy them. Moreover, his bill also sought to provide the
governmental machinery and the money with which to do it.

Never mind whether Berger’s bill was wise or foolish. Never mind whether
the Socialist program is wise or foolish. We are now considering the
charge that the Socialists have no definite program. That is what Mr.
Untermyer said. That is what a thousand others say. Is it not plain that
they are all wrong? Who can doubt that if the Berger bill were enacted
into law, the trusts could and would be taken over? The Berger bill is
plainer than any tariff bill that was ever written. Any man of common
sense can understand it. No man can understand a tariff law. Yet tariff
laws are administered. They are definite enough to accomplish what the
protected manufacturers really want accomplished. Even those who oppose
high tariff laws do not contend that they should be repealed because
they lack definiteness.

The simple fact is that the Socialists want to take the trusts first,
because they are the most important and the best adapted to immediate
ownership by the people. For the time being, small competitive
manufacturers would be compelled to compete with the government. If the
Socialist theory of production is a fallacy, the small competitive
producers would demonstrate it by providing better working conditions
for their employees and selling goods more cheaply than the government.
In that event, Socialism would fall of its own weight and the nation
would restore present conditions.

If the Socialist theory of production is not a fallacy, the competitive
producers would be driven out of business and sell their plants to the
government for what they were worth. They would be driven out of
business, because they could not afford to do business without a profit.
They could get no profit without appropriating part of the product of
their workers, and if they appropriated part of the product of their
workers, the workers would shift over to the national industries where
no products were appropriated.

In short, if the national ownership of trusts were a success, the day of
the competitive manufacturer would be short. He could not afford to do
business with a competitor who sought no profits. And this is precisely
what Socialists believe would take place. They believe the national
ownership of the trusts would be quickly followed by the national
ownership of every industry that is now owned by some to skim a profit
from the labor of others.

This does not mean, however, that peanut stands would be owned by the
government. It does not necessarily mean that farms would be owned by
the government. The Socialists are not fanatics over the mere principle
of government ownership. They appeal to the principle only to accomplish
an end. The end is the destruction of the power of some to rob others.
If there is no robbery, there is no occasion for the application of the
principle. The ownership of a peanut stand gives the owner no power to
rob anybody. A man who tills his own farm is robbing nobody. Neither the
ownership of the peanut stand nor the ownership of the farm gives the
owner the power to rob anybody, because neither owner profits from the
labor of an employee. But if tenant farming should ever become a serious
evil in this country—and it is increasing all the while—the Socialists,
if they were in power, would take over the ownership of all tenant farm
lands. They would take over the tenant farms for the same reason that
they now want to take over the trusts—because the landlords were using
the power of ownership to appropriate part of the products of the
tenants.

Let this do for the critics who say that Socialists have no definite
program for taking over the ownership of the nation’s industries. There
is another set of critics who say that, if Socialists should ever take
over the industries, they could not run them. They say that the change
from private to public ownership would bring chaos, that the government,
as a manager of industry, would break down, that red revolution would
sweep the world and that civilization would probably go down with a
crash.

I shall pause a moment to comment upon the lack of humor that these
gentlemen betray. They take themselves so seriously. If they were called
upon to attend a dog beset with fleas, they would doubtless counsel the
dog to prize the fleas as it prized its life.

“Don’t bite off one of those fleas, my dear dog,” we can hear them say.
“You don’t know it, but they are doing you good. Each flea-bite
increases the speed with which you pursue game. If fleas were not biting
you all the time, you might become so comfortable that you would lie
down in the sun, go to sleep, forget to eat, and thus starve to death.
Remember, the fleas are your friends!”

Of course, the great capitalists who are opposing Socialism are not to
be likened to fleas, except as to the facts that they are exceedingly
agile and are working at the same trade. But in a season of national
mourning over the high cost of living, is it not unseemly for these
gentlemen to provoke us to laughter by telling us that, if we were to
lose them, we ourselves should be lost? We who work can never save
ourselves. We can be saved only by those who work us.

Let us get down to brass tacks. If the Socialists were to gain control
of this government to-morrow, probably the first thing they would do
toward carrying out their program would be to call a national convention
to draft a twentieth century constitution to replace our present
eighteenth century one. The convention would abolish the senate, vest
the entire legislative power in the house of representatives, destroy
the United States Supreme Court’s usurped power to declare acts of
congress unconstitutional, make all judges elective by the people and
establish the initiative, the referendum and recall. Socialists would
not attempt to establish Socialism without first clearing the ground so
that the people could control their government absolutely.

The work of the convention having been approved by the people, perhaps
the first trust that would be taken over would be the railroad trust. It
would be a big job. It would be so big a job that no other similar job
would be undertaken until the completion of the railroad job was well
under way, and the railroad job might require a year or two. I mention
this fact to show that it would not be the purpose of a Socialist
administration to rip this country up from Maine to Southern California
within twenty-four hours from the fourth of March. In fact, there would
be no ripping or jarring, as I shall soon show. Everything would proceed
in an orderly, lawful manner.

I say there would be no ripping or jarring, because there would be no
cessation of industry. Let us suppose, for instance, that the ownership
and control of the railroads had been transferred from the present
owners to the government. What would happen? Absolutely nothing in the
nature of a jar. What happens now when one group of capitalists sell a
railroad to another group of capitalists? Nothing, of course. The new
owners tell the general manager to keep on running trains, as usual, or
if they install a new general manager, they tell him to keep on running
trains. The trainmen, if they did not read the newspapers, would not
know the road had changed hands.

The transition from private to public ownership would be accomplished
precisely as smoothly. The only change would be in the orders that a
Socialist administration would give to the chief executive officer of
the railroads. That order, in substance, would be: “Don’t try to make
any profits out of the railroads. Run them at cost. Give the men more
wages and shorter hours, and give the public the best possible service
at the lowest possible rate and with the least possible risk to human
life.”

If you can manufacture a riot out of such ingredients, go to it. If you
can figure out how such a proceeding would disrupt civilization, proceed
at your leisure.

The cards are all down. You now know what the Socialists want to do.
Where is the danger?

“Oh,” the capitalist gentlemen say, “but you Socialists are not business
men, and business men are required to manage industries. A Socialist
government would therefore fail.”

Mayor Gaynor expressed much the same thought in a statement about
Socialism that he prepared for the New York _Times_. Mr. Gaynor’s
attitude toward Socialism is tolerant—almost sympathetic—yet he asked:

  “Who would run your Socialistic government? Where would you get honest
  and competent men? Would the human understanding and capacity be
  larger then than it is now?”

Wherever Socialism is discussed, such questions are asked. They are
evidently regarded as insuperable obstacles to Socialism. As a matter of
fact, they serve only to show how little the questioners know of
Socialism.

Socialists do not purpose to establish hatcheries for the breeding by
special creation, of a class of super-men to administer government and
manage industry. They will depend upon the regular run of the human race
for material with which to work out their ideas. But they will approach
the subjects of government and industry from a different point of view.
The capitalist’s conception of honest and efficient government is that
sort of government that will best protect him in the enjoyment of the
unjust advantages that he has over the rest of the people. The
capitalist’s conception of honest and efficient business management is
that sort of business management that will yield him the most profits
upon the least capital. The Socialist’s conception of the best
government is that which gives no man an advantage over another, while
giving every man the greatest opportunity to exercise his faculties,
together with the greatest degree of personal liberty that is consistent
with the liberty of everybody else. And, the Socialist’s conception of
honest and efficient business management is that sort of management that
produces the most product under the best working conditions at the least
cost and distributes it among the people without profit.

In answer to Mayor Gaynor and others, Socialists therefore make these
replies:

Capitalists are now able to get honest men who are competent to
administer the government in the interest of the capitalist class. Why,
then, should you doubt that Socialists will be able to get honest men
who will be able to administer the government in the interest of the
working class? In either case, it is simply a matter of executing the
orders of the employer. Capitalism’s employees obey its orders.
Socialism’s employees will, for the same reason, obey its orders. You
tell your employees to maintain the advantage that the few have over the
many, and they obey you. We shall tell our employees to destroy the
advantage that the few have over the many. We believe they will obey us.
If they do not, we shall recall them. That is more than you can now do.

Mayor Gaynor and others also ask if the “human understanding and
capacity” would be larger under Socialism than they are now. Positively
not. But we respectfully beg leave to suggest that it is not a matter of
understanding or capacity. It is a matter of purpose and intention. Men
“understand” what they are given to understand. If a man is told to
understand the problem of grinding human beings down to push dividends
up, he devotes his mind to this task and to no other. If the same man
were told to grind dividends down to the vanishing point and hoist human
beings high and dry above the poverty point, he would probably
understand that, too. And, so far as capacity is concerned, we already
have the capacity for great productive effort. We simply are not
permitted to exercise enough of it to keep us in comfort. Socialism
would not increase the capacity of the human mind, but it would give the
nation an opportunity to exercise the capacity it has.

To simmer the whole matter into a few words, Socialism would endeavor to
place government and industry in the hands of men who would consider
every problem and every opportunity from the point of view of the
working class. It is the reverse of this method against which Socialists
complain. Capitalists are compelled to consider the working class last
in order that they may consider themselves first. The interests of the
capitalist class and the working class, instead of being “identical,”
are hostile. The capitalist class seeks a maximum of product for a
minimum of wages. The working class seeks a maximum of wages for a
minimum of product. The two classes are at war with each other for the
possession of the values that the working class creates.

And, since capitalists control both government and industry, it is but
natural that the interests of capitalists should be considered first and
the interests of workingmen last.

A little thought is enough to dissipate the fear that a Socialist
government would fail, “because Socialists are not business men, and
business men are required to manage industry.” Let us first inquire,
what is meant by a “business man”? Is he not, first and foremost, a man
who is expert in the squeezing out of profits? Of course, he is. If he
can produce enough profits to satisfy his stockholders, he need know
nothing about the mechanics of the business itself. And, so long as
business is conducted upon the basis of private profits, it is obvious
that the men in charge of it must be “business” men—men who understand
the business of extracting profits.

But, with business established upon a basis of public usefulness, with
no thought of private profits, of what use would be such a business man?
His executive and organizing ability would be of the greatest value, but
his ability as a mere profit-getter would be of no value.

For purposes of illustration, let us consider Judge Gary, the chief
executive official of the United States Steel Corporation. Judge Gary
probably knows about as much about making steel as you do about making
Stradivarius violins. He was educated as a lawyer, practised law and was
graduated to the bench. He knows a steel rail from a gas tank, but, to
save his life, he could not make either. He is a lawyer—plus. A lawyer
with a business man’s instinct for profits. A lawyer with a business
man’s instinct for organization and administration.

Back of Judge Gary sits a cabinet of Wall Street directors who, in a
general way, tell him what to do. But, like Judge Gary, these Wall
street directors know nothing about the making of steel. They are expert
only in the making of profits.

Now, a simple old person who had just dropped down here from another
planet might tell you that such men could not possibly manage a great
business like that of the steel trust. Such a simple old person might
tell you that, under the management of such men, the plants of the steel
trusts would be as likely to turn out bologna sausages or baled hay as
steel. But we know, as a matter of fact, that, under the management of
such men, the steel trust turns out nothing but steel. And why? Simply
because, below these managers are thousands of highly trained men and
hundreds of thousands of wage-workers who, collectively, know all that
is known about the making of steel.

Here, then, comes this crushing question. If the Socialists were to gain
control of this government, and upon behalf of the government, buy out
the steel trust, what would prevent the Socialist President from writing
such a letter as this to the chief executive officer of the steel trust:

  “Dear Judge Gary: Until further notice stay where you are and do as
  you have been doing, except as to these particulars: Instead of
  consulting with J. Pierpont Morgan and your Wall Street cabinet,
  consult with me and my cabinet. Instead of making steel for profit,
  make it solely for use. It will not be necessary for you to make steel
  rails that break in order to keep steel stock from breaking on the
  market. Make everything as good as you can, sell everything you make
  at cost, increase the wages of your workingmen and shorten their
  hours. Do everything you can, in fact, to make the lot of the
  steel-worker as comfortable as may be.”

Would such a letter create a riot? Would Judge Gary indignantly resign
and the workers flee?

Would the production of steel be interrupted for a single moment?

Yet, in no more violent way than this would the Socialists take over the
ownership and control of any industry. The men now in charge would be
left in charge—at least until better men could be found to take their
places. Probably, here and there, a man would have to be changed. Not
every man who can squeeze out profits is good for anything else. But the
men who could forget profits and make good in usefulness—the men who
could look at their problems solely from the point of view of the
public—such men would be let alone. They would not only be let alone,
but they would be given a better opportunity than they now have to make
good. Profits ever stand in the way of making good in the real sense.
Steel rails that break and kill passengers are not made poor because the
steel trust officials do not know how to make them better. They are made
poor because it would decrease profits to make them better. Every
intelligent manager of industry knows of many things that he might do to
increase the worth of his product, but most of this knowledge goes to
waste because it would interfere with profits.

Let no man fear that Socialism, if tried, would crumple up because the
government would be unable to find competent managers of industry. Every
industry will continue to produce men who are competent to take charge
of its technical work. The matter of executive heads is of secondary
importance. The Postmaster General of the United States, who, almost
invariably, is a mere politician, is at the head of one of the greatest
enterprises in the world, yet the mails go on. The men who sort letters
must know their business. The Postmaster General need not know his. It
would be better if he did, of course, but even if he does not the mails
go on. So much more important, collectively, are the real workers of the
world than any man who figureheads over them.

When E. H. Harriman died the Harriman heirs found a man to head the
Harriman system of railroads. The man they found—Judge Lovett—is not
even a railroad man, but the Harriman lines go on. The Vanderbilts,
Goulds, Rockefellers and Morgans also find men to manage their railroads
and other industries. What these capitalists have done, the President,
his cabinet and congress, will probably have little difficulty in doing.

Opponents of Socialism make ridiculous statements about the slavery that
they declare would exist if the people, through the government, owned
and operated their own industries. The workingman is told that, under
Socialism, he would be ordered about from place to place as if he were a
child.

This charge is no more ridiculous than another charge that is sometimes
made, by which it is represented that, under Socialism, the blacksmith
would burst into an opera house, demand the job of leading the
orchestra, and start a revolution if he were denied the job. The fact is
that, under Socialism, industry would proceed, so far as these matters
are concerned, in much the same manner that it now proceeds. The workers
would be free to apply for the kinds of work for which they regarded
themselves as best fitted. So far as the necessities of industry would
permit, the applications of the workers would be granted. But, in the
long run, the workers would have to work where they were needed,
precisely as they now have to work where they are needed, and, then as
now, particular tasks would be given to those who were best fitted to
perform them. Under Socialism, the worker would have to apply for work,
at this place or that place, precisely as he does now. The only
difference would be that he would always get work somewhere, that he
would work fewer hours, under better conditions, for more pay, and,
that, as a voter, he would have a voice in the management of all
industry.

Such are the replies made by Socialists to the chief objections that are
launched against Socialism. There is another charge—not an
objection—that should also be considered. It is the charge that
Socialists are dreamers, striving to establish a Utopia. Nothing could
be more absurd. Socialists are evolutionists. They do not believe in
Utopias, because they do not believe there is or can be such a thing as
the last word in human progress. They believe the world will always
continue to go onward and upward, precisely as it has always gone onward
and upward. Much as they are devoted to Socialism, they have not the
slightest belief that the world will stop with Socialism. They believe
Socialism will some day become as outgrown and burdensome as capitalism
now is, and that, when that day comes, Socialism should and will give
way to something better.

The chief contention of Socialists is that Socialism is the next step in
civilization, that it represents a great advance over capitalism, that
it will end poverty and industrial depressions, and that Socialism must
come unless civilization is to go backward.




                               CHAPTER VI
                    THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY” BOGEY-MAN


Socialists want the people, through the government, to own and operate
the country’s great industries. In making this proposal, however, they
always specify that they also want the people to own and operate the
government.

Upon this slight basis rests the charge that Socialists oppose the right
of the individual to own private property. Gentlemen who own much
private property—hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth—energetically
try to frighten gentlemen whose holdings of private property are chiefly
confined to the clothes they stand in and the chairs they sit in.

“Beware of those Socialists,” say these gentlemen. “They are your worst
enemies. They would deprive you of the right to own private property.
They would have everybody own everything jointly, thus permitting nobody
to own anything individually. Look out for them.”

We Socialists say to you: “Look out for the gentlemen who are so fearful
lest you shall lose the right to own private property. If you will
observe carefully, you will note that they are the ones who own
practically all of the private property. You have hopes, perhaps, but
they have the property. Your hopes do not increase. Their property does.
Besides, we have no desire to deny you the right to own private
property. On the contrary, we want to make your right worth something.
It is not worth anything now, because you don’t own anything and can’t
own anything. You are kept too busy making a bare living.”

The imagination can picture no more seductive subject than the right to
own private property. The right to own private property suggests the
power to exercise the right. The power to exercise the right a little
suggests the power to exercise it much. The power to exercise it much
suggests the power to put the world at one’s feet; to reach out and get
this, whatever it may be; to go there and get that, wherever it may be.
Nothing that is of earth or on earth is beyond the dreams of one who
owns enough private property. Therefore, the subject may be worth a
little more than ordinary consideration.

What, then, is property? Let us look around us. One man has property in
land. So far as the eye can see, maybe, the laws of the state defend him
in his power to say: “This is mine. I bought it. I paid for it. No one
can take it from me without my leave. No one may even pick a flower from
the hillside, or a berry from a bush without my consent.”

Property in land may be called property in natural resources—property in
things that man did not make.

Then there is property in things that man has made. Property in food,
property in clothing, property in houses, and property in the mills and
machinery with which food, clothing, houses and all other manufactured
articles are made.

Now, why should anyone wish a property right in anything? Why should
anyone wish to say of anything on earth: “This is mine. No one may take
it from me without my leave. No one may even use it without my leave”?

Only that he may fully use and enjoy it. That is the only valid reason
that lies behind the desire to own anything. Some things cannot be fully
used and enjoyed unless they are exclusively within the control of those
who use them. A home into which the world was at liberty to enter would
be no home. It might be a lodging house or a hotel, but it would be no
home. Therefore, there is a valid reason why each individual should
exclusively control the house in which he lives. Such exclusive control
may arise from private ownership, as we now understand the term, or it
may arise from the right, guaranteed by the state, to exclusive control
so long as its use is desired; but, from whatever it may arise, it
should exist.

It is the shame of the present civilization that it does not exist. The
great majority of human beings have not the exclusive control of the
houses in which they live. Their clutch upon their habitations is of the
flimsiest sort. The sickness of the father may deprive them of the power
to pay rent and thus put them out. The ability of some other man to pay
a greater rental may put them out. Any one of many incidents may deprive
them of their right to exclusive control of their domiciles.

Exclusive control of the furnishings of a home is also necessary to
their complete enjoyment. What is true of house furnishings is true of
clothing. Anything, in fact, that is exclusively used by an individual
cannot be completely enjoyed unless it is exclusively controlled by that
individual.

Wherein lies the justice of permitting one individual to own that which
he does not use and cannot use, but which some other individual must
use? Why should Mr. Morgan and his associates be permitted to own the
machinery with which the steel trust workers earn their living? Why
should Mr. Rockefeller and his associates be permitted to own so many of
the railroads with which railroad men earn their living? Why should one
man be permitted to own block upon block of tenements, while block upon
block of tenement-dwellers own no homes?

These questions cannot be answered by saying that the world has always
been run this way. In the first place, it is not true. Never, during all
the years of the world, until less than a century ago, did a few men own
the tools with which all other men work. In fact, it is only within the
last 40 years that such ownership has divided the population into a
small master class and a vast servant class. But even if the world had
always been run as it is running, that, in itself, would not make it
right. And anything that is wrong cannot be made right without changing
it.

We Socialists are determined to change the laws relating to private
property. We assert that the present laws are wrong. We are prepared to
prove that they are wrong. We are eager to demonstrate that the poverty
of the masses is the direct result of the ownership, by a few, of a
certain kind of property that should not be privately owned. We refer,
of course, to the industrial machinery of the country, which is owned by
those who do not use it and used by those who do not own it.

Our proposal, therefore, is this: We say that all property that is
collectively used should be collectively owned, and that all property
that is individually used should be individually owned. The last clause
should help out the gentleman who is afraid that Socialism would rob him
of the ownership of his undershirt. The first clause will help him to
own an undershirt.

Please take this suggestion: Distrust any man who advises you to
distrust Socialism because of the fear that it would destroy the
individual’s right to own property. Such a man is always either ignorant
upon the subject of Socialism or crooked upon the subject of capitalism.
There are no exceptions, for Socialism does not mean what he says it
means and would not do what he says it would do.

Socialism would give such a meaning to the individual right to own
property as it has never had in all the history of the world. Under
Socialism, the individual would not only have the right to own property,
but he would have the power to exercise the right. He would own
property. If Socialism would not give every head of a family the power
exclusively to control as good a house as the $5,000–a-year man now
lives in, Socialists would have no use for Socialism. The actual
ownership of the house might or might not rest with the individual. To
prevent grafters from grabbing houses, it might be deemed advisable to
let the state hold the title. But the state would protect the individual
in the right exclusively to control the house as long as he wished to
live in it, even if it were for a lifetime. If the people so desired,
the state might even go further and give the children, after the death
of their parents, the same right. But no Socialist government would
permit a landlord class to fatten upon a homeless class.

Why? Because Socialists believe that no validity underlies a private
title to property except the validity that is completed by the _use_ of
property. This statement, like any other, can be made ridiculous by
construing it ridiculously. Socialists do not mean by this, for
instance, that if a man should take his family to the country for the
summer anybody would have a right to move into his house, merely because
he had temporarily ceased to use it. But Socialists do mean that it is
hostile to the interests of the community for a small class to own so
much that they can never use.

Socialists believe that the needs of the community are so great that all
of the resources of the community should be available to the community.
Therefore, they would require occupancy, or use, as a pre-requisite to
the perfection of a title. Not that if a man, in spring, were to hang up
his winter underclothing for the summer, any neighbor gentleman would
thereby be given the right to appropriate the same—nothing of the kind.
This statement with regard to use, like all other statements made by
Socialists, must be construed reasonably. We simply lay down the
principle that it is wrong to perpetuate conditions under which a few
are enabled to grab so much more than they can use. Such grabbing hurts.
What a man cannot use he should not have. He thereby prevents others
from getting what they need.

Besides, what is grabbing but a bad habit? Mr. Rockefeller’s
$900,000,000, if expended exclusively for bologna sausages, might buy
enough to supply him for a million years. If expended for golf balls, he
might be able to play golf, without buying a new ball, until he had
eaten the last sausage. If expended for clothing, he might be able to
wear a new suit, every fifteen minutes, for the next 28,000,000 years.
But what good do all of these figures do Rockefeller? His capacity for
consuming wealth is extremely limited. It is only his capacity for
appropriating the wealth created by others that is great. Every time Mr.
Rockefeller’s watch ticks $2 drop into his till—but he never sees them.
He hardly knows they are there. He has to hire a bookkeeper to know they
are there. So far as certainties are concerned, Mr. Rockefeller knows
only that when he wants bacon and eggs, with a little hashed brown
potatoes on the side, he has the money to pay for them. In other words,
the few wants of his slight physical body are never in danger of denial.

Mr. Rockefeller’s physical wants would be in no danger of denial if he
were worth only $50,000. Why, then, does he want to own the rest of his
$900,000,000 worth of property? Plainly, it is only because he is a
victim of a bad habit. Some men want money because of the power it gives
them, but Rockefeller has never seemed to care much about power. He
simply has a mania for accumulation. The more he gets, the more he can
get—therefore, he always wants to get more.

And, what does Rockefeller do with wealth, after he gets it? Why, he
lets us use it. He invests it in railroads, or steel mills, or
steamboats, or copper mines, or restaurants, or whatever seems likely to
bring him more money. He does not use any of these properties much. The
same freight train that brings him a package of breakfast food brings
carloads of kitchen stoves and iron bedsteads to those whose watches
have to tick all day to bring in $2. But the point is that while Mr.
Rockefeller uses his properties little and we use them much, he is
continuously charging us toll for their use and investing the toll in
more iron, more steel or more copper. If he charged us no toll, we
should have reason to be thankful to him. If he should invest the toll
in the necessities of life and dole them out to us, we should, if we
were beggars, also have reason to be thankful to him. But he invests his
toll in more iron, more steel or more copper—toll that the men who made
it need to put blood into their bodies and clothing on their families.

That is all that the private ownership of property does for Mr.
Rockefeller more than it does for anybody else. The beefsteak upon his
plate is no more secure from outside attack than is the food upon the
plate of the poorest laborer. But the industrial machinery that Mr.
Rockefeller owns enables him to get, every time his watch ticks, the
equivalent of $2 worth of food, or clothing, or anything else.

We stupid people who permit the private ownership of industrial
machinery should be exceedingly thankful to Mr. Rockefeller and men of
his type. To these gentlemen, are thanks especially due from those
persons who believe that the constitution of the United States
represents the last gasp of wisdom and should not, therefore, in any
circumstances, be changed. Under the constitution and laws of this
country, as they stand to-day, Mr. Rockefeller and his associates could
legally starve us to death, if they were so minded. Each of them could
go abroad, deposit $1,000,000 in the Bank of England, then cable
instructions to close down every industry they own, which would mean
every industry of importance in the country, including the railroads. No
one would have a legal right to trespass upon their premises, and their
hoarded wealth would be sufficient to enable them to live comfortably
abroad to the end of their days, while the people of America were
starving to death.

Of course, the people of America would not starve to death. Law or no
law, the people of America would break into the abandoned properties and
operate them. Without extended delay, they would change the law,
including the federal constitution, to justify their action. But the
theoretical possibility of such abandonment is sufficient to illustrate
the absurdity of our present laws with regard to the ownership of
private property.

When the constitution was adopted, even no such theoretical possibility
existed. It is true that we were then almost exclusively an agricultural
people, and some of the best families had stolen millions of acres of
the most available land. But back of the most available land were untold
millions of acres of other land upon which human life could be
sustained—land that could be had for the taking and clearing. The
factory age had not dawned. Every home was its own factory, in which
cloth was woven and clothing was made. Aside from the stolen land which
was privately owned, almost nothing was privately owned that was not
suitable for private ownership. That was largely due, of course, to the
further fact that there was not, at that time, much wealth in the
country.

But, viewed from any angle, the unrestricted private ownership of
property is a curse to the people and always has been. If it were not a
curse, in the sense that it enables some to rob others, no one who is in
his senses would be in favor of it. The desire to use property is a
legitimate reason for wishing to own it, but the desire to own property
that one does not use can arise from no other motive than a purpose to
use such ownership as a bludgeon with which to rob the users.

Apply this test and it will be found never to fail. The landlord owns
land because he wants to live in idleness from the fruits of those who
till the land. The multimillionaire owners of industrial machinery want
to own the industrial machinery because they want to use such ownership
to appropriate part of what their employees produce. If private
ownership did not give this advantage to the owners, the owners would
not care to own. If it does give this advantage to the owners the
workers have a right to object. Moreover, the workers have a right to
insist that such ownership cease.

It is not enough to reply that a man has a right to own any physical
property that he can buy. Some burglars have enough money to buy dark
lanterns and “jimmies,” paying for the same in perfectly lawful coin of
the United States. But merely because the private ownership of burglars’
tools is not for the good of the people, we have laws forbidding such
ownership, and if the laws be violated, we seize and confiscate the
tools.

Some day, the fact may dawn upon us that, for every dollar taken with
burglars’ tools, a million dollars is taken—quite legally, of course—by
the owners of industrial tools.

It may be a sore blow, of course, to a man who under capitalism, has
never been able to own a coffee grinder, to tell him that, under
Socialism, he would not be permitted to own a steel mill. If so, let the
blow fall at once. He might as well know the worst now, as later. But if
there be those who are interested in owning homes, furniture, clothing,
motorboats, automobiles, and so forth, let them be interested in
Socialism. Socialism, by no means, guarantees that every laborer shall
go to his work in a six-cylinder car, while his wife does the marketing
in a limousine, but it does guarantee that Socialism would not prevent
him from privately owning all such property that he could earn.

We realize, of course, that this is but a small bait to hold out to a
man whom capitalism has given the “right” to own the earth. Among
gentlemen who would like to own the earth, perhaps we shall therefore
make little progress. But among gentlemen who have been promised the
earth and are getting only hell, we may do better. The time may come
when they will tire of piling their bones at the foot of the precipice
of private property. The time may come when they will realize that it
would be no more absurd to have private undershirts owned by the public
than it is to have the public’s industrial machinery owned by private
interests. Then we shall have Socialism.

“And everything will be divided up equally, all around, and in five
years the same persons will be rich who are now rich, and the same
persons who are now poor will be poor again.”

List to the croaking parrot that has just flown into our happy home.
Whenever and wherever there is a discussion about Socialism, that wise
old bird wheels in and declares it is all a wicked scheme to rob the
rich for the benefit of the poor, and that in no event could it long
succeed. Poor old feathered imitation of a human intellect! Brainless,
yet not without a voice, it talks on and on and on. Bereft of its
feathers and its voice, it might take its place upon a hook in the
market place and eventually work its way into some careless shopper’s
basket as a perfectly good partridge, or diminutive duck. Placed upon
the table and served as a delicacy, its worthlessness would soon be
understood. But clad as nature clothed it and harping words that some
one once dropped into its ear, its voice is continuously mistaken for
the voice of wisdom and the progress of the world is commanded to halt.

But the progress of the world does not halt. Those who can think without
inviting excruciating pain; those who can reflect without bringing on a
stroke of apoplexy, are not compelled to think much or to reflect much
to realize that nothing the bird says about “dividing up” is so. Who
divided up the wealth that is represented in the public buildings in
Washington? What part of the White House, pray, do you own? Do you own
the south veranda, or do you own the President’s bed? Maybe it is the
gilded lady upon the dome of the Capitol who calls you “papa” or
“mamma.” If not, the wealth represented in the public buildings in
Washington has not been “divided up,” for you have not been given your
share.

Under Socialism, the wealth of the nation would no more be divided up
than the wealth invested in the American navy is divided up now. The
industrial wealth of the community, owned in common by the members of
the community, would be at the service of the community. It would no
more be at the service of an individual, exclusive of any other or all
other individuals, than the postal department is now at the service of
an individual to the exclusion of any other individual. Nor would any
man or small set of men ever have a greater opportunity to regain
possession of the nation’s industrial wealth than any man or small set
of men now have to acquire private ownership of the Capitol at
Washington. Any man may walk into the Capitol with all the freedom that
he might feel if it were his own. But let any man try to sell off a wing
as a lodging house and the Capitol police would do their duty. Let
Socialists once nationalize the nation’s industries and they will
cheerfully agree to lay their heads on the block if individuals ever
recover possession of them.

Gentlemen who believe otherwise forget that under Socialism there would
no longer be the means by which a few pile up great fortunes at the
expense of the many. The private ownership of property that is
collectively used is the means by which such fortunes are now
accumulated. With the means gone, how could the fortunes reappear?

We Socialists are also often chided for what our opponents are pleased
to call our “gross materialism.” Gentle folk like the Morgans, the
Guggenheims, the Ryans, the Havemeyers and others often grieve because
our vision seems to comprehend nothing but bread and butter, clothing
and furniture, houses and lots and pensions for the aged.

Their grief is perhaps natural. We talk much about those things. We are
frankly committed to the task of removing poverty from the world.
Material things are required to remove poverty. When poverty goes, of
course, a lot will go that is not material. All of the unhappiness that
is caused by poverty and the fear of poverty will go. All of the
ignorance that is caused by poverty will go. All of the crimes that are
caused by ignorance and poverty will go. And much of the vice will go.

Much of the vice? Did you ever consider how much vice would go if
capitalism were to go? Did you ever realize to what extent vice is
fostered by the profit system to which Socialism is opposed? No? Then
read what Wirt W. Hallman, of Chicago, said before the American Society
of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis. Here it is:

  “If any city will take the profit out of vice, it will immediately
  reduce the volume of vice at least 50 per cent. If, in addition, it
  will make vice dangerous to men as well as women, to patrons,
  property-owners and business men as well as to dive-keepers and women
  street-walkers, it will reduce vice 75 per cent. or more, and will
  reduce the wreckage of health and morals in much the same proportion.”

Socialism will not only take the profit out of vice, but it will take it
out of everything. By enfranchising woman and making her economically
independent, no woman would be compelled to sell herself to keep
herself. Socialism, in this and other enumerated respects, is therefore
not particularly materialistic.

But what if it were wholly materialistic? What if its advocates thought
of teaching nothing to the world but the best means of supplying itself
with bread and butter, boots and shoes, caps and clothing, houses and
lots? Do you now require your grocer to teach you ethics? Does your
haberdasher supply you with spiritual food as well as neckties? If your
house were burning, would you refuse the assistance of the fire
department merely because the fire department is exclusively
materialistic?

The charge of “gross materialism” is but more sand thrown in the eyes of
those who could not be so easily robbed if they could see Socialism.
Socialists behold a world that is and always has been poverty-stricken.
They say that for the first time in the history of the world it is now
possible to remove poverty. And those gentlemen who might have to go to
work if poverty were removed rebuke the Socialists because they do not
sing psalms while talking about the bread and butter question.
Assuredly, no flattery is thereby intended, but indeed what flattery
this is. By inference, they tell the world that we are super-men. We
could tell the world all it needs to know if it were not for the
cussedness that causes us to harp on bread and butter.

The real cause of such complaint is, of course, not that we are teaching
the world too little, but too much. We could preach ethics and religion
until the cows came home and not arouse a croaker. We could preach
nothing until the cows dropped dead and still there would be silence.
But when we proclaim the right of the individual, not only to work, but
to possess all he creates, the gentlemen who create nothing and own
everything fire at us every brick within reach.

Mr. John C. Spooner, once a United States Senator from Wisconsin, but,
happily, no longer such, feels particularly aggrieved at the Socialist
proposals commonly known as the initiative, the referendum and the
recall. To engraft these measures upon our federal and state
constitutions would, he says, be an attempt to bring about a “pure
democracy,” meaning thereby a community the members of which directly
governed themselves. A “pure democracy,” according to Mr. Spooner, was
never made to work on a great scale and cannot be made to work to-day.

Mr. Spooner, who, in and out of office, has always served the rich, is
evidently still true to his allegiance. If Mr. Spooner does not know
that no Socialist, nor any other person fit to be out of an idiot
asylum, has ever even suggested that the government of the United States
be converted into a pure democracy, the sum of his knowledge is even
less than the sum of his public services up to date. Socialists, and
those who have followed us in advocating the initiative, the referendum
and the recall merely want to give the people power to do certain things
for themselves, provided their elected representatives refuse to do
them.

We do not propose to do away with representative government. We do not
propose to disband a single legislative body. But we do propose to make
every elected official represent us. We do not care whether he be a
judge, a congressman or a President. He must represent us. But merely
because we are determined these gentlemen shall represent us, other
gentlemen like Mr. Spooner seek to make the people believe we are trying
to go back to the old New England town meeting days and collect
90,000,0000 people on the prairie somewhere every time a law is to be
passed or a fourth-class postmaster appointed. The most charitable
construction that can be placed upon the attitude of Mr. Spooner and men
of his kind is that they are infinitely more foolish than they believe
Socialists to be.

Another point of view is suggested by a Denver gentleman whose letter
follows:

  “In one of your articles on Socialism, you tell how Socialists would
  govern—changes they would make in the constitution, and so forth. I
  should like to ask what you Socialists, or your ancestors had to do
  with making our present form of government? In other words, what
  percentage of the Socialists have three generations of American-born
  ancestors? Socialist leaders, in particular? A very small percentage,
  I venture to say. Socialism is a result of immigration. Americans
  still have faith in the constitution of the United States.”

When all other attacks fail, the charge is gravely made that “Socialism
is un-American” and, therefore, a “result of immigration.”

Does it never occur to these gentlemen that the United States are also
the “result of immigration”? That the English language, as we speak it
here, is the result of immigration?

Would these gentlemen have us reject everything that comes from Europe?
If so, why do they not reject the Declaration of Independence, which,
though written by Thomas Jefferson, yet breathes the spirit of Rousseau
and Voltaire, at whose feet he was proud to sit? Why do they not reject
the constitution of the United States which is heavily saturated with
the political principles of the English? Why do they not reject the
English common law, which assuredly is not American? Why do they not
reject the multiplication table, the works of Shakespeare and the
wireless telegraph?

Why don’t they? Because they are not fools. They are foolish, let us
hope, only when they are talking about Socialism. On this subject, their
brains curdle. They do not ask whether the principles upon which it is
based are true. Truth is not the test. The test is the place where the
principles were first proclaimed. If it could be proved that they were
first proclaimed at Muncie, Indiana, by a gentleman who was born there
immediately after the landing of Columbus—then we might expect these
patriots to become Socialists even if Socialism had not a leg to stand
upon. But since Europeans chanced to hit upon Socialism before we did,
precisely as they chanced to hit upon many another good thing before we
did, these gentlemen do not want Socialism, even though it be true.

Well, let them reject it. Let them reject the sun, the moon and the
stars, if they want to. None of them was made in America. Let them
reject the Mississippi River because it was discovered by De Soto, a
foreigner. Let them reject the Pacific Ocean because it was discovered
by Balboa, another foreigner. The march of the sun and planets will
probably not be seriously disturbed, even if some gentlemen do reject
them. Possibly the Mississippi River may flow on. Certainly, the
Socialist party in America will not disband. It’s busy.

I cannot tell my correspondent what percentage of Socialists have three
generations of ancestors who were born in America. I do not know. I do
not care. I do not know why he should care. I know some Socialists who
have fifteen generations of ancestors who were born in America. I have
seen some Socialists when they had been in this country only fifteen
minutes. So far as I could discover, they were precisely like the
Socialists who had lived in this country, in person or by proxy, for 300
years. They all believed that poverty was unnecessary and that Socialism
would remove it.

Either that belief is true, or it isn’t. Whence it sprang or by whom it
is expressed makes no difference with its truth or falsity. Yet, men who
think they can think, write or speak as this gentleman has written. They
mean well, of course, but they are suffering from ingrowing Americanism.
They are turning their eyes upon themselves and their backs upon the
world. If America ever reaches the point where it will reject truth,
simply because it comes from abroad, while accepting error for no other
reason than that it is made at home, America will not be worth bothering
about.




                              CHAPTER VII
                     SOCIALISM THE LONE FOE OF WAR


Ask the first man you meet if he is in favor of war and he will tell you
he is not. Mr. Wilson is opposed to war. The Czar of Russia is opposed
to war. The King of Italy is opposed to war. The Sultan of Turkey is
opposed to war. The King of England and the German Emperor are opposed
to war. Every king and emperor in the world is opposed to war. Mr.
Roosevelt, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Taft—everybody,
everywhere, is opposed to war.

Yet, Mr. Taft, not so long ago, flung an army in the face of Mexico, and
dispatched powerful warships to the coast of Cuba. The King of Italy,
not so long ago, attacked, by land and sea, the people of Turkey. Mr.
Roosevelt and Mr. Bryan, a little longer ago, enlisted in the war
against Spain. Mr. Morgan, only a few years ago, helped to furnish the
sinews of war with which Japan fought Russia. At this moment, the King
of England and the German Emperor are threatening their respective
nations with bankruptcy in order to augment their enormous machinery for
the slaying of men. And, Mr. Carnegie, having grown rich, in part by the
manufacture of armor-plate for warships, is now using some of his money
to further a peace-movement that brings no peace.

Plainly, here is something mystifying—a world that wants to stop
fighting and cannot. Why cannot it stop fighting? Mr. Wilson cannot tell
you. Mr. Morgan will not tell you. Mr. Roosevelt has not told you. Mr.
Bryan and Mr. Carnegie seem not to know. No one who should know seems to
know. Yet, they must know. Common sense says so. The men who make wars
know why they make them. Wars do not happen—they are made. Somebody
says: “Bring out the guns.” Somebody says: “Begin shooting.” Somebody
knows what the shooting is about.

What is it about? Be careful, now. Don’t answer too quickly. Don’t say
“the flag” has been insulted. Don’t say “the national honor” has been
impugned. These are old reasons, but they may not be true reasons. We
Socialists are willing to stake everything on the statement that they
are not true reasons. If we are right, we are worth listening to. War is
hell. During the 132 years that we have been a nation, we have had war
hell at average intervals of 22 years. We are already preparing for our
next war. We are arming to the teeth. It may not last so long as the
Civil War, but it will be bloodier. We have all of the most improved
machinery for making it bloodier.

On the sea we are armed as Farragut never was armed. Any of our
dreadnoughts could sink all of the ships, for which and against which,
Farragut ever fought. And, on land, we are armed as Grant never was
armed. Grant drummed out his victories with muzzle-loading rifles. No
rifle could be fired rapidly. No bullet could kill more than one man,
nor any man unless that man were near. But the modern rifle can be fired
25 times a minute, and it will kill at four miles. More than that, a
single bullet from a modern rifle will kill every man in its path. It
will shoot through 60 inches of pine. It will string men like a needle
stringing beads. It will literally make a sieve of a soldier. Seventy
bullet holes and more were found in the body of many a man who fell on
the plains of Manchuria.

Toward such a war—or worse—we are speeding. Indeed, it will be hell. But
it will not be hell for the men who make it. It will be hell for the men
who fight it. The men who make it will stay at home. Their blood will
drench no battlefield. Their bones will lie in the mire with no sunken
ship. But the blood of the workers will drench every battlefield, and
their skeletons will march with the tides on the floor of the sea.

Good Christian gentlemen who abhor war hold out no hope that war will
soon cease. Good Christian gentlemen who abhor war pretend not to know
why, in a world that is weary of war, war still persists. Or, if they do
pretend to know, they account for the persistence of war by slandering
the human race. They say the race is bad. Its brain is full of greed.
Its heart is full of murder.

The mind of the race is not, nor ever has been filled with the greed
that kills.

The heart of the race is not, nor ever has been, filled with the black
blood of murder.

It is only a few whose minds and hearts have been thus poisoned by greed
for gain or lust for power. Probably we should all have been thus
poisoned if we had been similarly circumstanced—if we had been great
capitalists. But most of us, lacking the capitalist’s instinct for
profits, never chanced to see the easy loot and the waiting dagger lying
side by side. The gentlemen who have seen them have made our wars. And
the gentlemen who do see them are making our wars to-day and preparing
others for the future.

We Socialists make this charge flatly. We smear the monstrous crime of
war over the face of the capitalist class. We mince no words. We say to
the capitalist class:

“Your pockets are filled with gold, but your hands are covered with
blood. You kill men to get money. You don’t kill them, yourselves. As a
class, you are too careful of your sleek bodies. You might be killed if
you were less careful. But you cause other men to kill.

“And you do it in the meanest way. You do it by appealing to their
patriotism.

“You say: ‘It is sweet to die for one’s country.’

“You don’t dare say: ‘It is sweet to die for Havemeyer,’ as many
Americans died during the Sugar Trust war to ‘free Cuba.’

“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for Guggenheim or Morgan,’ as many
Americans would have died if Taft’s army had crossed the Rio Grande.

“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for the Tobacco and other trusts,’
as many Americans died during the war with the Philippines.

“You don’t dare say any of these things, because you know, if you did,
you would not get a recruit. You know you would be more likely to get
the boot.”

We Socialists, who make these charges, know they are serious. They are
as serious as we know how to make them. If they lack any of the
seriousness they should have, it is because we lack some of the
vocabulary we should have. The facts upon which the charges are made are
serious enough to justify the full use of any vocabulary ever made. The
facts are the facts of colossal murder for gain. And they are as old as
history.

The small rich class that lives in luxury from the labor of the great
poor class has a reason for clinging to the control of government. That
reason is not far to seek. Without the control of government, the small,
rich class would not be rich. Government, in the hands of the rich, is a
sort of two-handed claw with which golden chestnuts are pulled out of
the fire. One claw is the governmental power to make and enforce laws.
The other claw is the power to grab by force that which cannot be
grabbed by laws.

One nation cannot make laws for another nation. But the capitalists of
one nation may possess property that is wanted by the capitalists of
another nation. Or the capitalists of one nation may see a great
opportunity for personal profit in transferring to their own nation the
sovereignty that another nation holds over a certain territory. That was
why Great Britain made war against the Boers. Certain rich English
gentlemen believed they could make more money if the British flag waved
over the diamond and gold fields of the Transvaal. For no more nearly
valid reason, the capitalist class of Japan made war against the
capitalist class of Russia. Russia had stolen Korea and Japan wanted it.
Korea belonged to the Koreans, but that made no difference. Two thieves
struggled for it and one of them has it.

The moment that the capitalist class of one nation determines to rob the
capitalist class of another nation, the machinery for inflaming the
public mind is set in motion. This machinery consists of tongues and
printing presses. Tongues and printing presses immediately begin to
foment hatred. Every man in each country is made to feel that every man
in the other country is his personal enemy. But that is stating it too
mildly. Every man in each country is made to feel that every man in the
other country is as much worse than a personal enemy as a nation is
greater than an individual. Fervent appeals are made to “patriotism.”
“The flag” is waved. It is not “sweet to die” for Cecil Rhodes, for
Rothschild or any one else—“It is sweet to die for one’s country.” And
thousands of men take the bait.

They bid farewell to their homes. They embark upon transports. They sail
strange seas. They disembark upon strange shores. They see strange men.
Men whom they never saw before. Men against whom they have no possible
sort of grudge. Men who never harmed them. Men whom they never harmed.
Common workingmen, like themselves.

But they shoot these men and are shot by these men. They spill each
other’s blood. They break each other’s bones. They break the hearts of
each other’s families. And, when one army or the other has been crippled
beyond further fighting, there is peace. The peace of the sword! The
peace of death! The peace that leaves the working classes of both
countries poorer and the capitalist class of only one country richer.

Was it not a great victory? Yes.

It was a great victory for the capitalists of the world who lent money
to both belligerents. (But it was not a great victory for the workingmen
of both countries, who, through weary, weary years, will be shorn of
part of their earnings to pay the interest upon the war bonds.)

It was a great victory for the capitalist group who plunged for plunder
and got it. (But it was not a great victory for the capitalist group
that lost its plunder.)

It was a great victory for the generals, who, from a safe distance,
directed the fighting. (But it was not a great victory for the
workingmen who, at close quarters, fell before the guns and were buried
where they fell.)

It was no sort of a victory for the working class of either country. At
least, any victory that came to the working class of either country was
merely incidental. Great Britain whipped the Boers, but the British
people did not get the gold mines and the diamond mines. The Japanese
whipped the Russians, but the Japanese workingmen did not get any of the
plunder for which the war was fought. The Japanese capitalists got all
of the plunder. The common people of Japan were so poor, after they had
fought a “successful” war against Russia, that, within six months of the
termination of the war, the Mikado urged the sternest self-denial upon
them as the only means of saving the country from bankruptcy. And,
notwithstanding the victory of the British over the Boers, the common
people of England were never before so poor as they are to-day.

What is the use of blinking these facts? They are facts. Nobody can
disprove them. They stand. They stand even in the face of the further
fact that some wars have helped the working class. The American
Revolution helped the working class of America. But the American working
class would not have been in need of help if the English land-owning
class who ruled the British government had not been using the government
to plunder and oppress the people of America.

But that is only one side of the story. Let us look at the American
side. The common people of America gained something from the war. They
slipped from the clutches of the English grafters. But they did not get
what they were promised. Read the Declaration of Independence and see
what they were promised. Read the Constitution of the United States and
see what they were given. Between the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution of the United States there is all the difference that
exists between blazing sunlight and pale moonlight. No finer spirit was
ever breathed into words than that which appears in the Declaration of
Independence. Jefferson wrote it, and he wrote splendidly, though the
Declaration, as it stands, is not as he first wrote it. Jefferson was so
afire with the idea of liberty that his associates upon the committee
that drafted the Declaration shrank from the light. They compelled him
to tone down his words. But the Declaration as it stands spells Liberty
with a big “L.” And, Liberty with a big “L” can be nothing but a
republic in which the people, through their representatives, absolutely
rule.

The people, through their representatives, have never ruled this country
and do not rule it to-day. The Constitution of the United States will
not let them. It will not let them vote directly for President. In the
beginning, the people did not even choose the electors who elected the
President. State Legislatures chose them. No man except a legislator
ever voted for the electors who chose Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Madison and some others. To this day the Constitution denies the right
of the people to choose United States Senators and Justices of the
United States Supreme Court. In the few states where the people
practically choose United States Senators they do so only by “going
around the end” of the Constitution. They exact a promise from
legislative candidates to elect the senators for whom the people have
expressed a preference. But this is wholly extra-constitutional. If the
legislators were to break their promises, the United States Supreme
Court would be compelled to sustain them in their constitutional right
to do so.

Now, here is the point. Granted that the American Revolution was of
value to the American working class. Granted that the ills that followed
from American rule were not so grievous as the ills inflicted by the
ruling class of England. Grant all this and more. Still, is it not true
that if it had not been for the ruling class of England, there would
have been no occasion for a war? Is it not true that the English people,
if they had been in control of their own government, never would have
harmed the people of America? When did the English people, or any other
people, ever harm anybody? When did a thievish, murderous ruling class
neglect to harm any people whose plunder seemed possible and profitable?

The idea that the people of one country, if left to themselves, would
ever become embittered against the people of another country, is absurd.
Test this statement by your own feelings. Are you so angry at some
Japanese peasant who is now patiently toiling upon his little hillside
in Japan, that you would like to go to Japan and kill him? Is there any
person in Germany whom you never saw that you want to kill?

Of course not. But if you are a “patriotic” American citizen, you may
some day cross a sea to kill somebody. If you believe in “following the
flag,” the flag may some day lead you into the hell of war. If you
believe “it is sweet to die for one’s country,” you may some day be shot
to pieces. But if so, you will not die for your country. Your country
wants you to live. You will die for the ruling class of your country. If
you should expire from gunshot wounds in Mexico, you might die for Mr.
Guggenheim, or some other noble citizen who will be far from the firing
line. Wherever you may die from war-wounds, you will die to put more
money into somebody else’s pockets.

It has always been so. Why did we go to war against England in 1812?
Because the English people had wronged us? The English people, left to
themselves, never wronged anybody. We went to war with England in 1812
because the ruling class of England, then deep in the Napoleonic wars,
were holding up American ships upon the high seas to take off alleged
British subjects and jam them into the British Navy.

Such action, of course, was harmful to American pride, but really it did
not deeply concern the American working class. Most of the workers lived
and died without ever having seen a ship. Nevertheless, the American
working class was summoned to the slaughter. My paternal
great-grandfather, a humble farmer in the Hudson River Valley, was
drafted into the ranks, and to this day I honor him because he would not
go without being drafted. And, when the war was ended, the working class
of America was worse off than it was before.

So was the working class of England. Some were dead. Some were shattered
in health. The living lived less well because they had to pay the cost
of hell. The impressment of alleged British subjects upon the high seas
ceased only because Great Britain chose to end it. The treaty of peace
contained no stipulation that she should end it. Thus ceased this
criminally stupid war, which never would have begun if the people of
England, instead of a small ruling class, had ruled their own country.

The war with Mexico was so monstrous that General Grant, who fought in
it, denounced it in the strongest language at his command. In the second
chapter of the first volume of his “Memoirs,” after characterizing the
Mexican War as “unholy,” he says:

  “The occupation, separation and annexation” (of Texas) “were, from the
  inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to
  acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the
  American Union. Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the
  manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot....
  The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican War.”

Do you get that? Two wars caused by slavery. Seven hundred thousand men
killed. Twenty billion dollars’ worth of wealth either destroyed
outright, or consumed for interest upon the public debt, or paid for
subsequent pensions.

And for what?

To settle the question of slavery.

To settle the question of slavery that the men who framed the national
Constitution, most of whom were slaveholders, permitted to exist.

To settle the question of slavery, which, never for one moment, during
all of those intervening years, was anything but a curse even to the
white working class.

And, what is chattel slavery? Merely a method of appropriating the
products of the labor of others. Who were interested in maintaining it?
Certainly not the working class, no member of which ever owned a slave.
The capitalist class of the South was interested in it, because its
holdings were agricultural, and slave labor was well adapted to
agricultural undertakings. The capitalist class of the North was not
interested in maintaining chattel slavery, because the investments of
Northern capitalists were chiefly in industrial undertakings, for which
black slave labor was not well suited. Yet, the North never seriously
objected to slavery, as such. Men like Wendell Phillips, who did object
to slavery, as such, were mobbed in the North. If the North, like the
South, had been, so far as the great capitalists were concerned, an
agricultural country, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the
North would not have been in favor of chattel slavery. What the North
most objected to was the effort of the South to extend slavery into new
states, as they were admitted. The Southern aristocracy, in this manner,
sought to prevent the loss of its hold upon the government. The Northern
capitalists also desired to gain control of the government. When the
addition of new free states stripped the South of its political
supremacy, the South went to war. The North resisted the attack to save
the Union.

Remember, that is why the North went to war—to save the Union, which had
been attacked. It was not to free the slaves and end slavery. We have
this upon the authority of no less a man than Lincoln. Lincoln once sent
word to the South that if it would permit him to put one word into a
peace-treaty, he would let the South put in all the others. The one word
that Lincoln said he wanted to put in was “union.” Lincoln was opposed
to slavery, but he was not so much opposed to it that he wanted to fight
about it. It was only after the South had fought Lincoln almost to a
standstill that he rose above the Constitution and destroyed an
institution that was not even mentioned in the Constitution—much less
prohibited by it.

That is what the Civil War was about—chattel slavery.

Something that would not have existed if men had not first existed who
wished to ride upon the backs of others.

Something that would not have existed if the representatives of the
ruling class who drafted the Constitution had not been eager that it
should persist.

Something that never for a moment benefited the working class.

Yet, the working class fought the war—on one side to preserve slavery
for the benefit of others; on the other side to maintain a union under
which white men and black men alike are always upon the brink of
poverty.

Seven hundred thousand men followed the Stars and Stripes and the Stars
and Bars—to bloody graves. Not one of them would have been killed in war
if the common people of each section had ruled each section. The common
people never owned slaves. They did well if they owned themselves.

And now we come to the Spanish-American War. We believe it was fought to
“free Cuba.” We believe it was fought to “avenge the _Maine_.” Don’t
take too much for granted. Even Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, declared
in the United States Senate in 1912 his belief that the war with Spain
was fomented by Americans who held large interests in Cuba. He also
declared his belief that the Sugar Trust was trying to foment another
revolution for the purpose of bringing about annexation and thus ridding
itself of the 80 percent. tariff that is now levied upon American sugar.

But there is more to the story. To this day, there is no proof that the
_Maine_ was destroyed by Spaniards, Cubans, or anyone outside of her.
For fourteen years the government of the United States did not seem to
want to know. The _Maine_, with the bones of 200 or 300 workingmen
aboard her, was permitted to lie in the mud of Havana harbor where she
sank. And, when the wreck was tardily raised, nobody was able to say
that the ship was not destroyed by the explosion of her own magazines.
Now, the hull of the old ship is down far in the ocean, with no hope
that the facts will be known.

But the interests that wanted war had no doubt of the facts in 1898.
Their newspapers thundered their theory every day. The _Maine_ had been
destroyed by Spaniards! We must “Remember the _Maine_.” We did remember
the _Maine_, but we forgot ourselves. We forgot to be sure we were
right. And, even if we were right, we forgot that the killing of a few
thousands of Spanish workingmen would be no fit punishment for the crime
of the Spanish ruling class that wrecked the _Maine_.

We also forgot to watch what Wall Street was doing at the time. Read
some paragraphs from the New York _Tribune_ of April 1, 6, 9 and 20,
1898:

  “Mr. Guerra, of the Cuban Junta, was asked about the Spanish-Cuban
  bonds against the revenues of the island. He replied that he did not
  know their amount, which report fixed at $400,000,000....”

  “These bonds are payable in gold, at 6 per cent. interest, ten years
  after the war with Spain had ended....”

  “The disposition of the bonds of the Cuban Republic has been a
  question discussed in certain quarters during the last few days, and
  the grave charge has been made that the bonds have been given away
  indiscriminately in the United States to people of influence who would
  therefore become interested in seeing the Republic of Cuba on such
  terms with the United States as would make the bonds valuable pieces
  of property.” (Kindly note that the bonds would be worth nothing
  unless Spain were driven out of Cuba.) “Men of business, newspaper,
  and even public officials, have been mentioned as having received
  these bonds as a gift....”

  “A congressman said in the house on Monday that he had $10,000 worth
  of Cuban bonds in his pocket, while H. H. Kohlsaat, in an editorial in
  one of the Chicago papers, charges the Junta with offering a bribe of
  $2,000,000 of Cuban bonds to a Chicago man to use his influence with
  the administration for the recognition of the Cuban government.”

  “Mr. Guerra made the somewhat startling statement that a man
  representing certain individuals at Washington has sought to coerce
  the Junta into selling $10,000,000 worth of bonds at 20 cents on the
  dollar. ‘This man practically threatened us that unless we let him
  have the bonds at the price quoted, Cuba would never receive
  recognition. He said he was prepared to pay on the spot $2,000,000 in
  American money for $10,000,000 of Cuban bonds, but his offer was
  refused.’”

You probably do not remember these items. Perhaps, at that time, like
many other citizens, you were too busy “remembering the _Maine_.” If so,
what do you think of these items now? Do they mean anything to you? Do
they offer any explanation as to why this government, after having paid
little or no attention to six rebellions in Cuba during a 50–year
period, suddenly determined to “free Cuba”?

In any event, remember that whatever Spain did to Cuba was done by the
ruling class and not by the people of Spain. The ruling class was bent
upon the robbery of the Cubans. The people of Spain did not profit from
the robbery. Nor was the working class of the United States helped by
the expulsion of Spain from Cuba. The Sugar Trust and some other great
American interests were helped, but the American working class was not.
The working class had only the pleasure of doing the fighting, the dying
and the bill-paying.

The American working class profited no more from the war with the
Philippines, which was fought solely to provide a new field for the
dollar-activities of American capitalists. There is no American
workingman who now finds it easier to make a living because of the
generally improved conditions brought about by the war with the
Philippines. General conditions have not been improved. They have been
made worse to the extent that the cost of the war is a burden upon
industry. If working-class interests had been consulted, the war never
would have been waged. No working class interest was involved. The
workers had everything to lose, including life, by going to the front,
and nothing to gain. But they “followed the flag”—and some of them never
came back. They stayed—six feet under ground—that the Tobacco Trust, the
Timber Trust, and many other great capitalist interests might stay on
the islands above the ground.

Look wherever you will, you cannot find a working class interest that
should or could cause workingmen to slaughter each other. Nor is this
situation new. It is as old as war itself. It is a fact that men of
sense and honesty have always recognized. Tacitus said:

“Gold and power are the chief causes of war.”

Dryden, the poet, said: “War seldom enters but where wealth allures.”

And Carlyle, in this striking fashion, showed the utter absence of
working-class interest in war:

  “To my own knowledge, for example, there dwell and toil in the British
  village of Dumrudge, usually some five hundred souls. From these, by
  certain ‘natural enemies’ of the French, there are successively
  selected, during the French war, say, thirty able-bodied men.
  Dumrudge, at her own expense, has suckled and nursed them. She has
  not, without difficulty and sorrow, fed them up to manhood and even
  trained them up to crafts, so that one can weave, another build,
  another hammer, and the weakest can stand under some thirty stone,
  avoirdupois.

  “Nevertheless, amid much weeping and swearing, they are selected, all
  dressed in red and shipped away, at public expense, some two thousand
  miles, or, say, only to the south of Spain, and fed there till wanted.

  “And now, to the same spot in the South of Spain, are sent thirty
  similar French artisans—in like manner wending their ways, till at
  length, after infinite effort, the two parties come into actual
  juxtaposition, and thirty stand facing thirty, each with a gun in his
  hand. Straightway the order ‘Fire!’ is given, and they blow the souls
  out of one another; and, in the place of sixty brisk, useful
  craftsmen, the world has sixty dead carcasses, which it must bury and
  anew shed tears for.

  “Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the devil is, not the smallest!
  They lived far enough apart; were the entirest strangers; nay, in so
  wide a universe, there was even, unconsciously, by commerce, some
  mutual helpfulness between them.

  “How, then?

  “Simpleton! Their governors had fallen out, and, instead of shooting
  one another, had these poor blockheads shoot.”

That is the cause of war between nations—“the governors fall out.” And
who are the governors? Nobody but the representatives of the ruling
class, who clash in their race for plunder and deceive workingmen into
doing their fighting for them.

Now, let us go back a bit. You may recall that I said that the ruling
capitalist class uses government as a two-handed claw with which to pull
golden chestnuts out of the fire. One hand of this claw is the power to
make and enforce laws. The other hand—the power to wage war—is used to
grab what cannot be grabbed with laws. Wars between nations illustrate
one form of effort to get what laws cannot give. Here is another:

The United States is dotted with forts, arsenals and armories. Far in
the interior, where, by the widest stretch of the imagination, no
foreign army could come, we see these grim reminders and prognosticators
of war. Under the Dick Military Law, the President of the United States,
without further legislation, can compel every man in the United States,
between the ages of 18 and 45 years, to enlist in the militia of his
state and serve under the orders of the President of the United States.
The President, therefore, has it in his power at any time to raise an
army of about 12,000,000 men and place them in the field.

What for? To fight a foreign foe? Not much. The Constitution of the
United States forbids the President to make war against a foreign nation
without the explicit authorization of Congress. But the Dick Law
authorizes the President to raise this enormous army and to command it.

Here is the question. At whom is this enormous potential army aimed? Why
is the land strewn with arsenals and armories that could be of little or
no service in a foreign war?

To quote a word from Carlyle, “Simpleton,” do you not know that all of
these arrangements are made to shoot you if the capitalist class should
ever decide that you should be shot? Nor, have you never noticed against
whom the state militia is invariably used?

If you have noticed none of these things, perhaps it would be well for
you to wake up. The militia of the states is practically never used
except to beat down workingmen who have revolted against the outrageous
wrongs heaped upon them by their employers. American workingmen do not
readily revolt. Nowhere are they any too prosperous. Millions believe
from the bottoms of their hearts that they are being robbed. Yet, they
keep on. Only when they are ground into the dust, as they were by the
Woolen Trust at Lawrence, or by the Coal Trust in Pennsylvania, do they
rebel.

Please, therefore, note this monstrous situation:

Under the laws of the land, the capitalists have a right to grind their
employees as deeply into the dust as they can grind them.

While this process is going on the national and state troops are quite
still. But when human nature, unable to bear up longer, explodes and a
few window panes are broken, the troops come scurrying to the scene.
Soldiers fill the streets, citizens are ordered this way and that, guns
are fired recklessly, perhaps a man or two or a woman or two are killed;
the soldiers deny the killing and charge it to the strikers themselves,
and eventually the strike is broken.

Can you recall when the militia of a state was recently used for
anything else?

Now, we Socialists do not believe in violence, even by strikers. We are
supposed to be greedy for blood, but we are not. We do believe, however,
the best way to end violence caused by robbery is to end the robbery. We
believe it is contemptible for a government to be blind to robbery so
long as it proceeds without an outcry from the victim. We believe it is
criminal for the government to shoot the victim simply because, in his
distress, he breaks a pane of glass in the factory or mill in which he
was robbed. We can understand why such crimes are committed, because we
know that the same capitalist interests that control industry also
control government. But, understanding the offense does not make us
approve it. We are against the great crime of war, whether it be
practiced upon a huge scale abroad, or upon a small scale at home.

But the President is also opposed to war, the Czar of Russia is also
opposed to war, and the German Emperor is also opposed to war. No
Socialist can outdo any of these gentlemen in deploring war. The
smallest Socialist, however, outdoes any of these gentlemen in making
good upon his declaration. Socialists will not go to war. They will not
join the army, the militia, or the navy. All over the world this is
true. They preach against war in season and out of season. They preach
against anything that tends toward war. They preach against dressing
little boys as soldiers and calling them “scouts.” And wherever
Socialists hold seats in national legislative bodies, their attitude is
“No men; no money.” They will vote for no bill that seeks to draw
another man or another dollar into the horrible game of war.

Those who do not understand us, or who do not want us to be understood,
charge us with lack of patriotism. If blood-letting for dollars be the
test of patriotism, we certainly are not patriotic. We refuse to kill
men for money, either for ourselves or for any one else. Nor do we
believe that Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans or any others are less our
brothers than are Americans. We regard all nationalities and races as
members of the great human family. We want this family to live in peace.
We preach peace. We live peace.

But how can there be peace when great groups of capitalists are
contending for profits? How can there be peace when great groups of
capitalists controlling their respective governments, build great fleets
and muster great armies to struggle for trade and profits? How can there
be peace when these same capitalists, through their control of
government, teach even school children that the warrior’s trade is
glorious and that the citizen’s duty is to “stand by the flag”? Our flag
has often stood where it had no moral right to stand. It has stood for
the wrongs of capitalism when it should have stood for the rights of the
people. Our flag will always stand for the wrongs of capitalism, so long
as capitalism controls the government.

In such circumstances, there can be no assured peace. Peace tribunals,
like that of The Hague, may be established until their sponsors are
black in the face, but still there will be no peace. There can be no
peace. Profits prevent. The gentlemen who attach themselves to these
tribunals want peace—if. Peace if it can be maintained without hurting
profits. Peace if it can be maintained without restraining capitalistic
brigands who wish to descend upon the property of others. Peace if it
can be had without price.

So war continues in a world that is weary of war. Heavier and heavier
becomes the burden of armaments. The workingman staggers under the
weight of the fourteen-inch gun. The workingman may go hungry. The gun
must be fed.

              “Whether your shell hits the target or not,
              Your cost is six hundred dollars a shot.
              You thing of noise and flame and power,
              We feed you a hundred barrels of flour
              Each time you roar. Your flame is fed
              With twenty thousand loaves of bread.
              Silence! A million hungry men
              Seek bread to fill their mouths again.”[2]

Footnote 2:

  P. F. McCarthy, in the New York _World_.

Only one machine can smash this gun, and that is the printing press. The
greatest gun can shoot only twenty miles or so. The Socialist press can
shoot and is shooting around the world. When the working class controls
its printing presses, war will end.

Do you really want war to end, or is a string attached to your wish? If
you mean business, you can help end it. But if you want the privilege of
aiding in this great work for humanity, you will have to vote the
Socialist ticket. It is the only ticket that always and everywhere is
sternly against war, as the Socialist party is the only party opposed to
the profit system that makes wars.

I cannot close this chapter without calling the attention of readers to
a book entitled “War—What For?” by Mr. George R. Kirkpatrick. It is
published by the author at West Lafayette, Ohio. Between darkness and
daylight, one night, I read it all. I can never forget it. If all the
world had read it, there would be no more war.




                              CHAPTER VIII
              WHY SOCIALISTS OPPOSE “RADICAL” POLITICIANS


A “radical” politician, when he is not an utter fraud, is a well-meaning
man who lacks either the courage or the insight to do well. He can see
wrongs, but he cannot see rights. Or, if he can see rights, he dare not
do right. Always, there is some reason why he should not do right. The
people are not ready. The time is not propitious. Thus does he appease
his conscience, betray his followers and destroy himself.

Abraham Lincoln, during all except the last two years of his life, was
such a man. I sometimes feel that this is why so many modern “radicals”
believe they are second Lincolns. They seem to remember Lincoln only as
he was when he was too small for his task. Mr. Roosevelt, in particular,
is suspected of harboring the belief that he is a second Lincoln. In a
way and to a degree, Mr. Roosevelt is right. The ground upon which Mr.
Roosevelt now stands is broadly comparable to the ground upon which Mr.
Lincoln stood before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr.
Lincoln hated chattel slavery, but was willing to end the war with
slavery intact. Mr. Roosevelt hates the robbery of man by man, but he
shrinks from trying to seize the club with which the robbery is
committed. He is willing to pick at the splinters upon the club,
precisely as Mr. Lincoln was long willing to content himself with
efforts to restrict the evil of slavery. And, Mr. Roosevelt, picking at
splinters, is no more useful in destroying poverty than was Mr. Lincoln,
when he picked at the splinters of chattel slavery. The Civil War came
on, in spite of all that Lincoln did, because he did no more than to
temporize with the evil that was destined to cause the war. Mr.
Roosevelt, even as the leader of a new political party, is doing no more
than to temporize with the monstrous evil of unnecessary poverty in
America.

Let us look, even more closely, into the life of Lincoln. The career of
no other man of modern times is so well suited to our purpose. We want
to know whether a “radical” like Roosevelt or Wilson should be more
highly regarded by the people than a revolutionist like Debs or Berger.
Lincoln, at different times in his life, was both a “radical” and a
revolutionist. His “radical” beliefs put him into the White House. One
colossal revolutionary act put him into the hearts of men. We Socialists
feel that he nestles a little more closely to our hearts than he does to
some others. When Lincoln ceased to temporize with chattel slavery and
struck it down, he became one of us. He actually did to chattel slavery
what we are trying to do to wage slavery.

The magnitude of this act, as well as the usefulness of a mere “radical”
politician, may be measured by what Lincoln’s life would have been
without his name at the bottom of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Tradition has it that Lincoln became a radical upon the slavery question
when, as a flatboatman upon the Mississippi, he saw a negress sold upon
the auction block at New Orleans. Tradition has it that he said: “If I
ever have a chance to hit slavery, I will hit it and hit it hard.”

The fact is that when Mr. Lincoln began to get the power to hit slavery,
he did not hit it hard. He was a “radical” politician and therefore
could not hit it hard. He was against slavery, but he was also against
anything that would end slavery. In the phrase of our time, he wanted to
“regulate” slavery. Men like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison
wanted to end slavery and advocated means that would have ended it, but
Lincoln, though he hated slavery as much as they did, wanted only to
restrict it. He was “radical.” Brown and Garrison were revolutionary.
Lincoln meant well. Brown and Garrison were determined to do well.

But after Lincoln, even as President, had continued to temporize with
slavery; after he had sent word to the Southern leaders that if they
would let him write into a treaty of peace the one word “union” he would
let them write all of the other words, including “slavery”—after all of
this, there came a change, and Lincoln ceased to be a “radical.” Then,
and not until then, did he strike the blow that in his youth he declared
he would strike if ever the opportunity should come. With only the
briefest words he laid the Emancipation Proclamation before his cabinet.

“I do not lay this before you for your advice,” he said, “but only for
your information. I have promised my God that I will do this, and I
shall do it.”

Thus spoke the revolutionist. The time for “radicalism” had passed.
Slavery, during half a century of “radicalism,” had expanded. Having the
power to kill chattel slavery and daring to use it, Lincoln killed
chattel slavery. He put himself into the hearts of men. He wrote his
name so big in history that the names of all other men since his time
seem small.

Yet Lincoln, if he had been content to remain merely a “radical,” could
have performed no service for his country worth while, and Fame would
have missed him by many a mile. If the South had won, the North would
have blamed Lincoln. If the North had won, without destroying chattel
slavery, nothing would have been settled, and Lincoln would have been
given the credit for settling nothing. Lincoln’s greatest opportunity to
serve his country lay in doing precisely what he did, and it is to his
eternal glory that he had both the understanding and the courage to do
it.

The times again call loudly for such a man. Chattel slavery is dead, but
a greater slavery has grown up in its place. Wage slavery is as much
greater than chattel slavery as the white people in this country are
more numerous than the black people. Poverty is widespread and the fear
of poverty is all but universal. No one knows how much longer he will
have employment. No one can know how much longer he will have
employment. A few own all of the machinery without which we cannot be
employed. These few have it in their power to say whether we shall be
permitted to earn the means of life. We may want to work as much as we
please, but we cannot work unless they please. They do not please to let
us work unless they believe they can see a profit in so doing. That we
need work means nothing to those who own the great industries of the
country. Nor does the fact that the people need the things we could
make. They consider only the question: “Is there profit in it?” By their
answer, we eat or hunger, live or die.

Such times could not help but call for great men, even in little places.
The times call for great men to take charge of municipal affairs, lest
the poor shall be tortured with bad tenements and robbed of their last
nickels by little grafters while greater grafters are taking their
dollars. The times call for great men in state offices, in judicial
positions, in Congress and in the White House. But, in response to the
White House call, who answered in 1912? Mr. Roosevelt answered. Mr.
Wilson answered.

Socialists do not regard either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson as a
fraudulent “radical,” in the sense that they believe either of them to
be intent upon wantonly fooling the people. We regard Mr. Roosevelt as
being something of a self-seeker. We regard him as the embodiment of
inconsistency. We know that when he was President he never tried to do
some of the things that he later promised to do if we would again make
him President. We know he does not now promise to try to take away the
club with which robbery is committed. He is still picking at the
splinters, taking care to lay no hand upon the club itself. And, so far
as concerns Mr. Wilson, we regard him as an amiable, cultured gentleman,
who, meaning well, as he doubtless does, lacks the understanding without
which he can not do well. We also call attention to the fact that
immediately following Mr. Wilson’s nomination he began to placate the
great grafters. He invited them to his home to hold counsel with him.
And, in his speech of acceptance, he all but laid himself at their feet.
He said nothing worth saying. He confined himself to platitudes. He
swore allegiance to the “rule of right” as applied to government,
without giving the slightest indication of his definition of right. Wall
Street applauded him. Stocks went up. But would stocks have gone up if
Wall Street had believed that, under Wilson, grafters would not be
permitted to continue to rob you?

We Socialists may be extremely absurd persons, but, as we look about us,
we see two or three things that should be done at once.

We believe every man should have the continuous right to work. We
believe this right should be guaranteed by law. The law prohibits
stealing and vagrancy. Why should not the law, therefore, guarantee the
right to avoid the necessity for becoming either a thief or a vagrant?

We also believe that after a man has worked he should not be robbed. We
believe if nobody were robbed, there would be in this country neither
millionaires nor paupers. From the fact that there are in this country
so many millionaires and so many paupers or near-paupers, we deduce that
the extent of the robbery of the many by the few is appalling.

We want this stopped. We don’t demand that it be stopped a hundred years
hence—we demand that it be stopped now. We are interested in our
posterity, but we are also interested in ourselves. We want to enjoy
life a little. This world looks good to us. We know it could be good to
us. We demand that it shall be good to us. Nor are we appeased by the
promise of some “radical” like Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson that if we
will elect him President, he will try to make the world a little less
bad for us. The promise of a 1 per cent. or a 5 per cent. reduction in
robbery constitutes no blandishment. We demand a 100 per cent. reduction
in robbery. We are tired of robbery. We mean to end it. We shall end it.
We cannot fail, because we have a weapon with which the robbed class
never before fought. We have the gigantic printing press. Our ancestors
had a puny press, or none at all. We shall carry our word far. Wherever
our word goes it will wake. Sooner or later, the robbed will understand.
Then robbery will cease. Millions of people who understand how to stop
robbery will never consent to let a few continue to rob them.

Such is our demand—a 100 per cent. reduction in robbery and the right of
the individual to continuous work. Yet, so far as we know, we want no
more than is wanted by every other man who is not robbing anybody. We
know of no man who is willing to be denied the right to work. We know of
no man who is willing to be robbed. We differ from you Republicans and
Democrats only in this: You seem to be willing to take an eternity to
end robbery and secure a guarantee to the right to labor. We tell you
that if you take an eternity to get these rights you will never get
them. We also tell you that with either Mr. Wilson, Mr. Roosevelt or any
other so-called “radical” in the White House the working class will
remain poverty-stricken.

These gentlemen want to make you an omelette, but they do not want to
break any eggs. They are afraid to break eggs. Breaking eggs means
destroying the great fundamental laws that capitalists use to rob you.
Yet, how are you ever to have an omelette unless eggs are broken? How
can you be helped without hurting those who are now hurting you?

Make no mistake—anything that will make it much easier for you to live
by working will make it much harder for capitalists to live without
working. Picking at the splinters of this poverty-problem will not do.
The wrong is great; the remedy must be equally great.

Anything that will not hurt the capitalist class much will not help you
much.

Between you and the capitalist class there can be no peace.

So long as either of you exists, there can be only war.

You will continue to fight for the right to live.

The capitalist class will continue to refuse you the right to live
except at the price of a profit.

This ultimatum, which has never appealed to your stomach, will some day
not appeal to your brain.

You will begin to ask questions.

You will ask if you were born only that Mr. Morgan, Mr. Armour or Mr.
Ryan might be made a little richer.

You will ask if it is right that you should die when you can no longer
make others richer.

Your common sense will tell you that you were not born to make anybody
richer.

Your common sense will tell you that you have a right to live, whether
anybody be thereby made richer.

And, when that time comes, you will be in no mood to listen to the
remedies of “radical” gentlemen like Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson.

You will no longer want wage slavery “regulated”—you will want it
destroyed.

You will call for another Lincoln to destroy wage slavery as the first
Lincoln destroyed chattel slavery.

And your call will be answered, because you will answer it yourself.

You will place in office not only a man but _men_ who will work your
will. You will know what you want and you will get it, because you will
know how to get it.

The reason you have never gotten what you want is because you have never
known how to get it. You want the right to work without being robbed.
You do not seem to realize that it is the existence of the capitalist
system that causes you to be robbed. In an indefinite sort of way you
seem to believe that it is possible for a small class of bondholders and
share-holders to live in luxury without working and, at the same time,
take nothing from the product of your labor. If dividends grew upon one
tree and wages upon another, your belief would be justified. But,
inasmuch as dividends and wages grow upon the same tree, your belief is
not justified. Both are the products of your labor. If the bondholders
were to take everything you produce, you would have nothing. If you were
to take everything you produce, the bondholders and other capitalists
would have nothing.

Such being the fact, what possible benefit can come to the American
people through the election to the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson? Mr.
Wilson is not opposed to the capitalist system. He believes one class
should own all of the great industries of the country while another
class toils in them. Believing thus, he necessarily believes no man has
a right to work, however sore may be his need, unless some other man
thinks he can see a profit in hiring him. If he did not so believe, he
would not have stood for the Presidency upon the Democratic platform.
The importance of securing to each individual the right to work would
have prevented him from so standing. He would have proclaimed to the
country an amendment to the platform in some such words as these:

“_If you elect me President, I will urge the passage of a law that will
make it a felony for any capitalist to refuse work at wages representing
the market price of the product, except at such times as his steel
plants, railroads, or other industries, are running at full capacity._”

He would also have added:

“_When a man’s right to work is involved, I care not whether the man who
hires him makes a profit or not. Life comes before profits. Work comes
before life. I am for men._”

Not one word of which Mr. Wilson ever said. Mr. Wilson believes in
profits first and life, if at all, afterward. He may not believe he
does, but he does. That is what his attitude amounts to. He wants both
profits and life if we can get them. But if either must fall, it must be
life. Life must always fall when work falls. Mr. Wilson stands for
absolutely nothing that will put the worker’s right to work before the
capitalist’s greed for profits. Let him or any of his friends point out
a word in his platform, or any of his public utterances, to the
contrary. There is no such word, because it has never been spoken or
written by Mr. Wilson or anybody who is back of him or in front of him.

More astounding do these facts become as we consider them. Here is a
great nation, eager to earn its bread. Of the many millions who compose
this nation, not one in ten ever has or ever will receive a profit upon
anything. More than nine-tenths of our many millions are wage-laborers
or farmers. Naturally, they care nothing about profits. If everybody
were continuously employed at good wages, and the balance-sheets, at the
end of the year, should show not one dollar left for dividends, nobody
except the capitalists would shed a tear. So little does the working
class really care about profits. So convinced is the working class that
the right to work, together with the right to be protected from robbery,
should come ahead of everything else. _Yet this very working class that
cares nothing about profits; that cares and needs to care so much about
the continuous right to work; that cares and needs to care so much about
the right to be protected from robbery—this very working class gave Mr.
Wilson almost every vote he received!_

Do the people of America know how to get what they want?

The people of America want the continuous right to work.

Mr. Wilson offers them fine phrases about the “rule of right”—phrases
that Wall Street applauds because Wall Street knows such phrases mean
the continued rule of wrong.

The people of America want the right to be protected from robbery, and
Mr. Wilson offers them an anti-trust plank, in which they are solemnly
assured that if they will only wait until Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Morgan
and other similar gentlemen are in jail, they will be very happy.

Is it not absurd? Indeed, it is not. It is pitiful. It is pitiful that a
people should so long have been kept in ignorance of both the nature of
their social malady and its cure. Yet, how could they be otherwise than
ignorant? They depend for such information upon their newspapers,
magazines, public officials, and public speakers. Until recently, almost
all of these sources were poisoned against the people. They were
poisoned against the people because they were controlled, in one way or
another, by the capitalist class. They are still almost all poisoned in
the interest of the capitalist class. The truth about Socialism is
carefully suppressed. The false is carefully put forward. Wrongs are
admitted, but rights are not recognized. The people are robbed, yes—but
who robs them? Why, the trusts and the high-tariff gentlemen, certainly.
Therefore, if we lower the tariff and place the trust gentlemen in jail,
we shall be happy.

Nobody seems moved to recall whether we were happy when the tariff was
low and there were no trusts.

Nobody seems to recall that the working class has never been happy; that
it has always been the prey of a master class which has resorted first
to one method and then to another to plunder. In fact, nobody but
Socialists seems to do any serious thinking until his favorite “radical”
President has passed into history without doing the slightest thing to
alleviate poverty.

Grover Cleveland was regarded, each time he was elected, as radical. In
Cleveland’s day, not to be in favor of highway robbery in office was
regarded as proof of radicalism. That is why Cleveland’s dictum that “a
public office is a public trust” attracted national attention. It was a
new note. But in neither of Cleveland’s terms did he do anything to
improve the condition of the American people. They were as poor when he
finally left office as they were when he first took office. Moreover,
there was good reason for their poverty. Cleveland never lost an
opportunity to betray them. He sold bonds in secret to Mr. Morgan to the
great profit of Mr. Morgan and the great loss of the American people. He
hurled troops against strikers and placed thousands of deputy United
States Marshals under the orders of railway managers who were trying to
prevent their employees from obtaining living wages.

Benjamin Harrison was never regarded as a radical, but in 1888 he was
regarded as an improvement upon Cleveland. After Harrison had done
nothing for four years, Cleveland was believed to be an improvement upon
Harrison. Four years more of Cleveland were enough to send him out of
office with the condemnation of everybody but the grafters in both
parties.

Business revived somewhat under the Presidency of McKinley, but the
revival was not so much due to anything that Mr. McKinley did as it was
to the fact that the time had come for the pendulum to swing back from
panic to “prosperity.” Nor did the revival solve the problem of poverty.
Nothing was settled because nothing was changed. Not so many men were
denied the right to work, but those who worked toiled only for a “full
dinner pail.” They paid all they received to live poorly. Only their
employers fared wonderfully well. For them there was real prosperity.

Which brings us to Mr. Roosevelt and his Progressive party.

Mr. Roosevelt was the first President of the type that is now regarded
as “radical.” He held office seven years and a half. He had “a perfectly
corking time.” He did business with all of the bosses, including Hanna,
Quay, Cannon, Payne, Aldrich and a host of others, but we have his word
for it that his intentions were good. Maybe they were. For the sake of
argument, let it be granted that they were. Let it be conceded that he
believed the things he did would enable the average man to earn a living
more certainly and more easily. Still, is it not a fact that the things
he did failed to accomplish what he expected they would?

Is it not a fact that it is to-day more difficult for most persons to
make a living than it was when Mr. Roosevelt became President?

Is not the cost of living vastly more?

Are not more millions of men out of work?

Is there not greater uncertainty with regard to continuity of
employment?

Are not more men, women and children living upon the hunger line, or
close to it?

Each of these questions must be answered in the affirmative. Mr.
Roosevelt, himself, would not dare, even if he were so inclined, to
answer them in the negative. The facts are notorious and scandalous.
They are scandalous because poverty, in this rich country, is
unnecessary.

Yet, Mr. Roosevelt is not wholly to blame. He is only partly to blame. A
President is not the government. He is only part of the government. As
part of the government, Mr. Roosevelt advocated measures, some of which
were enacted into law, that he believed would do good. Subsequent events
have proved that he was in error. The measures he believed would help
have not helped. If they had helped, times would be better than they
were, instead of worse.

Therefore, we are brought face to face with these questions:

“_If Mr. Roosevelt, during seven and one-half years in the White House,
could do nothing to make the conditions of the average man’s life
easier, how long should we have to elect him President in order to give
him time to do something worth while?_

“_If we were to elect him for life, are you sure that the rest of his
lifetime would be long enough?_

“_In any event, are you prepared to wait so long to be helped?_”

Mr. Roosevelt’s friends, following this thought, reply that he is not
the same man that he was when he left the White House; that he has
grown, with vision enlarged.

No, he is not the same man. The American people have forced him into the
advocacy of some things. They have forced even some Socialist measures
upon him. The initiative, the referendum and the recall are Socialist
measures. For a good many years, Mr. Roosevelt tried to damn them with
faint praise combined with a medley of doubts and strangling provisos.
But after these measures, in one winter, fought their way into every
state capitol west of the Mississippi, as well as into some of the state
capitols of the East, Mr. Roosevelt saw a great light. Then he became in
favor of them.

When Mr. Roosevelt was President he had nothing to say against the
courts. He criticised individual judges, as he criticised Judge Anderson
of Indianapolis, whom he called “a damned jackass and a crook.” But
Judge Anderson, be it remembered, had just decided against Mr. Roosevelt
in the libel suit that he brought against several newspapers because of
articles reflecting upon the part played by himself and others in the
acquisition of the Panama Canal property.

Now Mr. Roosevelt is convinced that our judicial system is in need of
reform. In reaching this opinion, however, he is somewhat late. The
courts are no longer popular. The people have not yet begun to strike at
them, but they are watching them out of the corners of their eyes. Mr.
Roosevelt senses the situation and responds with a proposition to give
the people the right to recall, or set aside, the decisions of _state_
courts. He says nothing about giving the people the right to recall the
decisions of the United States Supreme Court, though he must know this
court is the chief judicial offender. Yet we are asked to believe that
Mr. Roosevelt, in belatedly joining the fight against the tyrannical
power of the courts, is but giving proof of the greatness to which he
has grown and the increased fearlessness with which he fights.

The women of the country have forced Mr. Roosevelt into the advocacy of
woman suffrage. Mr. Roosevelt used to say that Mrs. Roosevelt was “only
lukewarm” toward woman suffrage, and that his interest in it was the
same. After the women of California gained the ballot, and Mr. Roosevelt
again became a candidate for the Presidency, he changed from “lukewarm”
to very hot. From that moment, woman suffrage became not only a right,
but a necessity. Of course, the fact that women vote in several western
states that he hoped to carry had no part whatever in changing his
opinion. Mr. Roosevelt is not that kind of a man.

Mr. Roosevelt’s 1912 platform—or “contract with the people,” as he calls
it—bristles with new devices and new plans for the public good. Some of
Mr. Roosevelt’s plans would probably help a little—provided he could get
a Congress that would put them into effect, and courts that would
declare them constitutional. Mr. Lincoln probably could have helped the
black slaves a little if he had made it a legal obligation upon slave
owners to provide each negro, semi-annually, with a red necktie and a
paste diamond. Mr. Lincoln might have gone even further and provided
that each negro should be supplied, during the water-melon season, with
all the melons he could eat. Instead, he wrote the Emancipation
Proclamation.

Mr. Roosevelt’s present political program is by no means an emancipation
proclamation to the American people. It unties no knots, nor cuts any.
It bristles with Socialists’ phrases, but it does not bristle with
Socialist remedies. “This country belongs to the people who inhabit
it”—an assertion that appears in Mr. Roosevelt’s platform—is a Socialist
phrase. But Mr. Roosevelt’s method of giving the people their own is not
Socialistic. The Socialist method is to give it to them. Mr. Roosevelt’s
method is to appoint “strong” commissions to regulate the country that
the people own, but do not control or enjoy. Again and again in his
platform Mr. Roosevelt fervently advocates a “strong” commission to do
this or do that.

If the word “strong” in a platform were sufficient to make a commission
“strong” in action we might expect the commissions that Mr. Roosevelt
advocates to be as strong as any commission can be that is trying to
regulate other people’s property.

But we do not believe the word “strong” in a platform makes a commission
strong. Mr. Roosevelt, always preaching strenuosity, nevertheless
appointed, during his Presidency, some exceedingly poor officials.

Since Mr. Roosevelt, the originator of “strong” commissions as a cure
for the poverty that is produced by robbery, failed as he did, what
should we expect from such commissions if they were appointed by
Presidents of the ordinary Wall Street stripe?

Simmered down, Mr. Roosevelt’s Progressive Party stands simply for this:
We are still to have trusts and tariffs, but only such trusts and
tariffs as Mr. Roosevelt wants. We are still to have a master class who
own all of the industries and a servant class who do all of the work,
but masters and servants must conduct themselves as Mr. Roosevelt
provides. Masters may still hold out for profits and servants may die
for lack of opportunity to work, but so long as Mr. Roosevelt, at
Armageddon, is “fighting for the Lord,” what of it?

Such is not Mr. Roosevelt’s reasoning, but it might as well be. Mr.
Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson, like all other “radical” politicians, are
incapable of rendering any great service to the American people for the
simple reason that they do not strike at the great wrong. The great
wrong is the ownership, by a small class, of the great class’s means of
life. A people who cannot support themselves without asking the
permission of others are little more than slaves. We are such a people.

“Radicals” who promise, if given power, to free us, only mock us. Such
gentlemen are not radicals at all. The word “radical” is derived from a
Greek word meaning “root.” A real radical is one who goes to the roots
of things. But radicals like Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson go to the
roots of nothing.

The only way to go to the root of anything is to go to it.

Lincoln went to the root of the chattel slavery question.

When he had finished, the chattel slavery question was no longer a
question—it was a corpse. After wasting years of his life as an
anti-slavery “radical” he became an anti-slavery revolutionist and
destroyed slavery. Lincoln, during the last two years of his life,
became a real radical. A real radical and a revolutionist are but
different names for the same thing.

The working class is suffering from robbery. The working class has
always suffered from robbery. Never has there been a time when a little
crowd of grafters were not feeding upon the workers.

In the beginning, the working class were held as chattel slaves, the
only possible cure for which was the utter destruction of chattel
slavery.

Then the workers became the serfs of feudal lords, the only possible
cure for which was the destruction of feudalism.

Now the toilers are robbed by the private ownership of the means of
production, the only possible cure for which is the destruction of such
ownership and the substitution of public ownership through the agency of
government.

No tinkering will do. Tinkering could not and did not settle the white
man’s or the black man’s slavery question. Nothing but the absolute
destruction of the capitalist system can remove the poverty, the
ignorance, the crime and the vice that are inevitable products of the
system.

But do not expect capitalists to remove this system for you. They will
not.

You never saw a tiger feed its prey. You never saw a burglar mend a
victim’s roof. You may see both of these sights some day. If you should,
you may, perhaps, prepare yourself to behold the more marvelous
spectacle of the capitalist class financing the campaign of a genuine
radical who is bent upon taking the capitalist class off your back.

But until you see a tiger feeding its prey, you may well ask yourself
whether “radicals” whose campaigns are financed by great capitalists are
radical enough to do you any good.

Certainly one side or the other is always doomed to disappointment;
either the capitalists who put up the money or the workers who put up
the votes. The capitalists are still doing quite well. Are you?




                               CHAPTER IX
                   THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COAL QUESTION


Almost anyone can make anybody believe anything that is not so. It is
only the truth that makes poor headway in this world. Our national motto
seems to be: “When there are no more blunderers or liars to be heard,
let us listen to common sense.”

The anthracite coal situation is a case in point. So long ago as 1902
this situation had become maddening. As the result of a prolonged strike
to obtain living wages for the miners, the country, at the beginning of
winter, was threatened with a coal famine. So serious was the situation
that a “Get-Coal Conference” was held at Detroit. Among the delegates
were Victor L. Berger, the first Socialist congressman, and a number of
other Socialists. These Socialist delegates told the conference what to
do. They said:

“Go into politics. Make the governmental ownership of the coal mines and
the railroads a political matter. Take over the ownership of these mines
and railroads and operate them for the benefit of the people, rather
than for the benefit of millionaires. Do that and you will have solved
your coal problem.”

But that was the truth, mind you. As truth, it had no chance of
acceptance at that time. Truth never has a chance the first time, the
second time or the third time. Truth has attained its great reputation
for rising every time it is crushed only because it has been so often
crushed.

And the truth that these men spoke in Detroit years ago was forthwith
crushed, not only in Detroit, but all over the country. What was the use
of believing? Were there not plenty of blunderers about? Were there not
plenty of blind alleys in which to go?

Indeed, there were. The people went into one of them. Or, rather, they
remained in the blind alley in which they had long been. That was the
blind alley of private ownership of the coal mines and railroads. Plenty
of blind men could see a delightful opening at the end of this blind
alley. They were very sure that it led somewhere. It must lead
somewhere. Certainly, no great difficulty could be encountered in
managing these millionaires. The Inter-State Commerce Commission would
fix them if nothing else could fix them. If the Inter-State Commerce
Commission should prove too weak for the task, the courts would not
prove too weak. At any rate, there was no danger ahead. It was entirely
safe to leave the nation’s coal supply in the hands of a few men who had
already abundantly proved their disinclination to treat either their
employees or the public honestly.

For ten straight years thereafter we fought the Coal Trust in the
courts. We enjoined it, we indicted it, we prosecuted it. To what
purpose? To no purpose. In 1912, the United States Supreme Court brought
an end to the proceedings by handing down a decision that was said to be
a “great victory” for the Government. But it was one of those great
anti-trust victories that do not hurt the trusts nor help the people.
This “victory” did not hurt the Coal Trust. The price of coal did not go
down a nickel. On the contrary, the prices of coal road stocks
immediately went higher. Wall Street knew the decision would not
interrupt the Coal Trust in its plundering, and backed its opinion with
its money. Wall Street quickly realized what we have not yet fully
realized—that the court had prohibited only a certain method of
stealing, while leaving the trust free to adopt any one of a hundred
other methods, each of which is as suitable to its purposes as the
method that has been put under the ban.

The trust lawyers quickly juggled out one of the hundred other methods
of stealing and the robbery of the people continued as if there had been
no decision by the United States Supreme Court. Immediately, there was a
loud demand from the “radical” press that the anti-trust law be so
amended that it would prohibit the new form of robbery. Again the
Socialists repeated their warning against reliance upon laws that seek
to regulate trusts. Again the Socialists urged the people to settle the
coal question for all time by owning and operating the coal mines and
the railroads that carry the coal to the people. Between the advice
given by Socialists and the advice given by radicals, there was all the
difference that there is between night and day. The “radicals” advised
the people to leave the coal in the hands of a few multi-millionaires
and then fight in the courts to get it back. The Socialists assured the
people that if they would take possession of their own coal they would
not be compelled to fight to get it back. But the advice given by the
Socialists contained too much truth to find ready acceptance. There
being not fewer than a hundred ways in which the trust could rob the
people, it seemed so much more reasonable to let the trust try these
various ways, one by one, and prosecute the trust gentlemen for each
separate form of robbery. Ten years were required to “win” the
anti-trust case that was finally decided in 1912, so we shall require at
least 1,000 years to obtain supreme court decisions prohibiting a
hundred different methods of Coal Trust robbery. But good, able
“radical” gentlemen assured the people that the way to kill the Coal
Trust was to choke it with court decisions and the people believed what
they were told. Almost always the people believe what they are told
unless what they are told is true. It is only the truth that must fight
its way in this world. So many powerful, selfish persons are always
eager to foist the lie that feathers their nests. Truth is always
besmirched by those whom it would destroy, and too often despised by
those whom it would help.

Thus we have a naked view of two classes of men—the anthracite coal
operators and their victims. The coal operators are conscienceless
robbers. They hold within the hollows of their hands the anthracite coal
supply of this country. They own it or control it as you own or control
a gas range that you have bought or rented. The coal supply of this
country is their property. And though you must draw upon it or freeze in
winter, you cannot have a pound of coal except at their price. And their
price is always all they believe they can get out of you without a riot.
The cost of production does not matter. Your necessities do not matter.
They want all they can get.

These naked millionaires are not attractive persons. Who would be an
attractive person if he had their power? Are you so sure you would be an
attractive person if you had their power? Do not be too sure. Give any
man such an opportunity to squeeze millions out of a people and it is
very likely that he will squeeze them. There is little or nothing in
this “good man,” “bad man” theory. The blackest Coal Trust magnate is
just what you and the Coal Trust have made him. If anything, you are
more to blame than he. He gets all of his power from the laws. And the
men whom you elect make the laws. They make the laws which say that a
few men—or, so far as that is concerned, one man—may own all of the
anthracite coal mines in the country.

These laws are certainly very comfortable for the Coal Trust gentlemen.
If you are satisfied, they are. If you don’t move to change them, they
will never move to change them. But, if you are fit to cast a ballot,
you know that the present conditions can never be changed until the laws
that made the conditions are changed.

Let us now take a close view of the Coal Trust victims. You are one of
them. You are tired of the Coal Trust. You have no sort of notion that
it is anything except the robber concern that everybody believes it to
be. You would be much better pleased if the government owned the mines.
You would be still better pleased if the government owned not only the
mines but the railroads that carry coal from the mines. You know that in
the Panama Canal Zone, where the government sells all of the supplies,
the cost of living is much less than it is here. You believe all of this
and more. But what are you doing to translate your belief into
accomplished fact?

You are doing nothing. The only way in which you can translate this
belief into accomplished fact is to express your belief in political
action. You must vote for that which you believe. You must support a
political party that advocates the ownership by the government of the
coal mines and the railroads. If you vote for a party that believes in
permitting the ownership of the coal mines and the railroads to remain
where it is you are voting for the Coal Trust. How long do you believe
it will take you to beat the Coal Trust by voting for the Coal Trust? Do
you know of any way in which the Coal Trust can be beaten except by
voting against it?

Of course, the newspapers that you read will tell you there are other
ways of beating the robber Coal Trust than by voting against it. They
will tell you that the Coal Trust can be “regulated” or indicted and
convicted into decency. Ask your newspapers what makes them think so. We
have many great trusts in this country—has a single one of them ever
been regulated into decency? Have they been so ruthlessly pursued in
court that they were willing to be decent? You know the answer. You know
there is not a decent great trust in the country. You know that every
attempt to drive them into decency has failed. Yet your newspapers have
the impudence to tell you that it is not necessary that the government
should own the anthracite mines and the railroads.

It would be difficult to imagine a more amazing situation. Here we have
in this country two sharply contrasted classes of opinion.

One opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust should be regulated
or destroyed—compelled to go back to competition.

The other opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust can neither
be regulated nor compelled to break up into small parts and compete.

The men who hold the first opinion can not point to a single instance
wherein their belief has been justified by events. The men who hold the
second opinion have only common sense with which to back up their
assertion that, if the government owned the coal mines and the
railroads, Coal Trust magnates and railway multi-millionaires could not
rob us.

But in this instance, as in all others where the robbery of the many by
the few is concerned, truth is put upon the defensive. The grafters, as
they might naturally be expected to do, not only shower upon the
truth-tellers their scorn and derision, but even the people who are
being robbed are doubtful or suspicious. They are not so certain that if
robbers be stopped robbery will be stopped. They suspect the statement
that, if nothing be taken from something, something will remain
untouched. They want us to prove, not only that two and two make four,
but that nothing from four leaves four.

But they don’t ask the “regulation” send-them-to-jail gentlemen to prove
anything. When these grafters say two from four leave four nobody
expresses a doubt. Everybody is ready to believe that that which has
never been done can be easily done. Few are ready to believe that that
which might easily be done can be done at all.

The public attitude toward the Coal Trust and the railroads constitutes
possibly the only exception to this rule. The Coal Trust and the
railroads have so wronged the people that the people would doubtless
welcome their ownership by the government. If the people were to vote
directly upon the question: “Shall the government take over the
ownership of the anthracite coal mines and the railroads?” it is
probable that the affirmative majority would be not less than two to
one. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the coal question can be solved
only with ballots, the Socialists are the only ones who seem ever to try
with their ballots to solve it. The rest of the people, while opposed to
the conditions that exist, vote the tickets of parties that are pledged
to maintain the conditions that exist.

Every man who voted for Wilson, Roosevelt or Taft voted to keep the coal
supply of the nation in private hands and the railroads in private
hands.

Those who voted for Mr. Wilson voted to “destroy” the Coal Trust and
“send the trust magnates to prison.”

Those who voted for Mr. Roosevelt voted to permit the Coal Trust to
continue to own the nation’s coal supply, provided only that it be
“good.” Otherwise, a “strong” commission appointed by Mr. Roosevelt
would proceed to administer “social justice.”

Those who voted for Mr. Taft voted to break the Coal Trust into bits.

Candidly, let us ask, did either of these plans suit anybody? Is there
anybody who would not have vastly preferred that the government take
over the ownership of the anthracite coal mines and operate them for the
benefit of the people? A plan of governmental ownership and operation
would have settled the coal question instantly. A government that can
dig the Panama Canal can dig coal.

But there is no likelihood whatever that Mr. Wilson’s plan to destroy
the Coal Trust and all other trusts will settle the coal question at
all. The Coal Trust cares nothing for courts. Mr. Hearst attacked the
Coal Trust more vigorously in the courts than any President ever
attacked any trusts in the courts. Mr. Hearst came out of court
absolutely empty-handed. He gained a few paper victories, but he gained
no substantial victory. He never halted for a moment the upward flight
of the price of coal.

Mr. Wilson, if he try ever so hard, can do no better. So long as the
principle of the private ownership of the anthracite coal fields is
admitted—and Mr. Wilson admits this principle as fully as does
anybody—nothing can be done. Corporations can be split up into bits, it
is true, as the Standard Oil Company was split up, but what do such
splits amount to? Absolutely nothing. The ownership is not changed. The
dominating owners continue to handle the pieces as they formerly handled
the whole.

Suppose Mr. Wilson try to enforce the criminal clause of the Sherman
Anti-Trust law and put the coal magnates into jail? Suppose he try to
compel the component parts of the Coal Trust actually to compete with
each other. What will happen?

This will happen. The component parts of the Coal Trust will refuse to
compete. The men who are at the head of the coal companies are business
associates of long standing. They know each other well, and they know
well that none of them can make any money by fighting any of the others.
So, when one gentleman announces a schedule of coal prices, none of the
others will undercut him. All of the other coal companies will announce
the same prices, because the owners of each company will also be the
owners of all the other companies.

Did you ever stop to consider what position the government will then be
in? Will not its hands be tied? Can the government go into court and
demand that the other companies cut their prices? Suppose the other
companies say they cannot cut their prices without losing money? Suppose
the other companies say nothing at all, except: “This coal belongs to
us. We have quite as much right to fix our own price upon it as has the
government to fix its own price upon postage stamps. That other coal
companies have fixed the same price we have is no more the government’s
business than it is because several grocers fix the same price upon
sugar, bacon, tea or coffee.”

It will then be up to the government to prove that the identicality of
prices is the result of conspiracy. If conspiracy cannot be proved, the
government can do nothing. In such a case, the government would never be
able to prove conspiracy. The coal operators would not conspire over the
telephone, or on the street corners. There would be little for them to
conspire about, anyway. All of them would be financially interested in
all of the companies, precisely as Mr. Rockefeller is financially
interested in all of the constituent companies of the Standard Oil
Company. The matter of price-fixing would probably be left to the
dominating personality of the group, precisely as it is now left, more
or less, to the strongest man among them. And, the prices he fixed would
speedily become the prices of all.

Thus do we perceive a peculiar feature of the human mind. Individually,
we know what we should like to do about the Coal Trust and the
railroads. We know we should like to own and operate them. But
collectively we know no such thing. We do not get together. We act as if
that which each of us believes were believed by no other than himself.
We are like butter that will not “gather” or bees that will not “hive.”

There is every reason why we who are paying outrageous prices for coal
should get together on the matter of public ownership. The cost of
mining coal is less than $2 a ton. In 1902 Mr. George F. Baer—the
“Divine Right” gentleman—testified that the cost was $2, and some other
witnesses testified that it was as low as $1.43 a ton. Probably no one
but the coal magnates know exactly what the cost is, but now and then a
fact leaks out that is illuminating. Such a fact was discovered in 1912
by a staff correspondent whom the New York _World_ sent into the coal
regions.

The _World_ man found that the Coal Trust sells coal to its employees at
a reduced price. This is not philanthropy, because if the Coal Trust
charged full price for coal, it would soon be compelled to pay the
miners more wages—they live like dogs, and not much more can be taken
from them until it is first given to them. At any rate, the _World_ man
found that the price of coal, to miners, is only $2 a ton.

Now, it is fair to assume that the Coal Trust is not losing any money on
the $2 coal that it is selling to its employees. It is more likely that
it is making a nickel or two. At any rate, $2 a ton may be considered
the extreme limit of the cost of mining a ton of anthracite.

Whenever the people of this country are ready to listen to the truth
about the coal question, the retail price of coal can quickly be more
than cut in two. The actual cost of mining coal and transporting it to
any point within 500 miles of the mines probably is not more than $3 a
ton. If the people, through the government, owned and operated the
mines, the government could afford to sell coal at this price, plus the
local cost of delivery. The wages of the miners could be doubled—as they
should be—and coal could still be sold by the government at $5 a ton. In
any calculation about the coal problem, the miners should not be
forgotten. The Coal Trust will never take care of them, but they have a
right to demand that they shall be taken care of.

The business of mining coal is dangerous and disagreeable to the last
degree. Coal miners, when they are at work, seldom see the day. They go
from the night of the surface to the night of the mines. They breathe
such dust as never blew in the filthiest street. When a fall of slate
comes or an explosion of firedamp, their mangled bodies are all that is
left for their weeping widows and orphans at the mouth of the mine. If
they escape death by accident, they cannot escape the death that comes
from the unhealthfulness of their calling. No life insurance company
wants much to do with a coal miner except at the highest rates. No
tuberculosis exhibit is complete without the blackened lungs of a coal
miner in a jar of alcohol. There is nothing for a coal miner when he is
alive but a cheerless existence of the greatest drudgery—and nothing for
him when he is dead but an unmarked grave on the hillside. Yet 76,000
human beings thus spend their lives in the anthracite coal mines, and
hundreds of other thousands in the bituminous mines. All of this great
toll of human misery that the nation may burn coal.

If the nation could not get along without coal, there might be some
excuse for this colossal sacrifice. Even then, it would be hard for
those who might be compelled to make the sacrifice and, if we were to be
fair about it, we might have some difficulty in determining who should
go to the mines and who should go to the opera. If we were to be fair
about it, perhaps some of those who now go to the opera would go to the
mines sometimes. But the nation could easily get along without sending
anybody into the mines. Water power and fuel oil will do everything that
coal is now doing.

Please consider the water power question. In a report made to President
Taft in 1912 by Commissioner of Corporations Herbert K. Smith, these
statements appear:

Steam and gas engines are creating in this country approximately
19,000,000 horsepower.

Water wheels, in this country, are developing 6,000,000 horsepower.

The water power of this country, capable of development, is
approximately 19,000,000 horsepower.

These statements mean that there is enough undeveloped water power in
this country to more than take the place of every coal-burning steam
engine. This water power, if converted into electricity, would do
everything that steam does and more. It would run machinery. It would
light streets. It would heat houses. Moreover, the water power, once
developed, would not have to be dug out of the ground every year. “White
coal,” as the Italians call water power, is mined by the sun and thrown
into the furnace by the force of gravitation. Railroads need not haul
it. Nobody need deliver it. It hauls and delivers itself.

But that is not all. If there were not an ounce of water power in this
country, still we should not be dependent upon coal for heat and power.
Oil will burn quite as well as coal—in fact, a good deal better. Dr.
Rudolph Diesel, of Munich, in 1912 declared before the Institute of
Mechanical Engineers in London that exhaustive researches had indicated
the presence of as much oil in the globe as there is coal; that new oil
fields were constantly being discovered, Borneo, Mexico and even Egypt,
in addition to other known lands, containing great fields; that “the
world’s production of crude oil had increased three and a half times as
rapidly as the production of coal, and that the ratio of increase was
becoming steadily greater.”

Why then do we continue to burn coal? For the same reason that we
continue to do a number of other foolish things. Because we do not
manage this country in which we live. The men who are managing it are
managing it for profit. If there were a greater profit for the Coal
Trust in switching from coal to water power or oil they would switch us
quickly enough. If we were to change to oil, it would be a simple matter
to lay oil pipes in the streets precisely as we now lay water and gas
pipes, and heat our houses with oil sprays blown into our furnaces with
jets of steam. Certainly, there would be no difficulty in heating houses
from a central heating plant that burned oil. Plenty of western cities
have such central heating plants now that burn coal. And the idea is a
good one, too. The central plant decreases the danger of fire, besides
doing away with dust and the necessity of shoveling coal into the
furnace of each house.

But gentlemen like the Coal Trust barons figure this way: “We have a
certain amount of money invested here. We are looking only for the
highest rate of interest that we can get upon our investment. We might
serve the people better if we were to turn to water power development or
the burning of oil, but it is doubtful if we should obtain a greater
rate of interest upon our investment. Certainly, we should lose a lot by
junking our coal mines, as we should be compelled to do if we were to
prove their worthlessness—so, we’ll just keep on dealing in coal.”

And, the people of the United States, through their failure to “get
together” politically behind some party that stands for what they all
want—the people of the United States are getting the worst of it.

If the people of the United States want their government—which is
actually themselves, though they do not seem to know it—if the people of
the United States want their government to take over and to operate the
coal mines solely for the benefit of the people of the United States,
they can do it simply by standing together and talking and voting for
what they want.

In the meantime, it would be a splendid thing for the country if the
Coal Trust would increase the price of coal a dollar a month until such
time as the people become enough interested in their own problems to
solve them.




                               CHAPTER X
                        DEATHBEDS AND DIVIDENDS


Stock market reports do not show a relationship between deathbeds and
dividends. Such a relationship exists, however. In this country, many
are made to die miserably in order that a few may live magnificently.
Every year, more than half a million human beings are compelled to die
in order that a few thousands may make, every year, perhaps half a
billion dollars. More than three millions are kept sick in order that a
handful may be kept rich.

This is not mere rhetoric. It is fact. Irving Fisher, Professor of
Political Economy at Yale, and President of the Committee of One Hundred
on National Health, is one of the authorities for the figures. In his
report on national vitality, to the Conservation Commission, he declared
that in this country, every year, 600,000 human beings die whose lives
might be saved; that there are constantly 3,000,000 ill who might be
well.

Dr. Woods Hutchinson, New York physician, endorses these estimates.
Moreover, the estimates are confirmed by the actual experience of New
Zealand. New Zealand’s death-rate is 9.5 to the thousand. Our death-rate
is 16.5 to the thousand. If New Zealand’s population were as great as
our own, the number of deaths each year, under her present rate, would
be 630,000 fewer than the number of Americans who die each year. Yet the
climate of New Zealand is no more healthful than is that of America. New
Zealand simply does not sacrifice her people to private greed. America
does.

Plenty of laymen know how typhoid could be made a dead disease. Germany
has already made typhoid all but a dead disease in Germany. Yet, in this
country, tuberculosis, typhoid and other diseases that could easily be
prevented, are permitted to go on, killing their millions.

Why? Because capitalism stands in the way. Because deathbeds could not
be decreased in number without decreasing dividends in size. Because
we can reduce the death-rate only by acting through our
governments—national, state and municipal—and big business, rather
than ourselves, controls these governments. Big business, desiring to
keep the special privileges it has and to get more, puts men into
office whom it believes will do its bidding. Usually, these men know
nothing and care nothing about promoting the public health. They are
politicians. If they do know something about promoting the public
health, and attempt to apply their knowledge at the expense of
somebody’s dividends, there is a fight. If it is a disease-infected
tenement that it is desired to tear down, the injunction is brought
into play.

Such a situation seems appalling. It is appalling. It borders upon the
monstrous that a people who have at last learned how to prevent the
great diseases should not be permitted to apply their knowledge. That
the people endure such a condition can be explained only on the theory
that they realize neither the ease with which modern science could
extend their lives, nor the identity of the few who put dividends above
life.

In order that there shall be no doubt concerning the power of present
knowledge, if applied, to destroy some of the great diseases and cripple
others, I shall set down here a question that I asked of Professor
Irving Fisher, Dr. Woods Hutchinson, and Dr. J. N. McCormack. Dr.
McCormack is an eminent physician, who devotes his entire time to
lecturing throughout the United States, under the auspices of the
American Medical Association and the Committee of One Hundred. His topic
is the advisability of applying modern knowledge to the public health
problem. Here is the question:

“If you had the power of a czar, could you destroy tuberculosis and
typhoid fever, and also greatly reduce the number of deaths from
pneumonia?”

Professor Fisher and Dr. McCormack replied promptly in the
affirmative. Evidently, I might as well have asked Dr. Hutchinson if,
having a glass of water, he could drink it. He was most matter of
fact. Without a doubt, tuberculosis could be destroyed. So could
typhoid fever, which is solely a filth disease that no one can get
without eating or drinking matter that has passed through the stomach
of a typhoid victim. Parenthetically, I may say that I heard Dr.
Hutchinson tell a committee of the United States Senate that if a
National Department of Health were established and properly
administered, half of the crime would cease in twenty-five years. Dr.
Hutchinson also said that it was entirely possible to save the babies
that died from preventable diseases—dysentery, for instance. The
lowest estimate of the number of babies who die every year from
preventable diseases is 100,000.

Ask the same question of any physician in the country who is worth his
salt and he will give the same answer. Thus well known are the methods
by which the great diseases might be destroyed.

The way to wipe out tuberculosis quickly, for instance, would be to
destroy every habitation that is known to be hopelessly infected—and
there are many such—permit no habitation to be erected without provision
for sufficient sunlight and air; permit no factory or other workplace to
be erected without sufficient provision for sunlight and fresh air—and
destroy such workplaces as now exist without this provision; reduce the
cost of living so that the millions who now cannot afford to live in
sanitary homes and buy adequate food could do so; isolate the infected
and educate the people with regard to the necessity of sleeping with
their bedroom windows wide open.

If this program were put through, tuberculosis would cease as soon as
those who are now infected should either have recovered or died. It is
because such a program has not been put through that, according to
Professor Fisher, there are always 500,000 Americans suffering from
tuberculosis, and the annual death-roll from the disease is 150,000. Any
municipal government, if it were disposed to do so and the courts were
willing to let it do so, could put through the housing part of the
program in a single summer. The dangerous habitations could be
condemned. The government, if necessary, could build and rent at cost,
sanitary houses in the suburbs, as the government of New Zealand does
for its people. Congress, the President and the courts, if they were
disposed to do so, could reduce the cost of living. If the government
can teach farmers by mail how to prevent hog-cholera, there would seem
to be no reason why it should not teach human beings by mail to breathe
fresh air both night and day.

What stands in the way of immediately putting through such a program?
Nothing in the world except the men whose property would be destroyed,
or whose stealings in food-prices would be stopped. The property loss
would be enormous. (Think of calling the destruction of a lot of
death-traps a “loss.”) The “value” of the property destroyed might be a
billion dollars. Maybe it would be two billions. What difference need it
make if it should take five billion dollars’ worth of labor, lumber,
bricks, steel and other materials to replace death-traps with
life-traps? One hundred and fifty thousand lives would be saved every
year from tuberculosis alone, and the rebuilding operations would create
greater prosperity for labor than was ever created by any act of
Congress.

A hundred years ago, no one knew how to stamp out tuberculosis. What
good does it do us to know how? We are not permitted to apply our
knowledge. We can peck away if we want to, at the edge of the problem,
but we mustn’t strike at the middle. If we should, we might cut
somebody’s dividends. We might interfere with the “vested interests” of
the owners of the cellars in which 25,000 New York families live, or
with the owners of the 101,000 windowless rooms in which New Yorkers
live, or with the owners of the unsanitary houses and factories in other
cities. Our public officials know better than to try to do anything
really radical in the health line. They have condemned just enough
pestholes to know how dangerous it is to political prospects to grapple
with property, and enforced just enough of the factory laws to know how
dangerous it is to try to enforce factory laws at all.

In New York City, according to Tenement House Commissioner Murphy, 45
persons are burned alive every year in death-trap tenements. A new
tenement house law prohibits the erection of death-traps, and in the new
tenements there are no cremations. But the old death-traps are permitted
to stand. In ten years, 450 more persons will have been burned alive. In
10 years, 1,500,000 more Americans will have died from tuberculosis.

“Of the people living in the United States to-day,” said J. Pease
Norton, Assistant Professor of Political Economy at Yale, “more than
8,000,000 will die of tuberculosis.” Between the ages of 20 and 30,
every third death is from consumption, and, at all ages, the mortality
from the same disease is one in nine.

We now censure ancient kings for having slaughtered men in war for
private profit. But what ancient king ever made such a record in war as
our dividend-takers make in peace? What ancient king, in his whole
lifetime, ever slew 8,000,000 men? What modern war marked the end of so
many men as tuberculosis kills in a year? During the four years of the
Civil War, only a little more than 200,000 men were killed in battle.
Tuberculosis kills 300,000 Americans every two years. Other diseases
that could be prevented if dividends were out of the way bring up the
total of avoidable deaths in this country to 1,200,000 every two years.

What if our Government did nothing to end a war that was killing 600,000
Americans each year? What if a few contractors who were making millions
out of the war controlled elections, administrations and the courts and
would not let the government end the war?

What difference does it make whether foreign foes and army contractors
kill these millions, or whether domestic dividend-takers and their
governments kill them? Dead men not only “tell no tales,” but they have
no preferences. It is as bad to be dead from one cause as from another.

“During the next ten years,” said Professor Norton, “more than 6,000,000
infants less than two years old will end their little spans of life,
while mothers sit by and watch in utter helplessness. And yet this
number could probably be decreased by as much as half. But nothing is
done.”

Dr. Cressey L. Wilbur, Chief Statistician for Vital Statistics for the
Federal Census Bureau, says that at least 100,000 and perhaps 200,000
children less than five years old die in this country every year from
preventable causes.

Our national government freights the mails with circulars telling how to
cure hog-cholera and kill the insects that prey on fruit trees; but in
all the years since the Revolutionary War, it has never sent a circular
to a mother telling her how to keep her baby alive. The state and the
municipal governments have done something, but they have usually stopped
when they reached the big money bags. Not a state or a city has made it
impossible for a baby to be given bad milk. Not a state or a city has
rid itself of unsanitary habitations. Not a state or a city has
condemned all the workshops in which men and women work at the peril of
their lives. Not a state or a city has even enforced its own
factory-inspection laws.

If the men whom big business has put in office were even intelligently
interested in public health, probably 50,000 babies could be saved each
year without tearing down a rookery or providing a single better house.
A little intelligent effort and a few thousand dollars would suffice.

Dr. Hutchinson tells what a little intelligent effort and a few dollars
did for the babies of the small English city of Huddersfield. A few
years ago a physician was elected mayor. One of his first acts was to
announce that he would give a prize of ten shillings to the mother of
every child born during the mayor’s administration, provided the babies
were brought to his office in perfect health, on the first anniversary
of their birth. The only other stipulation was that no mother should be
eligible to a prize who did not immediately report to the mayor the
birth of her infant.

Though the prize was small, there was no lack of mothers who were
willing to be takers. The doctor-mayor established what amounted to a
correspondence school for mothers, and, at the birth of each child,
began to send circulars telling how to take care of the baby; what to
feed it and what not to feed it; what to do if the baby appeared
so-and-so—and so on. Moreover, he kept a city physician on the circuit
to look in at each home as often as possible, to see how the babies
appeared and give the mothers further advice.

That’s all there is to this story—except that he brought down the
death-rate for babies from 130 to 55; saved 75 babies each year to each
thousand born. More than that he helped the babies who would have lived
anyway. Good care, says the doctor, will increase the strength of strong
babies from 15 to 25 per cent.

Any American government could do as much. By condemning unsanitary homes
any American government could do more. All that is necessary is the
desire—and the permission of those who control the governments. The
people that cast the ballots are willing to give the permission, but the
ballots they cast perpetuate the conditions against which they complain.
Otherwise, there would be no death-trap houses; nor impure food; nor
extortionate food-prices; nor unsanitary workplaces. And somebody would
go to jail if an ice trust, desiring to cripple competitors who might
cut prices, should send ships up a river to destroy the ice. It was
brought out in court that the New York Ice Trust did that. The ice trust
was convicted under the State anti-trust law. But nobody is in jail. And
ice is still selling at a price that kills the children of the poor.

The only way to get big business on the side of public health is to get
public health and private profit on the same side. Health makes
efficiency, efficiency makes profit, and whenever public health can be
bought at a price that seems likely to yield a profit in efficiency, big
business will buy. That is the way Professor Fisher figures it out and
here is a case that he cites in point:

The girls in one of the Chicago telephone exchanges that is located in a
particularly smoky and dusty part of the city complained to the manager
of the smoke and dust. He cheerfully advised them to forget the smoke
and dust and go on with their work, which, having more hunger than
money, they did.

A few months later a growing volume of complaints against bad service
caused the manager to investigate. He found that the smoke and dust were
interfering with the operation of the switchboards. The little brass
tags were so gummed that frequently they did not fall when subscribers
called. Nor did the grime on the “plugs” with which connections are made
constitute a good medium for the flow of electricity.

When the manager learned what the smoke and dust were doing to his human
machines he did nothing. But when he learned what smoke and dust were
doing to his metallic machines he wasted no time. He laid the matter
before his superiors, with the result that a plan was installed for the
filtration, through water, of every particle of air that entered the
exchange.

It is not to the interest of big business as a whole that the people
should have pure food. The markets are flooded with unwholesome food
that an honest law, honestly administered, would have barred. Professor
Fisher relates an incident that shows how afraid the big meat dealers
are of the pure food law.

The professor was sitting in the lobby of a hotel not distant from New
York. The proprietor of the hotel called up a New York meat dealer on
the long-distance ‘phone to complain that some bad beef had been sent to
the hotel. He said he had never yet fed his patrons on rotten beef and
he didn’t intend to begin. The beef must be taken away and the charge
deducted from his bill. The man at the other end of the wire evidently
offered no opposition, and the receiver was hung up.

Soon the telephone rang again. New York was on the wire. The
conversation was brief. All that Professor Fisher could hear was the
hotel man’s single remark: “I’ll see what I can do and let you know.”

The hotel man rang off and immediately called up a local restaurant.
Then Professor Fisher heard this cheerful statement go over the wire:

“I’ve got some beef here that ain’t just right, and the New York people
who sent it to me wanted me to see if I couldn’t sell it for them up
here ... Oh, it’ll hang together yet, but ’tain’t what I want for my
people; you might use it, though ... I don’t know what the price will
be. You’ll have to make your bargain with them, but it won’t be much....
All right, send over and get it.”

And this—and a thousand times more than this—under the Pure Food Law!
Such crimes could not occur if the government, when it tried to enact a
decent law, had not been thrown flat on its back. The pity of it is that
when big business and a government come into collision over public
health matters, the government is usually thrown on its back.

“I doubt,” said Dr. Hutchinson, “whether there is a local health officer
at any post of entry in the United States who, if a case of plague,
cholera or yellow fever should appear on a ship, would not think three
or four times before he reported it. And if he did report it, as the law
requires him to do, his act would cost him his position. Business
interests would cause his removal.”

This is not mere talk. Nor is it simply prophecy. It is history. So long
as New Orleans was subject to periodical outbreaks of yellow fever, the
health authorities were compelled not only to fight the disease, but to
fight the business interests that denied its existence. Dr. Hutchinson
says that business interests once caused the removal of the State health
officer of Louisiana, merely because he insisted that yellow fever
existed in the State—which it did.

Dr. Hutchinson himself, as State health officer of Oregon, in 1905–6,
had to fight big business to conserve public health. Big business
whipped him. His experiences were not novel, but one of them will be
related for the simple reason that it was not novel, and therefore shows
the sort of opposition that health officers, all over the land, are
compelled to encounter.

Soon after taking office Dr. Hutchinson began an investigation of the
water supplies of the chief cities of Oregon. His report showed that the
water that private corporations were serving to municipalities carried
typhoid infection.

Immediately the business interests of the State turned their guns upon
him. Through the newspapers, which they controlled by reason of
advertising contracts, they denounced him as an “enemy of the State.”
“The fair fame of the commonwealth” was being traduced by a reckless
maligner. He was even dared to show his face in one city. An attempt was
made to remove him from office, but the governor happened to be a man
who could not be browbeaten, and Dr. Hutchinson remained.

But while the business interests of Oregon were not able to get the
governor, they got somebody. The city officials who could have purified
the water took no step to do so. If they had merely recognized the
existence of infected water and urged the people to boil it, some
service would have been performed. But the municipal officials upheld
the “fair fame” of their various communities by denying that the water
was infected. Notwithstanding their denials typhoid soon broke out. The
outbreak at Eugene, the seat of the State university, was particularly
severe. Several students died.

Yet the San Francisco plague case must long stand as the classic
illustration of the manner in which business fights government when a
great disease comes. Black plague—the deadliest known to the Orient; a
disease that, more than once, has killed 5,000,000 persons during a
single outbreak—appeared in San Francisco in 1900. The local board of
health quarantined the Chinese district, and the news went out over the
country. The horror of horrors had arrived! The black plague! It sent a
shudder over the land.

It sent a greater shudder over the business interests of San Francisco.
These business interests quickly saw visions of quarantines against the
State and cessation of tourist traffic. An appeal was made to a Federal
Judge to declare the quarantine illegal. He promptly did so. In giving
his decision, he went out of his way to make this statement:

“If it were within the province of this court to decide the point, I
should hold that there is not now, and never has been, a case of plague
in this city.”

The local board of health that discovered the plague was removed, as was
the State board of health that confirmed the prevalence of the disease.
The governor of the State sent a remarkable message to the Legislature
in which he denounced those who said plague existed in San Francisco,
and appointed a committee of physicians and big business men to go to
the California metropolis and make an “impartial” investigation. The
business men on the committee included the biggest bankers and merchants
in California. They reported in the most positive terms that there was
no plague.

Dr. Kinyoun, the Marine Hospital Surgeon in charge, held his ground. Dr.
Kinyoun was shortly transferred to Detroit. His successor said there was
plague. His successor was shortly transferred to a distant city.

Of course, no one now denies that black plague was in San Francisco
precisely when Dr. Kinyoun said it was. Even the eminent bankers and
merchants who certified that it wasn’t there admit that they were in
“error.” It is nowhere denied that there were more than 200 cases. It is
nowhere denied that there were more than 100 deaths.

Such is the situation that has been imposed upon us by a system that
places private profits above human life. Having painfully accumulated
the knowledge with which we could combat the great disease, we are
unable to apply it because we do not own and therefore cannot manage our
own country.

“We look with horror on the black plague of the Middle Ages,” said
Professor Norton. “The black plague was but a passing cloud, compared
with the white plague visitation.”




                               CHAPTER XI
                         IF NOT SOCIALISM—WHAT?


I have never seen you, but I know you. Your knuckles are bloody from
continued knocking at the door of happiness. The harder you knock, the
bloodier your knuckles become. But the door does not open. It stands
like an iron gate between you and the desires of your soul.

What is the matter with this world? Was it made wrong? Is it a barren
spot to which too many have been sent? After Mr. Rockefeller and Mr.
Morgan had been sent, should you have been kept? Is this their world and
are you an intruder here?

You are not an intruder here. You know that. You have as good a right
here as anyone else. But perhaps, nevertheless, this world was made
wrong? If you had the power to make worlds, could you make a better one?
Could you make fairer skies? Could you make greener fields? Could you
improve the sun? Could you make better people?

Perhaps you could do none of these things? If not, what is the matter
with this world? Look at it again. Here it is—spinning beneath your feet
as it has spun since the dawn of time, and, never before, since the dawn
of time, has it been such a world as it is now. Never before, since the
dawn of time, was it so well suited to your purposes as it is now.

Your ancestors enjoyed no material thing that they had not wearily
created with their hands. You need create nothing with your hands. You
need but to touch with the tips of your fingers the iron hands that can
make what man could never make so well. Whatever machinery can make, you
can have. And, to drive this machinery, you have the forces of the sun,
as they come to you in the form of steam and electricity.

Make no mistake—good, bad or indifferent as this world may be, it is at
least moving. None of your ancestors ever lived in such a world. And
none of your descendants will ever live in such a world as we live in
to-day.

Edison once pictured to me the world that he already sees dawning. It
was a wonderful world, because it was filled with wonderful machinery.
Cloth would go into one end of a machine and come out at the other end
finished suits of clothes, boxed and ready for the market. Every
machine, instead of making a part of a thing, would make the complete
thing and put it together. The world would be smothered with wealth.

But there was one disquieting feature about his world. There was not
much room in it for men. Each machine, attended by but a single man,
would do the work of hundreds of men. Moreover, that one man need not be
skilled. He need be but the merest automaton. Only the inventor of the
machine need have brains.

Maybe Edison was dreaming. The easy way is to say he was dreaming. I,
who know him, have my doubts. Edison always dreams before he does, but
everything that he dreams seems pitifully small beside what he does. He
dreamed of the electric light before he made it, but his dream was
paltry beside the light he made. And, the dynamo of his dream was a
wheelbarrow beside the dynamo that to-day sings its shrill song around
the world.

This much, however, is not a dream. Some of the automatic machinery that
Edison spoke of is already here. One man behind a machine is doing the
work of hundreds of men. Men are becoming a drug upon the labor market.
More than five millions are often out of work. As invention proceeds,
the percentage of the population who cannot find work must increase.

What is going to become of these men? Do you expect them to starve
quietly? Do you believe they will make no outcry? Do you believe they
will raise no hand against a world that raises both hands against them?
Moreover, what kind of a world is it in which the greater the machinery,
the greater the curse to the men who run machinery? We do not yet live
in such a world, it is true, but if Edison be not in error, we shall
soon live in it? What shall we do when machinery does everything?

This may seem like a far cry, but it isn’t. The germ of the Socialist
philosophy is contained in this one word “machinery.” Let us put the
spot-light upon that word and show everything that is in it.

Suppose there were one machine in this country that was capable of
producing every material thing that human beings need or desire. Suppose
the machine were so wonderfully automatic that it could be perfectly
operated by pushing a button, once a day, in a Wall Street office.

Beside this push-button, suppose there were another button that operated
all of the railroads in the country; passenger trains automatically
starting and stopping at the appointed places; freight trains
automatically taking on and discharging their cargoes. Not a human being
at work anywhere.

Imagine also one man owning this great machine and the railroads.

The rest of the race, if it were to remain law-abiding, would be
compelled to change the law or starve to death, would it not? What else
could the race do? Nobody would have any work. Nobody would therefore
have anything with which to buy. The single giant machine might be
capable of producing, with the push-button help of its owner, more
necessities and luxuries than the entire race could consume. The
automatic railway system might be capable of delivering to every door
everything that everybody might want. The single owner might have more
billions of dollars than Mr. Rockefeller has cents. But nobody else
would have anything.

What I am trying to show is that the private ownership of machinery is a
gigantic wrong. If it were not a wrong, the world would be helped by the
private ownership of a single machine fitted to produce every material
thing that the race needs. If the people owned such a machine, there
would certainly be no more poverty. There would be no more poverty
because the people would get what the machine produced.

If this be plain, let us further consider the present situation.

We live in a wonderful world.

It is big enough and rich enough to enable everybody in it to live in
comfort.

But hundreds of millions throughout the world do not live in comfort
because the progress of the world has brought relatively little to them.

They have no share of stock in the earth—somebody who has a little piece
of paper in his hand claims the ownership of the spot of earth upon
which they wish to lay their heads and charges them rent for using it.

Another little group own all of the machinery, handing out jobs here and
there to the men who offer to work for the least.

Nor is this a chance situation. A small class has always robbed the
great class. It has been and is the rule of the world. The methods of
robbery have been changed. Method after method has been abandoned as the
people awakened to the means by which they were being robbed. But
robbery has never been abandoned. The small, greedy, cunning class that
will not be content with what it can earn is here to-day, playing the
old game with a new method.

Socialists declare the new method is to own the industrial machinery
with which all other men must work. You may not agree with this.
Probably you do not. If you do not, will you kindly answer some
questions?

Why do a few men, who will work with no machinery, want to own all of
the machinery in the country?

Would these men care to own any machinery if there were not an
opportunity in such ownership to get money?

Where can the money they get come from except from the wealth that is
produced by the men who work with their machinery?

So long as a few men own all of the machinery, must not all other men be
at their mercy?

How can anyone get a job so long as the men who own the machinery say he
can have no job?

How can anyone demand a wage that represents the full value of his
product so long as the capitalist refuses to pay any wages that do not
assure a profit to him?

Mr. Roosevelt and some others would have you believe that all of these
wrongs can be “regulated” into rights. They would have you believe that
only “strong” commissions are necessary to make all of these wrongs
right. But Mr. Roosevelt and some others do not know what they are
talking about. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Men
have talked as they talk since robbery began. History records no
instance of one of them that made good. During all of the years that Mr.
Roosevelt was in the White House, he never appointed a commission that
was “strong” enough to make good.

We have it upon the authority of no less a man than Dr. Wiley that Mr.
Roosevelt’s commission to prevent the poisoning of food was not strong
enough to make good. The food-poisoning went on.

I mention Mr. Roosevelt’s food commission because it is a shining
example of what his “strong” commission theory of government cannot do.
Mr. Roosevelt, unquestionably, is and was opposed to the poisoning of
food. He appointed a commission to stop one kind of poisoning. But, for
reasons that you, as well as anyone else, can surmise, the commission
decided in favor of the food-poisoners instead of in favor of the
public. Which brings us to this question: If Mr. Roosevelt could not
appoint a commission “strong” enough even to prevent the poisoning of
food, what reason have you to believe that he or anyone else could
appoint a commission strong enough to prevent capitalists from robbing
workingmen?

You who oppose Socialism do so, no doubt, largely because you believe
the people could not advantageously own and manage their own industrial
machinery. We who advocate Socialism reply that it is much easier to
manage what you own than it is to manage what someone else owns. The
facts of history show that it is practically impossible to manage what
someone else owns. That is what we are trying to do to-day—and we are
failing at it. We are trying to manage the trusts. Fight as we will, the
trusts are managing us. They fix almost every fact in our lives. They
begin fixing the facts of our lives even before we are born. They
determine even whether all of us shall be born. It is a well-known fact
that when times are bad, the birth-rate decreases. Having the power to
make bad times, the trusts also have the power to diminish the number of
births. The trust panic of 1907 unquestionably prevented thousands of
children from being born. No one can ever know how many, but we do know
that both marriages and births decreased.

In view of such facts as these, is it not idle to talk about
“regulating” the property of others? Is it not stupid to believe that in
such regulation lies our greatest hope of material well-being? You must
admit that, thus far, the process of regulation has gone on painfully
slowly. If poverty, the fear of poverty and enforced idleness are any
indications of the progress of the country, it is difficult to see that
we have made any progress. Never before were so many millions of men out
of work in this country as there were during the panic of 1907. Never
before were so many millions of human beings so uncertain of their
future. A few men hold us all in the hollows of their hands. Our
destinies lie, not in ourselves, but in them.

Is it not so? Don’t be blinded by “commissions,” political pow-wow and
nonsense—is it not so? If it is so, how much progress have we made
toward getting rid of poverty by trying to regulate property that we do
not own? We have been playing the game of “regulation” for more than a
generation. It has done nothing for you. How many more generations do
you expect to live? Are you willing to go to your grave with this
pestilential question of poverty still weighing upon your heart? Are you
willing to go out of the world feeling that you never really lived in
it—that it was only a place where you toiled and sweat and suffered
while others lived?

We Socialists put it to you as a common-sense affirmation that your time
can come now if you and all others like you will join in a political
effort to make it come.

Any political partisan will make you the same promise, but you know,
from sad experience, that their promises are worthless. We ask you to
consider whether our promises are worthless.

We promise you, for instance, that if you will give us power you need
never again want for work. If the people, through the government, owned
the trusts and other great industries, why should anybody ever again
want for work? Thenceforward, the great plants would always be open. No
factory door would ever be closed so long as there was a demand for the
product of the factory. If the demand for goods were greater than the
capacity of the factories, the number of factories would be increased.
Nothing is simpler than to increase the number of factories. Only men
and materials are required. We have an abundance of each.

But we promise you more. We promise you that, if you will give us power,
we will give you not only the continuous opportunity to work, but we
will give you continuous freedom from robbery. Again, nothing is simpler
than to work without robbery. All that is necessary is to enable the
worker to go to work without walking into anyone’s clutches. No one can
now go to work without walking into many men’s clutches. When a man goes
to work for the Steel Trust, he walks into the clutches of everybody who
owns the stocks or the bonds of the trust. When a man goes to work for a
railway company, he walks into the clutches of every person who owns the
stocks or the bonds of the railway company. In other words, the stock
and bondholders of these institutions, by virtue of their control of the
machinery involved, have it in their power to say whether the worker
shall work or not work. They say he shall not work unless they can make
a profit upon his labor. The worker cannot haggle too long because he
must labor or starve. Therefore, he comes to terms. He walks into the
clutches of those who want to rob him of part of what he produces. He
consents to work for a wage that represents only a part of what he has
produced.

That is robbery. You may call it business, but it is robbery. If robbery
is anything, it is the taking of the property of another against his
will. The worker knows his wage is not all he earns. He resents the fact
that he must toil long and hard for a poor living, while his employer
lives in luxury without doing any useful labor. But the worker has no
alternative. He must consent. He does consent.

Under Socialism, there would be no such robbery, because goods would not
be produced for profit. Goods would be produced only because the people
wanted them. Whatever the people wanted would be produced, not in
niggardly volume, but in abundance.

Decent homes, for instance, would be produced. Millions of people in the
great cities now live in houses that are death-traps. They are not
houses, in the sense that country dwellers understand the word, but
dingy rooms, piled one upon another in great blocks. Light seldom enters
some of them. Fresh air can hardly get into any of them. The germs of
tuberculosis abound. The germs of other diseases swirl through the dust
of the streets. The death-rate is abnormally high—particularly the
death-rate of children. Yet, nothing would be simpler, if the
profit-seeking capitalists were shorn of their power, than to give every
human being in this country a decent home.

The best material out of which to make a house is cement or brick.
Either is better than wood because wood both rots and burns. There is
practically no limit to the number of cement and brick houses that could
be built in this country. Every State contains enough clay and other
materials to build enough houses to supply the whole country. If the
five millions of men who were out of work for many years following the
panic of 1907 could have been employed at house-building, they
themselves would not only have been prosperous, but the American people
would have been housed as they had never been housed before. If the two
millions of men who are always denied employment, even in so-called
“good” times, were continuously engaged in house-building, good houses
would be so numerous that we should not know what to do with them.

The same facts apply to all other necessities of life. The nation needs
bread. Some are starving for it all the while. Yet what is simpler than
the furnishing of bread? We know how to grow wheat. With the scientific
knowledge that the government could devote to wheat growing, combined
with the improved machinery that a rich government could bring to bear
upon the problem, the wheat-production of the country could easily be
multiplied by four. Little Holland and little Belgium, with no better
soil than our own, raise almost four times as much wheat to the acre as
we do. And, with wheat once grown, nothing is more simple than to make
it into flour. Probably we already have enough milling machinery to make
all the flour we need. If not, we could easily build four times as many
mills. We should never be unable to build more mills until we had no
unemployed men to set to work. And, if we had no unemployed men to set
to work, we should have, for the first time in the history of the world,
a completely happy nation.

Do you doubt any of these statements? How can you doubt them? We have
the men. We have the materials. The only trouble is that they are kept
apart. They are kept apart because a few men control things and will not
allow men and material to come together unless that means a profit for
the few men. We Socialists purpose to put them together. If they were
put together, how much longer do you believe the people would have to
shiver in winter for lack of woolen clothing? There is no secret about
raising sheep. We have vast areas upon which we could raise more than we
shall ever need. Even a concern like the Woolen Trust—the head of which
was indicted for conspiring to “plant” dynamite at Lawrence to besmirch
the strikers—even such a concern enables some of us to wear wool in the
winter time. How many more do you believe would wear wool if the United
States government were to take the place of this concern as a
manufacturer of woolen goods? Do you believe anybody would be compelled
to suffer from cold for lack of woolen clothing? How can you so believe?
The government, if necessary, could build four woolen mills for every
one that exists. The government could not fail to supply the people’s
needs. And, with all goods sold at cost, prices would be so low that the
people could buy.

These, and many other possibilities, are entirely within your reach. You
can realize them now. Will you kindly tell when you expect to realize
them by voting for the candidates of any other party except the
Socialist party? No other party except the Socialist party proposes to
put men and materials together. Every other party except the Socialist
party proposes that a small class of men shall continue to own all of
the great industrial machinery, while the rest shall continue to be
robbed as the price of its use. Every other party except the Socialist
party proposes that a small body of men shall continue to graft off the
rest by wringing profits from them. No party except the Socialist party
puts the people above profits.

Even Mr. Roosevelt and his party do not. Mr. Roosevelt stands as firmly
for the principle of profits as does Mr. Morgan. Mr. Roosevelt differs
from the most besotted reactionary only in his hallucination that he
could appoint “strong” commissions that would successfully regulate
other people’s property. Mr. Roosevelt does not seem to recognize that,
so long as profits are in the capitalist system, the workers must not
only be robbed of part of what they produce, but that they must be
periodically denied even the right to work at any wage. Nor does he seem
to realize that, if he were to reduce the profits to the point where
there was not much robbery, the capitalists would no longer have any
incentive for remaining in business.

With profits eliminated, or cut to the vanishing point, the capitalist
system cannot stand.

With profits not eliminated or cut near the vanishing point, the people
cannot stand.

Therefore, Mr. Roosevelt is trying to bring about the impossible. He is
trying to prevent the people from being robbed without destroying the
power of the capitalist to live by robbery. Mr. Roosevelt probably would
like to decrease, somewhat, the extent to which capitalists practice
robbery. But he is not willing to take away from them the power to rob.

If Mr. Roosevelt were chasing burglars instead of the Presidency, we
should first laugh at him and then put a new man on the force in his
place. Imagine a policeman trying to prevent burglary by “regulating”
the burglars, saying to them in a hissing voice: “Now, gentlemen, this
burglary must stop. We really can have no more of it. None of you must
carry a ‘jimmy’ more than four feet long. Any burglar caught with more
than twenty skeleton keys will be sent to prison.”

Yet that is practically what Mr. Roosevelt says to the capitalists. The
“jimmy” of the capitalist is his ownership of the tools with which his
employees work, but Mr. Roosevelt makes no move to take this instrument
from the men who are despoiling the workers. All that Mr. Roosevelt
purposes to do is to place a limit upon the amount that the capitalist
can legally abstract. And he depends upon “strong” commissions to keep
the ferocious capitalist in order.

We Socialists have no faith in such measures. We frankly predict their
failure, precisely as twenty years ago we predicted the failure of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Law. We were then known to so few of our own people
that not many persons had the pleasure of calling us fools. Now, nobody
wants to call us fools for that. We are now fools because we do not
believe in Wilson or in Roosevelt.

We are not content to await the verdict of time, but we await it with
confidence. We dislike to waste twenty-five more years in chasing up
this Roosevelt blind alley, but if you should determine to make the
trip—which we hope you will not—we shall still be on the main track when
you come back.

If somebody else had the key to your house and would not let you in
unless you paid him his price, you would not value highly the services
of a policeman who should tell you that the way to deal with the
gentleman was to “regulate” him. If the gentlemen had locked you out
upon an average of four times a week, you would feel even less kindly
disposed toward such a policeman.

We Socialists feel that the capitalist class has keys that belong to the
American people, and that it has used and is using those keys to prevent
the people from using their own, except upon the payment of tribute.

We feel that the capitalist class holds the keys to our workshops and
will not let us enter except upon such tribute terms as they can wring
from us.

We feel that the capitalist class has the keys to our coal fields and
will not let us be warm in winter except upon the payment of money that
should go, perhaps, for food or clothing.

We feel that the capitalist class has the keys of our national pantry
and compels those to go hungry whom it has denied the right to work.

In short, we feel that the capitalists have the keys of our happiness—so
far as happiness depends upon material things—and are compelling us to
subsist upon uncertainty and fear, when security and contentment lie
just at our elbows, awaiting the turn of the keys.

We Socialists are ready to stand behind any party that will pledge
itself to return these keys to the people, reserving only the right to
be convinced that the pledge is made in good faith and will be kept.

If Mr. Roosevelt will promise to use his best efforts to take from the
capitalists the private ownership of industry, we Socialists shall
believe he means business and shall begin to respect him.

If Mr. Wilson will make a similar promise, we shall feel the same toward
him.

But if Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson should make such a promise, they
would have absolutely no capitalist support. Mr. Perkins would not be
with Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Ryan would not be with Mr. Wilson. So far as
great capitalists are concerned, Armageddon and Sea Girt would look a
good deal like a baseball park two weeks after the close of the season.

All the world over, the Socialist party is the only political
organization that frankly stands up to the guns and demands the keys. It
is the only party that minces no words and looks for no favors from the
rich. The Socialist party is avowedly and earnestly committed to the
task of compelling the capitalist class to surrender the power with
which it robs. And, anyone who believes that power does not lie in the
private ownership of industrial machinery need only try to become rich
without owning any such machinery or gambling in its products. We
Socialists are willing to stake our lives on the statement that if you
will transfer the ownership of industry from the capitalist class to the
people, those who now constitute the capitalist class will never get
another dollar that they do not work for or steal in common burglar or
pickpocket fashion. If we are in error about the significance of the
private ownership of industry, the transfer of such ownership to the
people would not hurt the capitalist class. But the capitalist class
evidently does not believe the Socialists are wrong in holding this
belief, because the capitalists are fighting us tooth and nail.

Nothing is the matter with this world. Whatever is the matter is with
you. You can begin to get results now if you will begin to vote right
now. The election of Victor L. Berger to Congress in 1910 threw more of
the fear of God into the capitalist class of this country than any other
event that has happened in a generation. If fifty Socialists were in
Congress, the old parties would outdo each other in offering concessions
to the people.

As an illustration of what fifty Socialist Congressmen could do I will
relate an incident that took place in Washington in the winter of 1912.

Berger, by playing shrewd politics, had brought about a congressional
investigation of the Lawrence woolen mill strike. He had brought to
Washington a carload of little tots from the mills—boys and girls—and
they had spent the day telling a committee of the House of
Representatives of their wrongs. The stories were heartbreaking. Here
was a stunted little boy who declared he worked in a temperature of 140
degrees for $5 a week. A young girl—the daughter of a mill-worker—told
of an insult offered to her by a soldier and of her own arrest when she
struck him. A skilled weaver described the difficulty of keeping life in
his four children on a diet of bread and molasses. Every story was
different in detail, but all were alike in the depths of poverty that
they revealed. The testimony bore heavily upon those who listened, and
when the session was suspended for the day the members of Congress
hastened quickly from the room.

As Berger walked rapidly toward the door an old man stopped him.
Apparently he was a business man, 55 or 60 years old. Certainly he was
not a workingman. But he had heard the day’s testimony and he could not
remain silent.

“Mr. Berger,” he said, “I have always been against you and all
Socialists. I was sorry when I heard you had been elected to Congress.
But if you brought about this investigation, as I am informed you did, I
want to say to you that if you were never to do another thing during
your term, your election would have been more than justified. I hope
your people will keep you in Congress as long as you live.”

How many more men would change their minds if there were fifty
Socialists in Congress? How many capitalists would change their minds as
to how far they could safely go in robbing the people?

Three millions of votes for the Socialist ticket would by no means elect
a Socialist president. But they would squeeze out more justice from the
capitalist parties than the people have had since this government began.

Moreover, if you want the world during your own lifetime you will have
to take it during your own lifetime. It will not do you much good to let
your grandchildren take it during their lifetime.




                               APPENDIX.
                      NATIONAL SOCIALIST PLATFORM

                  (Adopted at Indianapolis, May, 1912)


The Socialist Party of the United States declares that the capitalist
system has outgrown its historical function, and has become utterly
incapable of meeting the problems now confronting society. We denounce
this outgrown system as incompetent and corrupt and the source of
unspeakable misery and suffering to the whole working class.

Under this system the industrial equipment of the nation has passed into
the absolute control of a plutocracy which exacts an annual tribute of
millions of dollars from the producers. Unafraid of any organized
resistance, it stretches out its greedy hands over the still undeveloped
resources of the nation—the land, the mines, the forests and the
water-powers of every State in the Union.

In spite of the multiplication of labor-saving machines and improved
methods in industry which cheapen the cost of production, the share of
the producers grows ever less, and the prices of all the necessities of
life steadily increase. The boasted prosperity of this nation is for the
owning class alone. To the rest it means only greater hardship and
misery. The high cost of living is felt in every home. Millions of
wage-workers have seen the purchasing power of their wages decrease
until life has become a desperate battle for mere existence.

Multitudes of unemployed walk the streets of our cities or trudge from
State to State awaiting the will of the masters to move the wheels of
industry.

The farmers in every State are plundered by the increasing prices
exacted for tools and machinery and by extortionate rents, freight rates
and storage charges.

Capitalist concentration is mercilessly crushing the class of small
business men and driving its members into the ranks of propertyless wage
workers. The overwhelming majority of the people of America are being
forced under a yoke of bondage by this soulless industrial despotism.

It is this capitalist system that is responsible for the increasing
burden of armaments, the poverty, slums, child-labor, most of the
insanity, crime and prostitution, and much of the disease that afflicts
mankind.

Under this system the working class is exposed to poisonous conditions,
to frightful and needless perils to life and limb, is walled around with
court decisions, injunctions and unjust laws, and is preyed upon
incessantly for the benefit of the controlling oligarchy of wealth.
Under it also, the children of the working class are doomed to
ignorance, drudging toil and darkened lives.

In the face of these evils, so manifest that all thoughtful observers
are appalled at them, the legislative representatives of the Republican,
Democratic, and all reform parties remain the faithful servants of the
oppressors. Measures designed to secure to the wage earners of this
nation as humane and just treatment as is already enjoyed by the wage
earners of all other civilized nations have been smothered in committee
without debate, and laws ostensibly designed to bring relief to the
farmers and general consumers are juggled and transformed into
instruments for the exaction of further tribute. The growing unrest
under oppression has driven these two old parties to the enactment of a
variety of regulative measures, none of which has limited in any
appreciable degree the power of the plutocracy, and some of which have
been perverted into means for increasing that power. Anti-trust laws,
railroad restrictions and regulations, with the prosecutions,
indictments and investigations based upon such legislation, have proved
to be utterly futile and ridiculous. Nor has this plutocracy been
seriously restrained or even threatened by any Republican or Democratic
executive. It has continued to grow in power and insolence alike under
the administrations of Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft.

In addition to this legislative juggling and this executive connivance,
the courts of America have sanctioned and strengthened the hold of this
plutocracy as the Dred Scott and other decisions strengthened the slave
power before the Civil War.

We declare, therefore, that the longer sufferance of these conditions is
impossible, and we purpose to end them all. We declare them to be the
product of the present system in which industry is carried on for
private greed, instead of for the welfare of society. We declare,
furthermore, that for these evils there will be and can be no remedy and
no substantial relief except through Socialism, under which industry
will be carried on for the common good and every worker receive the full
social value of the wealth he creates.

Society is divided into warring groups and classes, based upon material
interests. Fundamentally, this struggle is a conflict between the two
main classes, one of which, the capitalist class, owns the means of
production, and the other, the working class, must use these means of
production on terms dictated by the owners.

The capitalist class, though few in numbers, absolutely controls the
Government-legislative, executive and judicial. This class owns the
machinery of gathering and disseminating news through its organized
press. It subsidizes seats of learning—the colleges and schools—and even
religious and moral agencies. It has also the added prestige which
established customs give to any order of society, right or wrong.

The working class, which includes all those who are forced to work for a
living, whether by hand or by brain, in shop, mine or on the soil,
vastly outnumbers the capitalist class. Lacking effective organization
and class solidarity, this class is unable to enforce its will. Given
such class solidarity and effective organization, the workers will have
the power to make all laws and control all industry in their own
interest.

All political parties are the expression of economic class interests.
All other parties than the Socialist Party represents one or another
group of the ruling capitalist class. Their political conflicts reflect
merely superficial rivalries between competing capitalist groups.
However they result, these conflicts have no issue of real value to the
workers. Whether the Democrats or Republicans win politically, it is the
capitalist class that is victorious economically.

The Socialist Party is the political expression of the economic
interests of the workers. Its defeats have been their defeats, and its
victories their victories. It is a party founded on the science and laws
of social development. It proposes that, since all social necessities
to-day are socially produced, the means of their production shall be
socially owned and democratically controlled.

In the face of the economic and political aggressions of the capitalist
class the only reliance left the workers is that of their economic
organizations and their political power. By the intelligent and
class-conscious use of these they may resist successfully the capitalist
class, break the fetters of wage slavery, and fit themselves for the
future society, which is to displace the capitalist system. The
Socialist Party appreciates the full significance of class organization
and urges the wage earners, the working farmers and all other useful
workers everywhere to organize for economic and political action, and we
pledge ourselves to support the toilers of the fields as well as those
in the shops, factories and mines of the nation in their struggle for
economic justice.

In the defeat or victory of the working class party in this new struggle
for freedom lies the defeat or triumph of the common people of all
economic groups, as well as the failure or the triumph of popular
government. Thus the Socialist Party is the party of the present day
revolution, which marks the transition from economic individualism to
Socialism, from wage slavery to free co-operation, from capitalist
oligarchy to industrial democracy.

As measures calculated to strengthen the working class in its fight for
the realization of its ultimate aim, the Co-operative Commonwealth, and
to increase the power of resistance against capitalist oppression, we
advocate and pledge ourselves and our elected officers to the following
program:


                          COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP

1. The collective ownership and democratic management of railroads, wire
and wireless telegraphs and telephones, express services, steamboat
lines and all other social means of transportation and communication and
of all large scale industries.

2. The immediate acquirement by the municipalities, the States or the
federal government of all grain elevators, stock yards, storage
warehouses and other distributing agencies, in order to reduce the
present extortionate cost of living.

3. The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil
wells, forests and water power.

4. The further conservation and development of natural resources for the
use and benefit of all the people:

(_a_) By scientific forestation and timber protection.

(_b_) By the reclamation of arid and swamp tracts.

(_c_) By the storage of flood waters and the utilization of water power.

(_d_) By the stoppage of the present extravagant waste of the soil and
of the products of mines and oil wells.

(_e_) By the development of highway and waterway systems.

5. The collective ownership of land wherever practicable, and, in cases
where such ownership is impracticable, the appropriation by taxation of
the annual rental value of all land held for speculation.

6. The collective ownership and democratic management of the banking and
currency system.


                              UNEMPLOYMENT

The immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of
all useful public works. All persons employed on such works to be
engaged directly by the government under a workday of not more than
eight hours and not less than the prevailing union wages. The government
also to establish employment bureaus; to lend money to States and
municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public
works, and to take such other measures within its power as will lessen
the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the
capitalist class.


                           INDUSTRIAL DEMANDS

The conservation of human resources, particularly of the lives and
well-being of the workers and their families:

1. By shortening the workday in keeping with the increased
productiveness of machinery.

2. By securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and
a half in each week.

3. By securing a more effective inspection of workshops, factories and
mines.

4. By forbidding the employment of children under 16 years of age.

5. By the co-operative organization of industries in federal
penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their
dependents.

6. By forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of
child-labor, of convict labor and of all uninspected factories and
mines.

7. By abolishing the profit system in government work, and substituting
either the direct hire of labor or the awarding of contracts to
co-operative groups of workers.

8. By establishing minimum wage scales.

9. By abolishing official charity and substituting a non-contributory
system of old age pensions, a general system of insurance by the State
of all its members against unemployment and invalidism and a system of
compulsory insurance by employers of their workers, without cost to the
latter, against industrial disease, accidents and death.


                           POLITICAL DEMANDS

The absolute freedom of press, speech and assemblage.

The adoption of a gradual income tax, the increase of the rates of the
present corporation tax and the extension of inheritance taxes,
graduated in proportion to the value of the estate and to nearness of
kin—the proceeds of these taxes to be employed in the socialization of
industry.

The abolition of the monopoly ownership of patents and the substitution
of collective ownership, with direct rewards to inventors by premiums or
royalties.

Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women.

The adoption of the initiative, referendum and recall and of
proportional representation, nationally as well as locally.

The abolition of the Senate and the veto power of the President.

The election of the President and the Vice President by direct vote of
the people.

The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of the United
States to pass upon the constitutionality of the legislation enacted by
Congress. National laws to be repealed only by act of Congress or by the
voters in a majority of the States.

The granting of the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia with
representation in Congress and a democratic form of municipal government
for purely local affairs.

The extension of democratic government to all United States territory.

The enactment of further measures for general education and particularly
for vocational education in useful pursuits. The Bureau of Education to
be made a department.

The enactment of further measures for the conservation of health. The
creation of an independent Bureau of Health with such restrictions as
will secure full liberty for all schools of practice.

The separation of the present Bureau of Labor from the Department of
Commerce and Labor and its elevation to the rank of a department.

Abolition of the federal district courts and the United States Circuit
Courts of Appeals. State courts to have jurisdiction in all cases
arising between citizens of the several States and foreign corporations.
The election of all judges for short terms.

The immediate curbing of the power of the courts to issue injunctions.

The free administration of justice.

The calling of a convention for the revision of the Constitution of the
United States.

Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism are
but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole powers of government
in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole system of
socialized industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps you have a friend who believes he knows what Socialism is, but
doesn’t. If so, a copy of “The Truth About Socialism” will be mailed to
him for twenty-five cents. Prices for larger numbers follow:

                QUANTITIES                         PRICE
                         5 copies (prepaid)        $1.00
                        25 copies f.o.b. New York  $4.50
                       100 copies f.o.b. New York $15.00


The Socialist Party maintains a National office, for the purpose, among
other things, of furnishing any desired information about the party.
Upon request, it will furnish lists of Socialist books, newspapers and
magazines. Services of this sort are rendered not only freely, but
gladly. Address,

                 NATIONAL SEC’Y OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY
                        111 North Market Street
                                CHICAGO




                       The Truth About Socialism

                        As the reviewers see it


Philadelphia _North American_

Nothing in the current and accepted literature of economics avails
entirely to controvert the arguments and offset the data here presented,
in lucid and almost colloquial form. Mr. Benson’s book takes on readily
the aspect of a burning and a shining light.


New York _Globe_

Many writers have told the truth about Socialism, but not many have told
it so racily and with such fire and no beating about the bush as Mr.
Benson....

In writing his book he has evidently had in mind every doubt that was
ever expressed about Socialism, every question, foolish or otherwise,
that was ever asked.... He has sought to write about Socialism sensibly
and practically and in the present tense.


J. B. Kerfoot in _Life_

But the book that did the biting, a reading of which inspired this
review ... lays before us not a theory, but a programme ... instead of
being merely intellectually alive, Mr. Benson’s book is emotively living
and magnetically, radio-actively in earnest. And unless you are mighty
thin-blooded or mighty thick-skinned it will raise a good, big itchy
lump either on your enthusiasm or your combativeness.


Horace Traubel in _The Conservator_

The man who can’t make out Socialism after reading Benson ought to
suspect himself. There’s something wrong with his machinery. There’s an
idiot around somewhere. And that idiot’s not Benson.


Detroit _Times_

The book will appeal to the thoughtful who desire a concise expression
of Socialist thought and argument. He has written clearly and forcibly;
he discusses his subject from the practical, not the technical side.


Springfield _Union_

It is a clearly written statement and the book may be regarded as
authoritative.


         Send for catalogue of miscellaneous books published by
               B. W. HUEBSCH, 225 Fifth avenue, New York

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
      spelling.
 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.