The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Red Conspiracy, by Joseph J. Mereto

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at

Title: The Red Conspiracy

Author: Joseph J. Mereto

Release Date: August 31, 2006 [EBook #19150]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8


Produced by Curtis Weyant, David Maddock and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at

The Red Conspiracy





37 West 39th Street, New York

This book proves the existence of the Red Peril. We publish it to warn America. We ask the help of every loyal American, organization and institution to put "The Red Conspiracy" in every home, school and library in the land. Price, cloth bound, $2.15 postpaid; in paper, $1.10 postpaid.

Chapters of the book and parts of chapters can also be supplied in pamphlet and leaflet form for wide distribution. Write us for particulars.

The National Historical Society
37 West 39th Street, New York

Copyright, 1920, by
The National Historical Society


As a mark of sincere gratitude for all that he owes to his Country from birth, the author of "The Red Conspiracy" hereby dedicates his work to his fellow-countrymen, trusting that it will prove a bulwark of defense for our Star-Spangled Banner and constitutional form of government, now so violently assailed by disloyal American citizens, as well as by Marxian rebels from abroad who have deceived many of the uneducated or trained them in ways of evil.

While "The Red Conspiracy" will appeal strongly to all who are seeking a clear and comprehensive knowledge of Socialism, Bolshevism, Communism and I. W. W.'ism, it will be of special value to the workingmen of America, as it will enable them easily to understand the fallacies of the Revolutionists and at the same time make them realize the serious dangers that would result from the adoption of any of the various radical programs.

Friendship, indeed, the "Knights of the Red Flag" profess for the laboring man. Such friendship, however, once it is understood will be spurned, for it is one which would plunge the sons of toil into a terrible abyss of injustice, deprivation and suffering--wrongs far greater than those endured from abuses of capitalism and partial corruption of some government officials.

At the very beginning of this work, the author wishes to express his heartfelt sympathy for poor men and women who are treated unjustly by employers, as well as with all who receive too small a recompense for their wearisome labors. It is, indeed, a source of deep regret to us that in consequence of injustice and uncharitableness, there are to be found in this rich republic numbers of our fellow-countrymen, not merely men and women but even innocent little children, who can scarcely relieve the pangs of their hunger by the coarsest kinds of food and have naught but rags for clothes and huts for homes. Feeling deep concern for these poor people, and for all who suffer either from employers or from defects of government, we trust that "The Red Conspiracy" will not only help toward remedying many of the evils that now weigh heavily upon the working class, but help to avert the far more dreadful evils that would result from the adoption of Socialism, Bolshevism, Communism, and I. W. W.'ism.

For many years the author has made a careful study of radicalism, and during that time has read not only many thousands of Socialist and I. W. W. papers, leaflets, pamphlets and books, but also most of the leading works against Socialism in the English language. We have sought to gather an illuminating collection of quotations, not merely from standard Marxian publications, but from the speeches of Socialists of unquestioned authority in the international movement. These open confessions of the Revolutionists cannot fail to interest the reader and will certainly arouse the deep indignation of every fair-minded person against a propaganda of deception which is working fast to wreck modern civilization.

No doubt the readers of "The Red Conspiracy" will be interested to learn that many of the revelations made in this book are brought to light through purchase by the author himself of revolutionary papers and pamphlets on sale in the spring and summer of 1919 at the National Headquarters of the Socialist Party, the Chas. H. Kerr Socialist Publishing Company, and the National Headquarters of the I. W. W., all in Chicago, and also in leading Socialist bookstores of Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. The matter obtained in these centres of underworld corruption and anarchy could not have been procured had the author ransacked every public library in the United States.

Though loyalty and patriotism should always inspire us to defend our country against its foes, we must concede to the Socialists that human government, whether national, state or municipal, is by no means free from serious defects; and we are bound to admit that representatives of the American people, as well as men engaged in business and commerce, have too often been guilty of dishonesty, injustice and cruelty to the suffering poor.

Law-abiding citizens, while very much regretting that wrongs such as these should exist, confidently hope to reduce them to a reasonable minimum by methods of social reform still more effective than those that have already brought to an end not a few of the evils prevalent in days gone by. Prudence and charity suggest to true social reformers reasonable constitutional and lawful methods by which to correct abuses instead of adding to their number by adopting Socialism. We have already seen too much of the work of the "Reds" in Europe and in parts of Mexico, and we do not wish to behold our fellow-countrymen shedding more blood and suffering graver evils, under Socialism, than they did during the terrible World War.

Loyal and patriotic citizens of America, judging from the progress that has been made in the past in matters of social reform, have every reason for looking forward confidently to the success of their efforts--unless, indeed, the Revolutionists, by greatly increasing their numbers, should divide the workingmen of our country into two big parties, comprising, respectively, the Socialists and the anti-Socialists, whose main purpose it would then be to fight each other instead of joining forces against social abuses. If the Revolutionists should gain very large numbers of recruits, there would be, on the one hand, a great party consisting of those whose object it would be to destroy our present form of government, as well as the entire industrial system, and, on the other, an opposition party, embracing good citizens and men of common sense and intelligence, who, because of their realization of the blessings which privately-owned industries and our constitutional form of government have bestowed upon the people of America, would be determined to shed the last drop of their blood in defense of them.

The Socialists, however, are not satisfied with social reform, but are bent on the total destruction of our system of government and industry, holding the system itself, rather than the faults and shortcomings of men, to be by its very nature responsible for all the economic evils of the day. "Down with the Stars and Stripes" is their cry. "Abolish religion and the present form of marriage." "Atheism and free-love must reign supreme." Then, trusting that workingmen will admire anything, provided that it be adorned in sufficiently glowing colors, they paint such fabulous pictures of Socialism as the following:

"Hundreds of thousands of former representatives of the state will enter various professions, and by their intelligence and strength will help to increase the wealth and comfort of society. Neither political nor common crimes will be known in the future. Thieves will have disappeared because private property will have disappeared, and in the new society everybody will be able to satisfy his wants easily and conveniently by work. Nor will there be tramps and vagabonds, for they are the product of a society founded on private property, and with the abolition of this institution they will cease to exist. Murder? Why? No one can enrich himself at the expense of others, and even murder for hatred or revenge is directly or indirectly connected with the social system. Perjury, false testimony, fraud, theft of inheritance, fraudulent failures? There will be no private property against which these crimes could be committed. Arson? Who should find satisfaction in committing arson when society has removed all cause for hatred? Counterfeiting? Money will be but a mere chimera, it would be love's labor lost! Blasphemy? Nonsense! It will be left to good Almighty God himself to punish whoever has offended him, provided that the existence of God is still a matter of controversy." ("Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 436 of the 1910 edition in English.)

As an immense number of American citizens would not be led astray by these foolish promises, or by others equally absurd--recalling how political and common crimes, theft, murder, arson, perjury, worthless currency, blasphemy and political corruption have ruined Socialist Russia and made it a hell on earth--a dreadful revolution would be necessary to compel our countrymen to surrender their cherished rights. The Socialists, if victorious, after having set up a new form of government, modeled on their own low ideas of morality, would not only substitute a free-love regime for the present form of marriage, but, going still further, would avail themselves of every opportunity for destroying religion. The evils, however, would by no means end here, for the new government, whose rapid decay would begin from the very day of its birth, would in a short time collapse and fall, and then the citizens of America would have neither a government to protect them from the ravages of criminals, whose number would be legion, nor yet any suitable system of organized industries for the employment of men and the production of the necessaries of life. Consequently, trials and sufferings incomparably greater than any of the present day would befall the people in the reign of anarchy that would ensue.

It is to preserve our fellow-countrymen from ever having to endure such calamities that we have undertaken this work, in which it is proven conclusively that the "Reds," unless quickly thwarted, will overwhelm us with unspeakable horrors of crime, rebellion, anarchy and destitution.



Scope of Book, iii; Value to Workingmen, iii; Sympathy for Labor, iii; Quotations from Socialist Authorities, iv; Revolutionists Set Back the Cause of Labor, v; Bebel's Fabulous Picture of Socialist Possibilities, v; Socialism Means War, vi.



Modern Socialism Dates from "Communist Manifesto," 1848, 1; Karl Marx, 1; Engels, 1;; International Workingmen's Association, 1;; "Capital" by Marx, the Socialist Bible, 2; Socialism in Germany, 2; in Bavaria, 4; in Russia, 4; Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, 5; Socialism in Austria-Hungary, 5; in France, 5; in Great Britain, 8; in Italy, 9; in Spain, 9; in Belgium, 10; in Holland, 10; in Bohemia, 10; in Sweden, 11; in Norway, 11; in Argentina, 11; in Canada, 12; in Bulgaria, 12; in Mexico, 12; in Other Foreign Lands, 12.



Introduced from Europe, 13; Workingmen's Party, 13; Socialist Labor Party, 13; Socialist Democracy of America, 13; Socialist Party of America, 13; Socialist Periodicals, 14; Socialist Party Strife and Bossism, 14; The Internatonal, 16; The First International, 16; The Second International, 16; International Socialist Bureau, 17; American Socialists and the International, 17; The Berne Conference, 18; The Third (Moscow) International, 18; Debs and American Socialists Recognized by Lenine, 20; American Socialists' Straddle Resolution on Berne and Moscow, 21.



Revolution Camouflaged as Evolution, 23; "Yellows," "Reds," "Rights" and "Lefts," 23; Origin of the Left Wing, 24; Revolutionary Principles of the Left Wing, 24; Sympathy with Russian Bolshevism, 25; Industrial Unionism Advocated, 26; Mass Action and Strikes the Prelude to Armed Rebellion, 26; "Moderate" Socialism Rejected by American Revolutionists, 28; To Overthrow the United States Government, 30; Text of Call to Moscow International, 31; American Socialist Party for "Industrial Unionism," 34.



Rowdies at Socialist Meetings, 35; Revolution in America "at Hand," 36; "Existence of the Party at Stake," 37; "The Steering Committee," 38; Hillquit Says Left Wing is Not "Too Radical," 40; "Friendly Separation," 41; The Left Wing Gets More "Dictatorship" Than It Wants, 42; The Rights Expel and Suspend Tens of Thousands, 42; The Socialists' "Immortal" Executive Committee, 42; Manifesto of the Third (Moscow) International, 45.



Left Wing Conference, 52; Left Wingers Split, 52; Call for a Communist Convention, 53; Too Many Would-Be Lenines and Trotzkys, 54; The "Firing Squad," 55; National Emergency Convention, 55; Who Called the "Cops"? 57; A Convention on Each Floor, 57; The Communist and Communist Labor Parties Organize, 57; Their Principles, 58; "Reds" No Worse Than "Yellows," 58; Bolshevism of the Socialist Party, 59; Utterances at the Emergency Conference, 60; Revolutionary Character of the Socialist Party, 65; Trachtenberg on Affiliation with Moscow International, 68; Glassberg Letter, 69; Victor L. Berger, 70; American Socialists Join the Third International, 74; Hillquit Encourages the Communists, 74; The Socialist Party's Revolutionary Manifesto, 71-75.



Socialist Office-holding is Not Socialism, 77, 85; Collective Ownership, 80; I. W. W. Point of View, 80; Socialism Explained Diversely by Its Leaders, 80; Hillquit's Notion, 81; Debs' Demand, 81; American Socialists to "Capture the Government," 82; Analysis of Collective Ownership, 82; All Women to Work, 84; Atheism and Free-Love, 85; Poetry from the "Call," 86; Don't Judge Socialism by Reform Planks in Platforms, 87; Socialists Attack Their Own Social Reform Program, 89; Unpatriotic Attitude of Socialists in the War, 92.



Herron's Socialist Day Dream, 94; Communist Experiments in Russia and Hungary, 94; Socialism in Yucatan, 96; "Zapata, Great Socialist Leader of Southern Mexico," 97; Act of the Second: "Zapata, a Tyrant, Who Played a Huge Joke on 100,000 Confiding Workers Whom He Exploited," 101; Socialist Experiment in Russia, 103.


THE I. W. W., 105

A "Dangerous" Organization, 105; Its Origin, 105; Industrial Unionism Explained, 106; Organization by Industries, 107; I. W. W. Preamble, 107; Revolutionary Aims, 108; Conceptions of Right and Wrong, 108; Violent Tactics, 100; Revolution by Means of the "General Strike," 109; "Government Will Disappear," 110; Remuneration for Work and the "Man-Day," 111; Doctrine and Examples of Sabotage, 111.



I. W. W. Trials and Socialist Support, 114; Revolutionary Threats, 115; Plotting Against the United States, 116; I. W. W. Publications, 116; Propaganda Among Foreigners, 117; The Paterson Strike, 117; The I. W. W. Atheistic and Anti-Religious, 118; Arousing the Negro, 119; Arousing the Chinese, 120; I. W. W. Songs, 120; Socialists Favor the I. W. W., 122; Pretended Anti-Sabotage Policy of the Socialist Party, 124; Gene Debs in Love with Bill Haywood, 126; I. W. W. Attitude Toward Bolshevism, 128; Drawing Together of Radicals, 129; "Left Wing" Socialists and the I. W. W., 131; I. W. W. Help in Establishing Russian Bolshevism, 133; Socialist Drift Toward I. W. W.'ism, 135; Growth of Syndicalism Throughout the World, 136.



Rise of Russian Bolshevists, 138; Bolshevist Constitution, 139; Land Confiscation in Socialist Russia, 140; Peasant Warfare, 141; The Russian Soviets, 142; "Liberty" in Socialist Russia, 145; Justice in Bolsheviki-land, 146; Bolshevist Atheism and Religious Persecution, 146; Church and State "Separated," 147; Michigan Left Wing "Lets the Cat Out of the Bag," 149; Education Under Lenine's Government, 151.



The Red Terror, 153-5; "Take Our Lives But Spare Our Children," 156; 500 Butchered in a Night, 157; Horrors of Bolshevik Prisons, 158; Atrocities and Tortures, 159; Petrograd, "City of the Dead," 160; 76 Uprisings, 161; "Criminal Element" in Office, 161; "A Lapse Into Barbarity," 162; Nationalization of Women, 163; "The Bureau of Free Love," 166; Forcible Abolition of Celibacy, 167; The "Call" Lauds Bolshevism, 168; "S. O. S., An Appeal to Humanity," 169; "Every Pore" of Russia's "Body Shedding Blood," 170; Lenine Working for World-Wide Bolshevism,1 170; Official Bolshevist2 Organ in New York, 172; American Socialists Want Bolshevism, 173; Bolshevism's Economic Failure Revealed by Lincoln Eyre, 173; After Destroying "Capitalism" Lenine Seeks "Foreign Capital," 174; Bolshevism Has Sacrificed "the Health of Future Generations," 175; Trotzky Offers "Foreign Capitalists" a "Share of the Profits" from Russian Conscript Labor, 175.



Spartacides of Germany, 177; Origin of Name, 177; Violent Principles, 177; Rowdies and Ruffians Approved by American Socialists, 177; Spartacan Terrorism, 178; Communists of Bavaria, 178; Terrorism in Munich, 179; The Peasants Rise While the Communists Plunder, 179; American Socialists Allied With the Scum of Bavaria, 179; Communists of Hungary, 180; Free-Lovers, 180; Churches Converted Into Music Halls, 180; Budapest Painted Red, 180; American Socialists Lined Up With European Thugs, 181.



Pink Booklet "About Russia," 182; Lenine Tells Why Bolshevism Requires "A World Revolution," 183; American Socialists "Greet" Bolshevist "Ambassador," 184; Poem on Liebknecht, 185; The "Call" Endorses Communism, Bolshevism and Spartacism, 186; Hillquit Hails Foreign Radicals, 188; American Socialist Papers Are Bolshevist, 188-93; Debs a "Bolshevik" and "Flaming Revolutionist," 194.



Socialist Riots, 196; Trouble at Gary, 197; Haywood Says Socialists are Conspirators Against U. S. Government, 199; Jack London on the International "Fighting Organization," 200; Berger Says Socialists "Must Shoot," 201; "Blow Open the Vaults of the Banks," 202; Haywood and Bohn Say the Socialist "Does Not Hesitate to Break" the Laws, 203; "I am Law Abiding Under Protest," Says Debs, "and Bide My Time," 203; Scott Nearing "Wants War," 205.



Socialists Against Patriotism, 207; American Flag Scouted, 207; "Honor the Uniform? No, Spit on It," 208; The "Call" Derides Our Soldiers Returning from France, 208; "I Spit Upon Your Flag! I Loathe the Stars and Stripes! To Hell With Your Flag! Down With the Stars and Stripes! Run Up the Red Flag!" 210; Debs Attacks the American Flag, 210.



I. W. W. Conspirators, 213; "The Future of Socialism Lies in the General Strike, Armed Insurrection and Forcible Overthrow of All Existing Social Conditions," 213; Left Wing Socialists by Strikes and Industrial Unions to Establish "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," 215; Government Raids, 215; Communist Parties for Overthrow of Government, 215-219; Socialist Party More Dangerous Than the Communists, 219-221; American Socialists Part of the "Invisible Empire," 222-4; Secret Resignations in the Socialist Party, 225-6; Socialist Party for "Mass Action," "General Strikes" and "Industrial Unionism" to Seize "the Industries and Control of the Government of the United States," 227-32; Winnipeg General Strike, 230-1; The Socialist Party Joins the Third (Moscow) International, 232-7; Imitates Moscow's Program and Methods, 237-40; Socialists Acclaim Debs, the Convict, 242-5; Hillquit Threatens the New York Legislature with a General Strike, 245-6; Socialists Disguise Their Principles at the New York Assembly Trial, 246-51; Walling Rejects Socialist Peace Pretensions, 251; The Russian Soviet Government Talks Peace While Its International Plots War, 252-257; Wholesale Law-Breaking of American Socialists Justified at the Assembly Trial, 257-62; Their Traitorous Principles and Propaganda, 263-66; Socialists "Enter the Government" to Destroy It, 266; Forewarned Is Forearmed, 266-7.



Socialist Chaos and Anarchy, 268; Discontent in the Socialist State, 269; Perils of Confiscation, 270-2; Liberty Bonds and Insurance, 273; Unworkable Labor Schemes, 273-7; Forcing Women to Work, 277; Political Corruption, 277; Quarrels Over Religion and Free-Love, 278; Lincoln Eyre Reveals Socialism's Economic Failure in Russia, 279-91; "Lenine and Trotzky More Absolute Than Any Czar," 281; Starvation and Disease, 282-3; Military Confiscation of Russian Labor, 283-8; Lenine and Trotzky Invite "Foreign Capital" to Share the Profits from Exploiting the Wage-Slaves of Bolsheviki-land, 288-9; Death for Russian Wage-Slaves Who Strike Against Their Socialist Task-Masters, 290.



Ingersoll Argument Refuted, 293; Economic Determinism, 293; Atheism of European Socialists, 294-5; "There Must Be War Between Socialism and the Church," 296; Socialists "All more or Less Avowed Atheists," 297; "No Man Can Be Consistently Both a Socialist and a Christian," 298; Socialism Persecutes Religion in Yucatan, 298.



Socialism Turns Ministers Into Atheists, 301-2; Spargo Says Socialism Cannot Tolerate Religious Schools, 302; Anti-Religious Poems in "Call," 303; The "Call" Has "No Use" for "Christ," 304; "Religion Spells Death to Socialism," as Socialism "Does to Religion," 305; "Socialism Logical Only When It Denies the Existence of God," 306; "Christmas Is a Crime," 307; Blasphemous Socialist Catechism for Children, 308; A Socialist Says "Socialism Is Anti-Christ," 309; Hypocrisy of Hillquit, Berger and Other Leaders in Concealing the Socialist Party's Irreligion to Get Votes, 310-315; Hillquit Says "Ninety-Nine Per Cent of Us" Are "Agnostic," 311.



Socialist Books Advocate Free-Love, 317; Socialists Dodge the Truth by Arguments About Prostitution, 318-19; The "Call's" Poem on "The Harlot," 320; Socialist Advocates of Free-Love, 320-2; Victor Berger's Milwaukee Company Sells Free-Love Literature, 322; Free-Love Stuff Sold by Kerr and Company and the National Office of the Socialist Party, 323-9.



The "Call," chief Organ of the Socialist Party in New York, An Obscene Vehicle of Propaganda for Race-Suicide, Teaching "All Within Its Polluting Reach to Violate One of the Laws of the State of New York," 330-41.



Organizing Activity of Socialists, 342; Dues-Paying Members, Locals and Branches, 342; 400 Socialist Periodicals in the United States, 343; Use of Books and Leaflets, 344; Financial Support by Rich Radicals, 345; Red Propaganda to Proselytize Labor and Promote Strikes, 346; Effect on the American Federation of Labor, 347; I. W. W.'s "Boring from Within," 348; William R. Foster, An I. W. W., Leads the A. F. of L. Steel Strike, 348-9.



Socialist Sunday Schools, 350; "Catch Them Young," 351; Lesson 24 from the "Socialist Primer," 352; Socialist Propaganda Among School Children by Townley's Non-Partisan League, 353; The Teachers' Union of New York City, 354; The Inter-Collegiate Socialist Society, 355; Radical College Professors, 356; The Rand School, 357; Socialist Propaganda Among Immigrants, 358; Socialist Naturalization Bureau, 359; The Red Curse Among Women, 359; Among Soldiers and Sailors, 360; Socialist Cartoons and Movie Films, 360; Making Rebels of Negroes, 361.



Must Socialism Be Good Because Something Else Is Bad? 363; Socialist Party Platform Planks Unreliable, 365; Socialists Disagree on Land Ownership, 365-8; Government Ownership of Public Utilities Is Not Socialism, 369; Double-Faced Socialists, 370; The Burden of Proof Rests on the Socialist, 371; The "Lunatic" Sophistry, 372; Sophistry That Labor Earns All Wealth, 373; Vote-Getting by Advocating Popular Schemes, 375; Latest Dodge of Red Organizations to Hide from Prosecution by Changing Their Names, 375; The Socialist Party Not a Real Workingmen's Party, 376.



High Time to Fight the Reds, 377; Read and Circulate Anti-Socialist Literature, 378; Warn Our School Children, 379; Quiz the Soap-Box Orators, 380; Expel Socialist School Teachers, 380; Tasks for the National Government, 381; Oppose Socialism in a Nation-Wide Campaign of Education, 382.

INDEX, 383


Convention of the Socialist Party of the United States, May 8-14, 1920.



Modern Socialism may be said to date from the year 1848 when Marx and Engels published their "Communist Manifesto," a pamphlet that has since been translated into almost all modern European languages and has to this day remained the classical exposition of international Socialism.

Karl Marx, the chief founder of the movement, was born of Jewish parents at Treves, Germany, May 5, 1818. After studying at Jena, Bonn, and Berlin, he became a private professor in 1841, and about a year later assumed the editorship of the "Rhenish Gazette," a democratic-liberal organ of Cologne, that was soon suppressed for its radical utterances. In 1843 he moved to Paris where he became greatly interested in the study of political economy and of early Socialistic writings and where he subsequently made the acquaintance of Frederick Engels, his inseparable companion and life-long friend.

Engels was born at Barmen, Rhenish Prussia, in 1820. He remained in Germany until he had completed his military service, and then moved to Manchester, England, where he engaged in the cotton business with his father. In 1884, while traveling, he met Karl Marx, and was banished with him from France in 1847, and expelled from Belgium in 1848, the very year that witnessed the appearance of the "Communist Manifesto." Not long after this, Marx and Engels returned to Germany, and were instrumental in fomenting a revolution in the Rhine Province in 1849. The revolt having been suppressed in the same year, both men sought refuge in England. Here Engels was the author of numerous German books on Socialism and became best known by editing, after Marx's death, the second and third volumes of the latter's works.

While in England Marx took up his abode in London where he became the first president of the International Workingmen's Association, whose influence was not limited to England, but extended to France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, and even the United States of America. The active career of this association embraced a period of about eight years, from 1864 to 1872. Its six conventions were largely devoted to the discussion of social and labor problems and it produced a lasting effect upon the Socialist Movement by impressing upon it a harmonious and world-wide character. By 1876 the International Workingmen's Association was ruined by the quarrels that had taken place between the more moderate faction under the leadership of Marx, and the anarchistic element under Bakunin. It had, however, by this time contributed wonderfully towards the spread of Socialism, for it had taught the working classes of Europe the international nature both of their own grievances and of capitalism.

Closely rivaling the success of the International Workingmen's Association in furthering the cause of Socialism was a book known as "Capital," an economic work the first volume of which was published in 1867 by Karl Marx. The author never lived to edit the second and third volumes, though after his death in London, March 14, 1883, they were published from his notes by Frederick Engels. This work, to which the Father of the Revolutionary Movement gave the German title "Das Kapital," has long been known as the Bible of Socialism. Its systematized philosophic and economic doctrines besides having supplied the various national branches of the party with a common theory and program, in the main still constitute the creed of the immense majority of the Socialists the world over. Though "Capital" has suffered severely from the criticism of economists of many schools, and though not a few of its doctrines have been rejected by present-day Socialists, its powerful influence still persists to a very marked degree.

Supplementing this short historical sketch of the origin of the modern Socialist movement, short comments will be added concerning the Revolutionary organization in the different countries of the world.

In Germany the Socialist movement first took shape in 1862 under the influence of Ferdinand Lassalle. It made comparatively slow progress until 1874 when the 450,000 Socialist voters returned ten members to the Reichstag. An attempt on the part of the German Government to suppress the movement failed, and henceforth the party under the leadership of August Bebel, Karl Kautsky, George Von Vollmar, and Wilhelm Liebknecht steadily continued to grow in strength. Shortly before the outbreak of the World War the Socialists, besides occupying 110 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 397, polled about 4,252,000 votes and published 158 papers, but a faction under the leadership of Bernstein had made great progress in its endeavors to transform the Revolutionary organization into an opportunist party.

Most of the German Socialists supported the war and the majority of their members in the Reichstag voted for the war credits. Some, however, like Karl Liebknecht, the son of Wilhelm Liebknecht, opposed the imperial government and were imprisoned. Pressure, however, finally forced the government to release Liebknecht, who then delivered impassioned speeches throughout the country, stirring up the people against Kaiserism and the war profiteers and urging the soldiers to turn their weapons against the imperial government itself. While Liebknecht was defying the authorities, the naval forces mutinied at Kiel. The Socialists then called a general strike for November 11, 1918, as a prelude to the revolution. Scheidemann and Ebert had been supporting the government of Prince Max of Baden, the successor of Von Hertling, as chancellor of the empire, and had deprecated the idea of a revolution. But when Scheidemann saw that the revolution was certainly coming and that he and his colleagues would probably be left stranded, he joined the movement with his powerful organization, stepped in and grasped the power. A national council of soldiers, sailors and workmen was formed at Berlin, but the provisional government was shaped by Scheidemann, Ebert and others of the majority Socialists by virtue of their excellent political machinery. The Ebert-Scheidemann government fought many a bitter struggle with growing radicalism. Their government represented the most moderate group of the Socialists and received the support of the Centerists and others because these were far more opposed to the Socialists of the extreme left, such as the Spartacan Communists. Several revolts engineered by the Spartacans were put down with considerable bloodshed. In January, 1919, soon after the defeat of the Spartacides in Berlin, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, their leaders, were put to death, and their minority party seemed to diminish in strength. In the latter part of May, 1919, the majority Socialists of the reactionary Ebert-Scheidemann group were at first opposed to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, whereas the Spartacans, and also the Independent Socialists under the leadership of Hugo Haase and Karl Kautsky, tried to force their opponents to sign it, so that the people of Germany might soon blame the "reactionaries" for the humiliation, and rise in rebellion to overthrow them.

In Bavaria the anti-war sentiment spread rapidly, fostered by the efforts of Kurt Eisner. King Ludwig abdicated the throne on November 16, 1918, and Eisner took up the reins of power, forming a Socialist government. After a few weeks Eisner broke with the Ebert-Scheidemann government of Berlin, and soon after was assassinated. Not long after this the Bavarian communists imposed the Soviet form of government on the country, much to the dislike of many of the inhabitants, especially those living outside of Munich. The peasants of Bavaria rebelled against the communist-soviet government of Munich, which finally fell, after the Noske-Ebert-Scheidemann forces had marched against the city.

Very many years ago Socialists began to spread their doctrines as best they could in the realms of the Czar. Many a Marxian was arrested for attempting to undermine the Russian government and sent into exile in Siberia. The World War having broken out, Russia suffered terribly, and this suffering, especially of the masses, caused great discontentment and made the people an easy prey to the revolutionary forces of Socialism. The bureaucratic Czarist regime finally broke down in March, 1917, as soon as the revolution started. Three main contending parties attempted to ride into power on the revolutionary tide; the Cadets, the Moderate Socialists (i.e., the Mensheviki, and Social Revolutionists) and the Bolsheviki or revolutionary Socialists. The Cadets were the first to gain the upper hand, but were soon swept away, for they strove to satisfy the soldiers, workers and peasants with abstract, political ideals. The Mensheviki and Social Revolutionists succeeded the Cadets.

The demand for a Constitutent Assembly was one of the main aspirations of the Russian Revolution. It was on the eve of its realization that Bolsheviki, in November, 1917, by a coup d'état seized the reins of power. The elections for the assembly took place after the Bolsheviki had gained the upper hand and the Bolsheviki were defeated. The Constituent Assembly was actually convened in Petrograd in January, 1918, but the Bolsheviki dispersed the parliament at the point of the bayonet. Russia was then ruled by Lenine, head of the soviet system of government. The government was a "dictatorship of the proletariat," characterized by injustice, violence, oppression, and bloodshed, the Soviets being little more than tribunals of punishment and execution, instruments of terror in the hands of the Autocrat Lenine. The Bolshevist government has met with continual opposition from the opposing groups of Socialists in Russia and has been attacked by the Allies, principally on the Archangel front and in the Gulf of Finland. The Finns, Lithuanians, Poles, Czecho-Slovaks, Rumanians, Ukranians, and especially Admiral Kolchak's Siberian forces waged a relentless warfare against the Bolsheviki tyranny either for political reasons or to rescue the countless millions of Russians who suffered so terribly from the Lenine system of dictatorship. By the latter part of February, 1920, the Lenine government seemed to be overcoming all military opposition.A

The Socialists in Austria-Hungary as far back as 1907 could count 1,121,948 votes and 58 newspapers. Shortly before the end of the World War the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy fell. Austria and Hungary separated from each other and each became a republic. Count Karolyi was head of the new Hungarian government, socialistic in tendency. In the early spring of 1919, when Hungary was being invaded by Czecho-Slovak troops, Italians and Rumanians, and was threatened with an invasion from the Allies Count Karolyi fled and the government fell into the hands of the radical Socialist, Bela Kun, who soon established intimate relations with the Bolshevist government at Moscow. One difficulty after another, however, especially the attacks of the Rumanians, soon taxed the strength of the crimson-red government; and in the summer of 1919 it succumbed to pressure brought to bear on it by the Allies. Notwithstanding the Bolshevist propaganda carried on in Vienna, the Austrian government down to February, 1920, has resisted all inducements to adapt Bolshevism.

Modern Socialism in France was rather inactive previous to the outbreak of the Commune in 1871. Then, after the victory of the government forces over the revolutionists, many leaders of the Commune declared for Anarchism, but subsequently abandoned it as impracticable and devoted themselves to the propaganda of Marxian Socialism. After Jules Guesde and other communards were permitted to return to France, by the amnesty of 1879, the party at first developed considerable strength, but soon split up into several factions, with Guesde as the leader of the more radical wing and Jaurés and Millerand at the head of the moderate parliamentarian group. In the election of May, 1914, the United Socialists under Jaurés polled 1,357,192 votes, while the Radical Socialists and their allies in the Caillaux combination cast 2,227,176 votes. During the World War most of the Socialists, especially those in parliament, supported the government.

After the War the Longuet faction of the Socialist Party became the majority party, took over control of the great Paris Socialist daily L'Humanité and chose Cashin as editor. On April 6, 1919, a great demonstration took place in Paris in honor of Jaurés, the Socialist leader of France, who had been assassinated at the beginning of the World War. This and the decisions taken at the Socialist party congress of the Federation of the Seine on March 13th, demonstrated the decided turn to the left that the Socialist Party had taken since its previous congress in October, 1918. In the demonstration, consisting, perhaps, of 50,000 Socialists, cries of "Revolution!" "Down with the War!" "Down with Clemenceau!" "Long live the Soviet!" and "Long live Russia!" filled the air for three hours.

"The Call," New York, May 19, 1919, thus comments:

"The Socialist papers for several days appeared uncensored, though every line breathed revolution. Most startling of all, there were as many soldiers as civilians marching.

"Seven days later the representatives of each Socialist local in the Department of the Seine met in convention to decide upon which of three resolutions they should recommend the coming national congress of the Socialist Party to adopt. The discussion was hot, and more or less revolved around the personalities of the three leaders, Albert Thomas, Right Socialist, Jean Longuet, Left Socialist, and F. Loriot, Communist or Bolshevist. Broadly speaking, the Thomas resolution based its faith upon present political action and future political power; the Longuet resolution advocated a third International, without indorsing the third International held in Moscow in March, and the Loriot resolution indorsed the Zimmerwald resolutions (against all wars) and recognized the existence of the Third International established by the Russian Bolshevik party.

"Most of the discussion hinged upon affairs in Russia with hoots of derision at every uncomplimentary mention of Bolshevism, until the speaker either had to take his seat or qualify his criticism of the Soviet republic.

"Both the Longuet and Loriot resolutions called the war the consequence of imperialistic anarchy and bourgeois ambition, both denounced the imposition upon Germany of an unjust, or Bismarckian, peace, such as was imposed upon France in 1871, and both mourned the assassination of Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and Kurt Eisner.

"The Longuet resolution was as strong in its declaration of solidarity with the Soviet republic of Russia as the Loriot resolution was in opposition to all annexation of the Sarre Valley by France."

The National Congress of the Socialist parties of France was held from April 19 until April 22, 1919. A motion by M. Kienthaliens demanding the adhesion of French Socialists to the Internationale at Moscow, under the leadership of Premier Lenin of the Bolshevist government polled only 270 votes. This resolution failed to pass probably because the Longuet majority faction desired the union of all the French Socialist parties. The Congress adopted by a majority of 894 votes, a resolution offered by Jean Longuet to the effect that the French Socialists are willing to continue to form a part of the Second Internationale, provided that all those who are Socialists in name only shall be excluded.

On May Day, 1919, the Socialists manoeuvered a general strike of all labor in Paris for twenty-four hours. The press dispatches informed us that the shut-down was virtually complete. Not a wheel was turning on any of the transportation systems and taxicabs and omnibuses kept off the streets. All restaurants and cafés were closed and guests in the hotels went hungry if they had not supplied themselves with food beforehand. Even the drug stores closed.

Theatres, music halls, and other resorts did not open. No newspapers were published and periodic stoppages occurred in the postal and wire services throughout the day. Industry on all sides was in a state of complete inactivity, work being suspended by every class of labor. There was considerable disorder and very many policemen and civilians were injured.

In the elections of November, 1919, the Socialist vote increased to 1,750,000, a gain of 40 per cent over that of 1914. On the 1914 basis of representation this would have given them 160 seats in the Chamber of Deputies; but their representation was actually reduced from 105 to 55, due to a new basis of representation and a new formation of districts.

The French Syndicalists, of the Labor Confederation, had 600,000 members before the war and now claim 1,500,000. They were quiescent during the war, but their congresses of July, 1918, and September, 1919, showed a "tendency to return to the traditional revolutionary policy of French Syndicalism."

In Great Britain it was not until 1884, when the Social Democratic Federation was organized by Henry M. Hyndman, that the Marxian movement displayed any notable activity. Its progress at first was extremely slow, but after the Independent Labor Party was formed in 1893 under the leadership of J. Keir Hardie with a view to carrying Socialism into politics, the revolutionary doctrines spread much more rapidly, "The Clarion" and "Labor Advocate," the two organs of the Independent Labor Party, helping wonderfully in the work. In 1883 the Fabian Society, an organization Socialistic in name and tendencies, was founded by a group of middle class students. It rejected the Marxian economies, and by means of lectures, pamphlets, and books advocated practical measures of social reform. Among the leading English Socialists of the more radical type have been Hyndman, Aveling, Blatchford, Bax, Quelch, Leathan and Morris; while Shaw, Pease and Webb were the leading members of the moderate Fabian Society.

The vast majority of English Socialists supported the government in the World War, but the Labor Party, mostly Socialistic, during that time engineered great strikes of the coal miners, dock workers and railroad men. A press despatch dated London, April 21, 1919, says:

"The first gun in the long advertised campaign of Bolshevism in Britain was fired at Sheffield, where the British Socialists' annual convention, at its opening session passed a resolution urging the establishment of a British soviet government.

"The resolution expresses all admiration for the workings of the soviet system in Hungary and Bavaria. It declares war on the 'capitalist' system in Britain, attacks the policy of the peace conference toward Russia and favors the distribution of revolutionary propaganda in the British army and navy."

During the summer and fall of 1919, Socialist and Bolshevist principles continued to gain an ever-increasing and very serious hold on the people of England and proved a serious menace to the government in the general railway strike in October.

In Italy Socialism has been making steady progress for many years and since the end of the World War has increased wonderfully in strength. The party has greatly profited by the suffering and discontent due to the war and especially by the failure of Italy to secure coveted territory after all her sacrifices and the victory of the Allies. On April 10, 1919, the Italian Socialists manoeuvered a very successful general strike in Rome, but were prevented by the government forces from marching through the streets in any considerable numbers. About the same time disturbances were also engineered in many cities and towns of the country, especially in Florence3 and Milan. In the latter part of April, 1919, the Executive Committee of the Socialist party of Italy resolved to sever its connection with the International Socialist Bureau and the Berne Conference, in which there were many reactionary Socialists, and to affiliate with the newly established Moscow International, consisting of the various National groups of Socialists giving whole-hearted support to Lenine and the Bolsheviki.

On July 21, 1919, Italian Socialists conducted a general strike against the Russian blockade. Industrial prostration resulted in whole provinces stopping all traffic and communication while Soviets were set up in 240 towns and cities, including Genoa and Florence. In the November, 1919, elections the Socialists secured 159 Deputies in the Chamber, having had 44 previously. They cast over one-third of all votes cast, about 3,000,000, as against 883,409 in 1913.

The membership of the Italian labor unions is now estimated at 1,000,000, an increase of about 300,000 since 1917. At a national conference, in April, 1919, the labor unions demanded a change of the national Parliament into a national Soviet.

In Spain, especially in the big cities and notably in Barcelona, Socialism has made steady progress and the Marxians have taken part in several upheavals. In the early part of 1919 the eleventh national Congress, which met at Madrid, elected Pablo Iglesias president of the Executive Committee and adopted aggressive measures for extending Socialist propaganda, especially into the rural districts, and for establishing Socialist day schools and women's evening schools. The official organ of the party, "El Socialista," came in for a round of criticism because of its espousal of the Allied cause to the detriment, it was charged, of the International principles to which it should have adhered.

In the latter part of April, 1913, the Belgian Socialists, under the leadership of Emil Vandervelde attracted the attention of the world by attempting to paralyze the entire industrial system of the country by a general strike. Shortly before the outbreak of the World War, Belgium, with its comparatively small population, had about half a million Socialist voters, constituting approximately half of the electorate of the country. During the war the Socialists supported the government and since the war down to the early fall of 1919 have not caused any serious trouble.

On November 16, 1919, the Socialist vote rose to 644,499, with election of 70 Deputies and 20 Senators, an increase of 21 Deputies and 5 Senators.

In March, 1919, out of the 100 members of the Second Chamber of Holland, there were four Communists or Socialists of the extreme left and 20 of more moderate tendencies. The Communists published a newspaper called "The Bolshevist" and maintained relations with the Russian Soviet Government and the German Sparticides. David Wynkoop, the leader of the Dutch Communists, is called "Holland's Little Liebknecht" and in a parliamentary speech openly threatened a general strike. There was a Bolshevist crisis in January, 1919. An assembly of international communists met at the Hague and Spartacide success in Germany was the only thing required to launch a revolutionary attempt, accompanied by a general strike and terrorism. The government then adopted stern measures. Civil guards were formed, and banks, newspaper offices and police bureaus were occupied by the military with machine guns, the banks and newspapers having been previously equipped with wireless against the cutting of telephone wires.

Wynkoop, in the company of workingmen, visited soldiers in their barracks asking them to join the movement, but the soldiers fired, killing three and wounding several. Efforts to corrupt the cavalry and the navy by similar means were not a success.

Shortly after the overthrow of the Austro-Hungarian Government, the three Socialist parties of Czecho-Slovakia, which had been divided principally over questions of nationality, got together and their leaders of moderate tendencies were very sanguine over the outlook for a general victory at the ballot box in the near future. It appears, however, that the party was afterwards split into pro and anti Bolshevist factions, with a consequent decrease in political strength.

In speeches made by several leaders at the Bohemian Socialist conference at Prague in the early part of April, 1919, it was decided that the alliance with the Entente should be maintained because reconciliation with Berlin, Budapest and Moscow would mean danger for the Czecho-Slovak republic.

Bolshevism was described as the suicide of the proletariat, and it was urged that the working people of Bohemia should differentiate between exaggeration and methodic reform.

In Prague, Pressburg and other cities troops clashed with the Communists and Social Democrats. On March 7, 1919, at a mass meeting addressed by three leading agitators from Prague, 40,000 workers, mostly miners, cheered assertions that the revolution of October 28, 1918, had not turned out well for the proletariat which was still being oppressed; that the Government of Prague was as weak as under the old Austrian regime.

Socialism, in recent years, has made considerable progress in Sweden. The majority of the Marxians seems to be of the moderate group, though the Left Socialist Party assisted the Lenine Government of Russia. Hjalmar Branting, the leader of the Moderate Socialists, addressing the French Socialist Congress in the Spring of 1919, bitterly assailed Bolshevism and issued a warning against it. Branting's Social-Democratic Labor Party has 86 seats in Parliament, while the radicals, who seceded to form the Socialist Party in 1917, have 12 seats. In this convention, in June, 1919, the Socialist Party voted to join the Third (Moscow) International, declared for the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat, voted for "mass action" as the means of conquest and a Soviet organization of the workers.

In the Socialist party of Norway the Bolshevist faction appears to be in control. After the revolution in Germany in the latter part of 1918, the Norwegian Socialists, in speeches and articles urged the laborers to organize revolutionary organizations similar to those in soviet Russia, provide themselves with arms and be ready for a revolutionary uprising to overthrow the government. The party congress in 1919 joined the Third (Moscow) International and adopted "mass action" as tactics and preparation for a general strike.

The Socialists were very active in Argentina after the ending of the World War and were the back-bone of the serious and prolonged disturbances in Buenos Aires. In the latter part of April, 1919, the Pan-American Socialist Conference was held in the Argentine capital. Its purpose was to promote the amalgamation of all the Socialist and labor organizations of the Western Hemisphere into one body. In South America Socialism is best organized in Argentine, Chile and Peru, and weakest in Brazil and Colombia.

In Canada, at least till the summer of 1919, the Marxian forces were gaining in strength daily. This was especially true of the western part of the Dominion, where the radical industrial union, generally called in Canada the "One Big Union," has become very influential. Serious strikes with Bolshevist tendencies took place throughout the Dominion, especially in Winnipeg in the spring of 1919.

Bulgaria has two Socialist parties, the Moderates and the Communist Party, the latter affiliated with the Third (Moscow) International. In the August, 1919, election the Moderate Socialist members in the "Sobranie" or Chamber of Deputies decreased from 46 to 39, while the Communists increased their Deputies from 10 to 47.

Mexico, on our southern border, has added "industrial unionism" to her Socialist movement. At the Socialist Party convention in the fall of 1919 a part of the organization seceded and reorganized as the Communist Party.

Besides the many millions of Socialists in the countries already referred to, the Marxians are well organized and are making rapid strides in Serbia, Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, the Balkan States, Australia, New Zealand and even in South Africa and far distant Japan and China.



Socialism was introduced into the United States about the year 1850 by immigrants who landed on our shores from Europe. The Marxians, who came from Germany, were principally responsible for the foundation of the Workingmen's Party in 1876, which in 1877 was called the Socialistic Labor Party, and, a few years later, the Socialist Labor Party, which was reorganized at Chicago in 1889, after having lost two sections by secession. One of these, called the Cincinnati Socialist Labor Party, in 1897 united with the Social Democracy of America, a combination of railroad men, followers of Eugene V. Debs, and of the populist followers of Victor L. Berger. The other seceders from the Socialist Labor Party, called the "kangaroos," united with the Social Democracy of Debs and Berger in 1900, the new combination then calling itself the Socialist Party of America. The minority of the old Socialist Labor Party, which refused to be amalgamated with the Social Democracy of America, is still known as the Socialist Labor Party; hence, since the year 1900, there have been two distinct revolutionary parties, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party.

The former, under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs, Victor L. Berger and Morris Hillquit, with 109,586 dues-paying members in January, 1919, is by far the more powerful and influential, having steadily increased its vote to about 900,000 in the Presidential election of 1912, though in the year 1916 the vote dropped to less than 600,000. The Socialist Labor Party, under the guidance of Daniel De Leon until his death, in May, 1914, seems to be making little if any progress. Though both parties claim to be genuinely Socialistic and Marxian, each has decried the other as being a "fake" or "bogus" party. The Socialist Labor Party's main complaint is that its rival the Socialist Party is sacrificing the principles of Karl Marx in its endeavor to gain votes, while, on the other hand, the latter party retorts by stigmatizing its opponent as being a party of "scabs," the sole purpose of whose existence is to antagonize the Socialist Party. In recent years unsuccessful attempts have been made to unite the two.

The Socialist Party, besides publishing two important dailies in English, "The Call," of New York City, and the "Milwaukee Leader," issues at least two in German, two in Bohemian, one in Polish and one in Yiddish. "Forward," the Jewish paper published in New York City in Yiddish, had a daily circulation4 of over 150,000, according to a report in "The Call" April 6, 1919. Foremost for many years among the Socialist weeklies in English was the "Appeal to Reason," which was once extremely bitter and unrelenting in its attacks on the United States Government. Published at Girard, Kansas, its circulation reached nearly 1,000,000 copies a week during the fall of 1912, but since 1917 it has fallen into great disfavor among most Socialists because of its pro-war and moderate tendencies. In addition to the Socialist papers already referred to, there are in our country hundreds of others in English, German, Bohemian, Polish, Jewish, Slovac, Slavonic, Danish, Italian, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Lettish, Norwegian, Croatian, Russian, and Swedish. In a report to Congress in 1919, the Attorney-General of the United States stated that there were 416 radical newspapers in America.

A strong impression that serious party strife and bossism prevail in the Socialist organization is gained by those who read the Marxian papers and magazines. William English Walling, for example, in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, April, 1913, showed his sympathy with the so-called "reds," who then comprised the radical I. W. W. wing of the party, and at the same time attacked the "yellows," the advocates of political action.

"Ever since the Socialist Party was formed," he wrote, "the party office-holders have been spending the larger part of their energies in endeavoring to hold their jobs and to fight down every element in the party that demanded any improvement or advance in any direction....

"A far greater danger is the new one, that has become serious only since we entered upon the present period of political success two years ago, namely the corruption of the party by those elected to public office....

"Only last year we had several mayors in the one state of Ohio either being forced to resign or deserting the party because they could not use it for their purpose....

"Next year we may elect a few congressmen and half a hundred legislators--if the reactionaries in the party will cease their underhand efforts to disrupt the organization and drive out the revolutionists....

"If then these office-holders continue to show the tendency towards bossism so common in the past, the Socialist Party will soon become an office-holders' machine, little different in character from the machine by which Gompers controls the Federation of Labor, or Murphy, Tammany Hall....

"The only possible way to avoid a split so openly and shamelessly advocated by some of the opportunist leaders of our party--Berger even threatened it in the last National Convention--is to have the system of proportional representation....

"Unless some such changes as these are made in the next four years, it does not take a prophet to see that there would be nothing left of what we now know as the Socialist Party. If we cannot control our own petty autocrats, how can we ever hope to control the infinitely more powerful and resourceful autocrats of the Capitalist system?"

"The Communist," formerly the Left Wing organ of the Chicago Socialists, in its edition of April 1, 1919, bitterly assails Victor L. Berger of the Right Wing:

"A vote for Berger is a vote of pitying contempt for our Bolsheviki and Spartacan comrades. A vote for Berger is a vote approving his repeated and uncalled-for condemnation of our class-war comrades of the I. W. W.--condemnation persistently offered to prove Berger's own eminent respectability. A vote for Berger is a vote of scoffery against the St. Louis platform--a vote of apology for the platform, dissipation of its meaning, and disavowal of its essential spirit. A vote for Berger is a vote for the International of German Majority Socialism. A vote for Berger is a vote for petty bourgeois progressivism as the essence of Socialism; it is a vote against identification of the Socialist Party with the revolutionary mass aspirations. A vote for Berger is a betrayal of all the efforts, sacrifices and dreams of those whose lives have gone into the socialist movement as torch-bearers of proletarian triumph over capitalist exploitation, from Marx to the humblest comrade fighting today in the ranks of the revolutionary class struggle.

"As far as this election is concerned there is nothing to be considered about Victor Berger, past and present, except the ideal Socialism which has become unchangeably attached to his name. If the American Socialist Party is to be a party of Berger-Socialism, then indeed, the Socialist movement will not die in America. No, it is the Socialist Party that will die."

As we shall see presently, these prophecies of disruption were soon fulfilled.

The representatives of the Socialist organizations of the different countries of the world have from the time of Karl Marx met together at more or less regular intervals, being banded together in what is called the "International."

The official organ of the National Office, Socialist Party, "The Eye Opener," in its issue of February, 1919, gives a detailed explanation of the "International":

"It is an organization of Socialist Parties and labor organizations, meeting periodically in international conferences. In order to be eligible for membership, an organisation must meet the following test, adopted by the International Congress of Paris, 1900.

"Those admitted to the International Socialist Congresses are:

"1. All associations which adhere to the essential principles of Socialism; namely, Socialization of the means of production and exchange, international union, and action of the workers, conquest of public power by the proletariat, organized as a class party.

"2. All the labor organizations which accept the principles of the class struggle and recognize the necessity of political action, legislative and parliamentary but do not participate directly in the political movement.

"This definition includes every Socialist Party and propaganda organization in the world and it further takes in those enlightened unions that recognize the need for political action. It excludes conservative unions that do not yet admit the soundness of the principles of the class struggle."

The First International was thoroughly Marxian and revolutionary. According to "The Revolutionary Age," April 12, 1919, it accepted the revolutionary struggle against capitalism and waged that struggle with all the means in its power. It considered its objective to be the conquest of power by the revolutionary proletariat, the annihilation of the bourgeois state, and the introduction of a new proletarian state, functioning temporarily as a dictatorship of the proletariat. The First International collapsed after the Franco-Prussian War.

The Second International was formed at Paris in the year 1889. Its tendencies were much more moderate than those of its predecessor. "The Revolutionary Age," April 12, 1919, criticises it for being "conservative and petty bourgeois in spirit," and states that "it was part and parcel of the national liberal movement, not at all revolutionary, dominated by the conservative skilled elements of the working class and the small bourgeoisie. It was hesitant and compromising, expressing the demands of the 'petite bourgeoisie' for government ownership, reforms, etc."

In 1900 an International Socialist Bureau was established at Brussels for the purpose of solidifying and strengthening the work of the Second International and for maintaining uninterrupted relations between the various national organizations.

That the American Socialists were closely united with the Marxians the world over during the Second International, which continued till the World War, was especially evident from the fact that representatives from the United States met abroad in the international congresses every three years to discuss party policies. Far from denying the international character of the whole movement, the Revolutionists of the United States have ever rejoiced and gloried in it, trusting that it would result in the rapid spread of their doctrines and the ultimate victory of their cause. In confirmation of the intimate union existing between American and foreign Socialists, during the time of the second International, we have the declaration of the Socialist Party of the United States in its national platform of 1904, pledging itself to the principles of International Socialism, as embodied in the united thought and action of the Socialists of all nations. Moreover, Morris Hillquit informed us in "The Worker," March 23, 1907, that the International Socialist Movement, with its thirty million adherents and its organized parties in about twenty-five civilized countries in both hemispheres, was everywhere based on the same Marxian program and followed substantially the same methods of propaganda and action. Writing again, in "Everybody's," October, 1913, Hillquit declared that the dominant Socialist organizations of all countries were organically allied with one another, that by means of an International Socialist Bureau, supported at joint expense, the Socialist parties of the world maintained uninterrupted relations with one another, and that every three years they met in international conventions, whose conclusions were accepted by all constituent5 national organizations.

Commenting upon "The Collapse of the Second International," which is held to have taken place at the beginning of the World War, "The Revolutionary Age," March 22, 1919, says:

"Great demonstrations were held in every European country by Socialists protesting against their government's declarations of war, and mobilizations for war. And we know that these demonstrations were rendered impotent by the complete surrender of the Socialist parliamentary leaders and the official Socialist press, with their 'justification' of 'defensive wars' and the safeguarding of 'democracy.'

"Why the sudden change of front? Why did the Socialist leaders in the parliaments of the belligerents vote the war credits? Why did not Moderate Socialism carry out the policy of the Basle Manifesto, namely; the converting of an imperialistic war into a civil war--into a proletarian revolution? Why did it either openly favor the war or adopt a policy of petty-bourgeois pacifism?"

At the conclusion of the World War Socialists and representatives of labor from many countries met at Berne, Switzerland, in what was known as the Berne Conference. This international Socialist conference was comparatively moderate in tendencies, while another Socialist congress, held shortly before it in Bolshevist Moscow, was far more radical.

J. Ramsay MacDonald, commenting upon the Berne Conference in "Glasgow Forward," in the spring of 1919, said:

"It declined to condemn the Bolshevists and declined to say that their revolution was Socialism....

"Moscow seems to be more thorough than Berne, though as a matter of fact Berne was far more thorough than Moscow. There is a glamour and a halo about Moscow; but there are substance and permanence about Berne.

"That blessed word 'Soviet' has become a shibboleth. But Berne did not say anything about it. It declared its continuing belief in democracy and in representative institutions. I hope that the Soviet is not contrary to democracy; I know that it is a representative institution. But I know more. I know that beyond its primary stage it is a system of indirect representation--the representation of representatives--and that a few years ago there was not a single Socialist in the country that would have accepted such a form of representative government. For Socialists to pretend to prefer that system to one of direct responsibility is a mere pose.

"Therefore, two Internationals will be the worst thing that could happen to the revolutions now going on and to the general Socialist movement. The duty of every Socialist--especially of those of us who are not in revolution--is to strive by might and by main to get a union of the two. We may have to suffer a time of internal trouble owing to the friction of conflicting conceptions of Socialist reconstruction, but I am quite certain that no one has yet said what is to be the last word on the subject, and to split on such a controversy as this is to advertise to the world how unready Socialism is to assume command."

The Berne Conference, which had at first been called to meet at Lausanne, the Russian Bolshevik government of Lenine denounced in a manifesto which the "Chicago Socialist" of February 8, 1919, republished in part as follows:

"The Central Committee of the Russian Communist Bolshevik Party in a manifesto on the proposal to call together an International Conference at Lausanne, declares that the project cannot be considered even as an attempt to revive the Second International. The latter ceased to exist during the first days of August, 1914, when the representatives of the majority of nearly all the Socialist parties passed over into the ranks of their imperialist governments.

"The attempts made to revive this International, for which agitation has been carried on in all countries throughout the war, emanated from elements standing mid-way, which, whilst not recognizing openly Imperialist Socialism, nevertheless had no idea of creating a third revolutionary International.

"The attempts made to go back to the pre-war situation regarding the labor movement crashed against the Imperialist policy of the official parties, which could not, at that time, admit the appearance of an attempt to restore the International, fearing, as they did, that this might tend to weaken the war policy of the government and the working class working in unison.

"To counteract these attempts, the Imperialist Socialist parties undertook to change the conditions of representation of the national sections in the old International. The last so-called inter-Allied conference in the Entente countries made it clear that this change had been effected.

"Great Britain was represented by a motley organization in which the Socialist parties could play no direct role. Italy was represented by men whose party never before belonged to the International and whose presence compelled the absence of the official Italian Socialist Party. America was represented by Gompers, representing associations which never had anything to do with the Socialists....

"As against the International of traitors and counter-revolutionaries, organizing themselves for the purpose of forming leagues against the proletarian revolutions the world over, the Communists of all countries must rapidly close their ranks around the third revolutionary International--already, in fact, existing.

"This Third International has nothing in common with the avowed Socialist Imperialists, or with the pseudo-revolutionary Socialists, who in reality support the former when they refuse to break with them, and who do not recoil against participation in the conferences of falsely called Socialists. The Russian Communist Bolshevik Party refuses to take part in these conferences, which abuse the name of Socialism. It invites all those who desire that the Third Revolutionary International shall live to take the same line; the task of this Third International being to hasten the conquest of power by the working class.

"The Communist parties of Finland, Esthonia, Lithuania, of White Russia, the Ukraine, Poland, and Holland are at one with the Russian Communist Party.

"The latter also regards as its associates the Spartacus group in Germany, the Communist Party of German Austria and other revolutionary proletarian elements of the countries in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire; the Left Social Democrats of Sweden, the Revolutionary Social Democracy of Switzerland and Italy, the followers of Maclean in England, of Debs in America, of Loriot in France. In their persons the Third International, which is at the head of the World Revolution, already exists.

"At the present moment when the Socialist Imperialists of the Entente who formerly hurled the most violent accusations against Scheidemann, are about to unite with him and to break the power of Socialism in all countries, the Communist Party considers that unity for the World Revolution is an indispensable condition for its success.

"Its most dangerous enemy now is the Yellow International of the Socialist traitors--thanks to whom capitalism still succeeds in keeping a considerable portion of the working class under its influence.

"For the conquest of power by the workers let us carry on an implacable struggle against those who are deceiving them--against the pseudo-Socialist traitors."

At the end of May, 1919, the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of the United States, probably on account of pressure brought to bear on it by the "Left Wing," stated that the party repudiated the Berne Conference, but, at the same time, was not yet affiliated with the Communist Conference of the Bolshevists at Moscow. The phraseology of this ambiguous announcement is here given:

"It recognizes the necessity of reorganizing the Socialist International along more harmonious and radical lines. The Socialist Party of the United States is not committed to the Berne Conference, which has shown itself retrograde on many vital points, and totally devoid of creative force. On account of the isolation of Russia, and the misunderstanding arising therefrom, it also is not affiliated with the Communist Congress of Moscow."

This awkward straddle is explained by the fact that the American Socialist Party, under the pro-German leadership of Morris Hillquit of New York and Victor L. Berger of Milwaukee, had in its Congressional platform for 1918 expressly endorsed the Inter-Allied Socialist and Labor Conference, held at London that year. This is the conference which the Lenine government scoffs at in the manifesto quoted just above, styling it the "so-called inter-allied conference," in which "America was represented by Gompers, representing associations which never had anything to do with the Socialists." That the American Socialist Party had been led into the endorsement of the conference by Berger and Hillquit because the conference had recommended a meeting with German workingmen seems evident from the wording of the endorsement, taken from the official publication of the Socialist Party's 1918 Congressional Platform, pages 3-4:

"In all that concerns the settlement of this war, the American Socialist Party is in general accord with the announced aims of the Inter-Allied Conference. We re-affirm the principles announced by the Socialist Party in the United States in 1915; adopted by the Socialist Republic of Russia in 1917; proclaimed by the Inter-Allied Labor Conference in 1918 and endorsed by both the majority and minority Socialists in the Central empires; no forcible annexations, no punitive indemnities and the free determination of all peoples.

"The Socialist Party believes that the foundations for international understanding must be laid during the war, before the professional diplomats begin to dictate the world's future as they have in the past.

"It therefore supports the demand of the Inter-Allied Conference for a meeting with the German workingmen, convinced that such a meeting will promote the cause of democracy, and will encourage the German people to throw off the military autocracy that now oppresses them. We join our pledge to that of the Inter-Allied Conference that, this done, as far as in our power, we shall not permit the German people to be made the victims of imperialistic designs."

The phrases in the above endorsement, "Inter-Allied Conference," "majority ... Socialists in the Central empires," and "promote the cause of democracy," must have invoked the scorn of Lenine and Trotsky. Hence the wording of their manifesto, in which they acknowledged as "associates" the "followers ... of Debs in America," is an evident slap at Berger and Hillquit and their "followers" in the American Socialist Party. It was so understood by many in the party, and led to the rapid sprouting of a "Left Wing" and the ultimate secession of about 72,000 dues-paying members, leaving only about 40,000 with Berger and Hillquit.

The story of this rupture will be found in the three chapters following, where it also appears that Berger and Hillquit attempted to hide their "Yellow" streak under a deeper daub of "Red."



Some years ago, when the people of the United States were beginning to suspect that the Socialists were plotting a revolution against our Constitutional form of government the hypocritical followers of Eugene V. Debs, fearing that their plot might be nipped in the bud, endeavored to conceal their conspiracy, and succeeded quite well, by assuring the American people that the word "revolution," so often used by them, was a harmless term and was to be taken in a broad sense, without the "r," signifying nothing more than "evolution." "Do not be alarmed," they told us, "we Socialists are striving to bring about reforms in the government, but solely by constitutional means and the use of the ballot."B

Many proofs could be given to show that, even in the early days of the American Socialist Party, revolution, in the strictest sense of the word, was foremost in the minds of many of the Marxian leaders. With the advent of Bolshevism in Russia, and the successful overthrow of European governments by revolutionary Socialists abroad, the "Reds" in our own country became decidedly bolder, both in word and plot, against the Government of our country. The more outspoken, daring and impatient plotters in the Socialist Party of America lined up in a Left Wing faction, whereas the more hypocritical, hesitant, cautious and prudent revolutionists constituted the Right Wing. The former became known as the "Reds," the latter as the "Yellows."

The "Reds" made a specialty of "direct action" or violence, had little confidence in victory through the ballot, and campaigned for a revolution at an early day. The "Yellows," of course, also rely on a final victory through rebellion, but in the meantime, during the period of revolutionary education and organization, insist on political action. The leaders in control of the executive machinery of the Socialist Party, wishing to retain their lucrative positions, and looking forward to the advantage of political office during the years which might elapse before the time would be ripe for rebellion, were nearly all Right Wingers, and have waged a bitter and unscrupulous fight against the Left Wing organization within the party.

The Left Wing of the Socialist Party of America had its origin, probably, in the year 1916. According to the "International Socialist Review," of December of that year, this ultra-revolutionary faction took form in Boston. About the latter part of the year 1917 it began to develop more rapidly, its progress being more or less proportional to the spread of Bolshevism and the Socialist revolutions in Europe. Its success, of course, was at the expense of the political leaders of the Right.

The Left Wing has certainly been more honest than the Right. The "Reds" comprising it favor direct action, that is, strikes and disturbances, rather than the use of the ballot, hoping thus to bring our country into such a critical condition that they may precipitate a rebellion, and then, though in a minority, assume control of the government by a sudden coup d'état, as the Bolsheviki did in Russia. The Left Wingers opposed the "immediate demands" in the Socialist Party platform, preferring to work for dictatorship rather than for social reforms. They despised the politicians of the Right Wing, calling them yellow, reactionary, hypocritical, capitalistic Socialists, and telling them that their place was with the newly formed Labor Party, which had already praised the Socialists and invited them to join its ranks. The Lefts expressed a fear that the leaders of the Right would, if our Government were overthrown, turn against them just as the Scheidemann-Ebert group turned against the German Spartacides. The fight between the two factions became severe about the beginning of the year 1919.

"The Revolutionary Age," Boston, February 15, 1919, speaking of the disturbance in the Socialist Party, and explaining the fundamental principles of the Left Wing said:

"The American Socialist Party is in a condition of feverish theoretical activity. Pressing problems are being met in a spirit of self-criticism. New forms of action in the social struggle are being accepted. Old methods, old tactics, old ideas, which in the test of war have proven incapable of furthering the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, are being seriously analyzed and repudiated.

"The membership of the Socialist Party, the majority, is instinctively class conscious and revolutionary. It was this membership that compelled our officials to acquiesce in the adoption of a radical declaration against war--which most of the officials sabotaged or converted into an innocuous policy of bourgeois pacificism. When the Bolsheviki conquered, the majority of our officials were either hostile or silent; some weeks before, the 'New York Call' had stigmatized the Bolsheviki as 'anarchists.' But the membership responded; they forced the hands of the officials, who became 'me too' Bolsheviki, but who did not draw the revolutionary implications of the Bolshevik policy. These officials and their machinery baffled the will of the membership; more, the membership baffled itself because it did not clearly understand the theory and the practice implied in its instinctive class consciousness and revolutionary spirit.

"While our National Executive Committee accepts the Berne Congress and refuses to call an emergency National Convention, locals of the party are actively engaged in the great struggle, turning to the left, to revolutionary Socialism. Groups within the party are organizing and issuing proclamations, determined that the party shall conquer the party for revolutionary Socialism. Two of these proclamations were published in the last issue of 'The Revolutionary Age.' They deserve serious consideration and discussion.

"The manifesto of the Communist Propaganda League of Chicago is a concise document. Its criticism of the party is summarized:

"'The Party proceeds on too narrow an understanding of political action for a party of revolution, its programs and platforms have been reformist and petty bourgeois in character, instead of being definitely directed toward the goal of social revolution; the party has failed to achieve unity with the revolutionary movement on the industrial field.'

"Its proposals for democratizing the party--mass action in the party--are excellent; it repudiates the old international and the Berne Congress, and asks:

"'Identification of the Socialist Party with class conscious industrial unionism, unity of all kinds of proletarian action and protest forming part of the revolutionary class struggle; political action to include political strikes and demonstrations, no compromising with any groups not inherently committed to the revolutionary class struggle, such as Labor parties, People's Councils, Non-Partisan Leagues, Municipal Ownership Leagues and the like.'"

In order clearly to understand the big fight that has disrupted the Socialist Party, further explanations of the principles of the Left Wing are necessary. "The Revolutionary Age," from which the above quotation was taken, was first published in Boston, its editor being Louis C. Fraina. In the summer of 1919 it combined with "The Communist," of New York City, and, still maintaining its former name, became the national organ of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party.

In the article just quoted reference was made to "mass action." This, according to "The Revolutionary Age," is to be the main weapon used by the rebels in precipitating rebellion. The July 12, 1919, issue of the same paper explains mass action and shows how it is to be used. The article, written by Louis C. Fraina, reads in part as follows:

"Socialism in its early activity as a general organized movement was compelled to emphasize the action of politics because of the immaturity of the proletariat....

"All propaganda, all electoral and parliamentary activity are insufficient for the overthrow of Capitalism, impotent when the ultimate test of the class struggle turns into a test of power. The power for the social revolution issues out of the actual struggles of the proletariat, out of its strikes, its industrial unions and mass action."

Industrial unions of course means the union system of the I. W. W., and not the craft unions of the American Federation of Labor.

The article continues:

"The peaceful parliamentary conquest of the state is either sheer utopia or reaction....

"The revolution is an act of a minority, at first; of the most class conscious section of the industrial proletariat, which in a test of electoral strength, would be a minority, but which, being a solid, industrially indispensable class, can disperse and defeat all other classes through the annihilation of the fraudulent democracy of the parliamentary system implied in the dictatorship of the proletariat, imposed upon society by means of revolutionary mass action....

"Mass action is not a form of action as much as it is a process and synthesis of action. It is the unity of all forms of proletarian action, a means of throwing the proletariat, organized and unorganized, in a general struggle against Capitalism and the capitalist state....

"The great expressions of mass action in recent years, the New Zealand general strike, the Lawrence strike, the great strike of the British miners under which capitalist society reeled on the verge of collapse--all were mass actions organized and carried through in spite of the passive and active hostility of the dominant Socialist and labor organization. Under the impulse of mass action, the industrial proletariat senses its own power and acquires the force to act equally against capitalism and the conservatism of organizations. Indeed, a vital feature of mass action is precisely that it places in the hands of the proletariat the power to overcome the fetters of these organizations, to act in spite of their conservatism, and through proletarian mass action emphasize antagonisms between workers and capitalists, and conquer power. A determining phase of the proletarian revolution in Russia was its acting against the dominant Socialist organizations, sweeping these aside through its mass action before it could seize social supremacy....

"Mass action is the proletariat itself in action, dispensing with bureaucrats and intellectuals, acting through its own initiative; and it is precisely this circumstance that horrifies the soul of petty bourgeois Socialism. The masses are to act upon their own initiative and the impulse of their own struggles....

"Mass action organizes and develops into the political strike and demonstration, in which a general political issue is the source of the action....

"The class power of the proletariat arises out of the intensity of its struggles and revolutionary energy. It consists, moreover, of undermining the bases of the morale of the capitalist state, a process that requires extra parliamentary activity through mass action. Capitalism trembles when it meets the impact of a strike in a basic industry; Capitalism will more than tremble, it will actually verge on a collapse, when it meets the impact of a general mass action involving a number of correlated industries, and developing into revolutionary mass action against the whole capitalist regime. The value of this mass action is that it shows the proletariat its power, weakens capitalism, and compels the state largely to depend on the use of brute force in the struggle, either the physical force of the military or the force of legal terrorism; this emphasizes antagonisms between proletarian and capitalist, widening the scope and deepening the intensity of the proletarian struggle against capitalism....

"Mass action, being the proletariat itself in action, loosens its energy, develops enthusiasm, and unifies the action of the workers to its utmost measure....

"Moreover, mass action means the repudiation of bourgeois democracy. Socialism will come not through the peaceful, democratic parliamentary conquest of the state, but through the determined and revolutionary mass action of a proletarian minority. The fetish of democracy is a fetter upon the proletarian revolution; mass action smashes the fetish, emphasizing that the proletarian recognizes no limits to its action except the limits of its own power. The proletariat will never conquer unless it proceeds to struggle after struggle; its power is developed and its energy let loose only through action. Parliamentarism, in and of itself, fetters proletarian action; organizations are often equally fetters upon action; the proletariat must act and always act; through action it conquers....

"The great war has objectively brought Europe to the verge of revolution. Capitalist society at any moment may be thrust into the air by an upheaval of the proletariat--as in Russia. Whence will the impulse for the revolutionary struggle come? Surely not from the moderate Socialism and unionism, which are united solidly in favor of an imperialistic war; surely not from futile parliamentary rhetoric, even should it be revolutionary rhetoric. The impulse will come out of the mass action of the proletariat....

"Mass action is equally a process of revolution and the revolution itself in operation."

The March 22, 1919, issue of "The Revolutionary Age" published the Manifesto of the Left Wing section of the Socialist Party of New York, from which several important quotations are hereby taken:

"We are a very active and growing section of the Socialist Party who are attempting to reach the rank and file with our urgent message over the heads that be, who, through inertia or a lack of vision, cannot see the necessity for a critical analysis of the party's policies and tactics....

"In the latter part of the nineteenth century the Social-Democracies of Europe set out to 'legislate capitalism out of office.' The class struggle was to be won in the capitalist legislatures. Step by step concessions were to be wrested from the state; the working class and the Socialist parties were to be strengthened by means of 'constructive' reform and social legislation; each concession would act as a rung in the ladder of Social Revolution, upon which the workers could climb step by step, until finally, some bright sunny morning, the peoples would awaken to find the Cooperative Commonwealth functioning without disorder, confusion or hitch on the ruins of the capitalist state.

"And what happened? When a few legislative seats had been secured, the thunderous denunciations of the Socialist legislators suddenly ceased. No more were the parliaments used as platforms from which the challenge of revolutionary Socialism was flung to all the corners of Europe. Another era had set in, the era of 'constructive' social reform legislation. Dominant Moderate Socialism accepted the bourgeois state as the basis of its action and strengthened that state. All power to shape the policies and tactics of the Socialist parties was entrusted to the parliamentary leaders. And these lost sight of Socialism's original purpose; their goal became 'constructive reforms' and cabinet portfolios--the 'cooperation of classes,' the policy of openly or tacitly declaring that the coming of Socialism was a concern 'of all the classes,' instead of emphasizing the Marxian policy that the construction of the Socialist system is the task of the revolutionary proletariat alone....

"The 'Moderates' emphasized petty-bourgeois reformism in order to attract tradesmen, shop-keepers and members of the professions, and, of course, the latter flocked to the Socialist movement in great numbers, seeking relief from the constant grinding between corporate capital and awakening labor....

"Dominant 'Moderate Socialism' forgot the teachings of the founders of scientific Socialism, forgot its function as a proletarian movement--'the most resolute and advanced section of the working class parties'--and permitted the bourgeois and self-seeking trade union elements to shape its policies and tactics. This was the condition in which the Social-Democracies of Europe found themselves at the outbreak of the war in 1914. Demoralized and confused by the cross-currents within their own parties, vacillating and compromising with the bourgeois state, they fell a prey to social-patriotism and nationalism.

"But revolutionary Socialism was not destined to lie inert for long. In Germany, Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring, Rosa Luxemburg and Otto Rhule organized the Spartacus group. But their voices were drowned in the roar of cannon and the shriek of the dying and maimed.

"Russia, however, was to be the first battle-ground where the 'moderate' and revolutionary Socialism should come to grips for the mastery of the state. The break-down of the corrupt, bureaucratic Czarist regime opened the floodgates of Revolution....

"'Moderate Socialism' was not prepared to seize the power for the workers during a revolution. 'Moderate Socialism' had a rigid formula--'constructive social reform legislation within the capitalist state,' and to that formula it clung....

"Revolutionary Socialists hold, with the founders of Scientific Socialism, that there are two dominant classes in society--the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; that between these two classes a struggle must go on, until the working class, through the seizure of the instruments of production and distribution, the abolition of the capitalist state, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, creates a Socialist system. Revolutionary Socialists do not believe that they can be voted into power. They struggle for the conquest of power by the revolutionary proletariat....

"The 'moderate Socialist' proposes to use the bourgeois state with its fraudulent democracy, its illusory theory of 'unity of all the classes,' its standing army, police and bureaucracy oppressing and baffling the masses; the revolutionary Socialist maintains that the bourgeois state must be completely destroyed, and proposes the organization of a new state--the state of the organized producers--of the Federated Soviets--on the basis of which alone can Socialism be introduced.

"Industrial Unionism, the organization of the proletariat in accordance with the integration of industry and for the overthrow of Capitalism, is a necessary phase of revolutionary Socialist agitation. Potentially, industrial unionism constructs the basis and develops the ideology of the industrial state of Socialism; but industrial unionism alone cannot perform the revolutionary act of seizure of the power of the state, since under the conditions of Capitalism it is impossible to organize the whole working class, or an overwhelming majority into industrial unionism.

"It is the task of a revolutionary Socialist party to direct the struggles of the proletariat and provide a program for the culminating crisis."

Julius Hammer, in a letter published in "The Call," April 4, 1919, speaking of the Left Wing, says:

"Aside from the discussions as to the principles and tactics identifying the 'Left Wing' there is a great deal of acrimonious discussion and opposition to those in the 'Left Wing' organization. They are called 'separatists,' 'secessionists,' 'splitters of the party,' and this in spite of vehement denials that there is intention or desire to split the party. 'It is unnecessary,' say they, 'and superfluous; the party machinery is ample for the purpose now; organization within organization is injurious and wrong.' Some seem to go even further and fling epithets of 'disrupters,' 'traitors,' 'direct actionists,' 'anti-politicalists,' 'anarchists,' etc. And there seems to be quite a number who consider that the menace should be met with stern measures--nothing less than expulsion."

In the Left Wing statements of principles and tactics the reader will observe a constant emphasis upon "direct action," or violence, and in favor of "industrial unionism" and the "identification of the Socialist Party with class conscious industrial unionism." Chapters VIII and IX of this work, which describe the principles and tactics of the I. W. W., will make the significance of the Left Wing movement perfectly apparent as an effort to combine Socialist Partyism and I. W. W.'ism or to place the latter under the political leadership of the former. In the Left Wing we see an enthusiastic consecration of the major part of the American Socialist Party to revolutionary violence--the direct application of anarchistic tactics to the overthrow of the Government and institutions of the United States. As we follow the Left Wing movement we shall see the principles and tactics of the I. W. W., as carried out in Russia, adopted as a program by the major part of the American Socialist party, which also finally succeeded in committing the minor part, the Right Wing, to the same principles.

Needless to say, this movement was helped on by the various communications received from the Lenine dictatorship, and notably by the call for an international communist congress to meet at Moscow in March, 1919. The text of this call began to appear in the American radical publications in late March and April, and is here reproduced from "The One Big Union Monthly" for the latter month:

"First Section


"In our estimation, the acceptance of the following principles shall serve as a working program for the International:

"1. The actual period is the period of the dissolution and collapse of the whole capitalist system;

"2. The first task of the proletariat consists to-day of the immediate seizure of government power by the proletariat;

"3. This new governmental apparatus must incorporate the dictatorship of the working class, and in some places, also, that of the poorer peasantry, together with hired farm labor, this dictatorship constituting the instrument of the systematic overthrow of the exploiting classes;

"4. The dictatorship of the proletariat shall complete the immediate expropriation of Capitalism and the suppression of private property in the means of production, which includes, under Socialism, the suppression of private property and its transfer to a proletarian state under the Socialist administration of the working class, the abolition of capitalist agricultural production, the nationalization of the great business firms and financial trusts;

"5. In order to insure the Social Revolution, the disarming of the bourgeoisie and its agents, and the general arming of the proletariat, is a prime necessity.

"Second Section


"7. The fundamental condition of the struggle is the mass action of the proletariat, developing into open armed attack on the governmental powers of Capitalism;

"8. The old International has broken into three principal groups: the avowed social-patriots, who, during the entire duration of the imperialistic war between the years 1914 and 1918, have supported their own bourgeoisie; the minority Socialists of the 'Center,' represented by leaders of the type of Karl Kautsky, and who constitute a group composed of ever-hesitating elements, unable to settle on any determined direction and who up to date have always acted as traitors; and the Revolutionary Left Wing.

"9. As far as the social-patriots are concerned, who stood up everywhere in arms, in the most critical moments, against the revolution, a merciless fight is the alternative; in regard to the 'Center,' the tactics consist in separating from it the revolutionary elements, in criticizing pitilessly its leaders and in dividing systematically among them the number of their followers; these tactics are absolutely necessary when we reach a certain degree of development;

"10. On the other hand it is necessary to proceed in a common movement with the revolutionary elements of the working class who, though hitherto not belonging to the party, yet adopt to-day in its entirety, the point of view of dictatorship of the proletariat, under the form of Soviet government, including the syndicalist elements of the labor movements;

"11. It is also necessary to rally the groups and proletarian organizations, who, though not in the wake as yet of the revolutionary trend of the Left Wing, nevertheless have manifested and developed a tendency leading in that direction;

"12. We propose that the representatives of parties and groups following these tendencies shall take part in the Congress as plenipotentiary members of the Workers' International and should belong to the following parties:

"1. The Spartacus group (Germany); 2. The Bolsheviki or Communist Party (Russia); 3. Other Communist groups of; 3. German-Austria; 4. Hungary; 5. Finland; 6. Poland; 7. Esthonia; 8. Lettonia; 9. Lithuania; 10. White Russia; 11. Ukraine; 12. The Revolutionary elements of Czecho-Slovakia; 13. The Bulgarian Social-Democratic Party; 14. The Roumanian Social-Democrats; 15. The Left Wing of the Servian Social-Democracy; 16. The Left Wing of the Swedish Social-Democratic Party; 17. The Norwegian Social-Democratic Party; 18. The Danish groups of the class struggle; 19. The Dutch Communist Party; 20. The revolutionary elements of the Belgian Labor Party; 21-22. The groups and organizations in the midst of the French Socialist and syndicalist movements who are in solidarity with our aims; 23. The Left Wing of the Swiss Social-Democratic Party; 24. The Italian Socialist Party; 25. The left elements of the Spanish Socialist Party; 26. The left elements of the Portuguese Socialist Party; 27. The British Socialist Party (those nearer to us are the elements represented by MacLean); 28. I. S. P. R. (Great Britain); 29. S. L. P. (England); 30. I. W. W. (Great Britain); 31. The revolutionary elements of Shop-Stewards (Great Britain); 33. The S. L. P. (U. S. A.); 34. The elements of the Left Wings of American Socialist Propaganda (tendency represented by E. V. Debs and the Socialist Propaganda League); 35. I. W. W. (Industrial Workers of the World), America; 36. The Workers' International Industrial Union (U. S. A.); 37. I. W. W. of Australia; 38. The Socialist groups of Tokio and Samon, represented by Sen Katayama; 39. The Young Peoples' Socialist International Leagues.

"Third Section


"13. The Congress must be transformed into a common organ of combat in view of the permanent struggle and systematic direction of the movement, into a center of International Communism which will subordinate the Interests of the Revolution from an international point of view.

"The concrete forms of organization, representation, etc., will be elaborated by the Congress."

The testimony of Morris Hillquit in the Socialist case before the Assembly Judiciary Committee gave the preceding document an added interest which the reader will better appreciate further on. As will appear later in our narrative, on September 4, 1919, the Socialist Party adopted a manifesto strongly favoring the "industrial" unionizing of American labor for the purpose of reinforcing the political "demands" of the Socialist Party with "industrial action."

On the stand at Albany, on February 19, 1920, Hillquit acknowledged the authorship of at least 90 per cent of the "industrial action" manifesto of his party, but declared that he had never read the Moscow manifesto when he wrote his, and so was not influenced by the Moscow recommendation of industrial action to bring about a revolution by violence. But the above "call" to the Moscow Conference urged "a common movement" with "syndicalist elements," or "industrial union" revolutionaries, as much as the Moscow manifesto did, and the reader will find at the end of our next chapter evidence that Morris Hillquit was familiar with and criticized the above Moscow "call" at least as early as July, 1919.



Emanuel Blumstein, a member of the Right Wing, in a letter published in "The Call," April 9, 1919, bitterly complained against the tactics of the Left Wingers--in trying to wrest control of the Socialist Party from the "Old Guard" of Berger and Hillquit, which had acquired the habit of domination:

"The reason that the so-called Left Wingers are concentrating at meetings, making motions to recall delegates, and carry their motions through, is very simple. Anyone who attends the meetings can easily understand it. They shout down every honest thinking Socialist with slurs and abuse. They make it so intolerable that the meeting hall appears to be, instead of a Socialist meeting, a room frequented by rowdies of all types and descriptions. In this way they drive the most active Comrades out of the meeting hall, as these Comrades get disgusted with the tactics pursued and leave the meeting. Then they drag the meeting on to all hours of the night until those left, having no opposition, carry all their destructive actions through, and this they call democratic decision for the Comrades of the branch--deciding the policies for them."

Morris Zucker, a member of the Left Wing, defends his faction in a letter that appeared in "The Call," New York, April 11, 1919:

"In regard to Lee's objection that the Left Wing may bring about a premature revolt, the reply is that no real revolution, no social revolution, is ever manufactured. It must be spontaneous. It must be real. It must be an overwhelming, impulsive demonstration of the popular will. Revolutions may be manipulated but not manufactured. Trotzky shows in his 'From October to Brest-Litovsk' that the Bolshevist Revolution was not manufactured.

"The problem is to manipulate the revolution, to guide it, to counsel it. And herein lies the importance of proper Socialist education, of knowledge and understanding, and from these of proper Socialist tactics.

"The Left Wing believes it has the proper program. And it wants the Socialist Party to adopt its program. The Left Wing not only preaches revolutionary Socialism, it believes that the economic and social forces that have made half Europe Socialist, and threaten momentarily to engulf the other half are at work in America also. It believes that a revolutionary outbreak in America is not a matter of the far and distant future. And it desires to make that revolution as easy and as successful as it can possibly be. For that reason the Left Wing has evolved its manifesto and program, and now calls upon the Socialist Party to discuss it, perfect it, and adopt it."

In April, 1919, the New York State Committee of the Socialist Party, by a vote of 24 against 17, resolved that it was "definitely opposed to the organization calling itself the Left Wing section of the Socialist Party, and to any group within the party organized for the same or similar purpose;" and it instructed "its executive committee to revoke the charter of any local affiliated with any such organization or that permits its subdivision or members to be affiliated."

"The Call," April 23, 1919, publishes a long letter from F. Basky in which he defends the principles of the Left Wing and attacks the New York State Committee for the above resolutions. We quote a part:

"Aside of these arguments the Left Wing is not a counter-organization to the Socialist Party. On the contrary, it is the only active force to save the party from going into decay and finally to the scrap heap as a tool not adapted to the task. If the Left Wing is the party, then and only then can we answer the criticism of the syndicalist that a political party is nothing else but a vote-catching machinery for middle-class politicians. If the principles enunciated in the manifesto will be the principles of the party, then it will enjoy the confidence of those who, through their bitter experience realized the fallacies of the Second International, led and dominated by the social-patriots, reformists of the German Social Democratic Party. If we follow the line of uncompromising revolutionary activity indicated by the Left Wingers, then we can rest assured that the party will be cleared of the would-be Scheidemanns, Eberts, Kerenskys, Brantenburgs, and the rest of the traitors of our principles and our class.

"They will be eliminated anyway. The fight is on. And I welcome the attack of the state committee. We at least know some of those we would have to face in the critical hour. Might as well fight it out now; whether they or the Left Wing represents the party. Let us find out right now who is with us and who is against us."

"The Call," April 30, 1919, published a resolution then recently passed by the Socialist Party of Essex County, New Jersey, which had adopted the Left Wing program. Part of the resolution is hereby quoted:

"While the need for new orientation is clearly apparent, there is an element within the party which is either unwilling or unable to adjust itself to the new world conditions and the new tactics required by these conditions. Unfortunately, this element has controlled the party national executive committee and the party machinery, with the consequence that the national organization, in place of furnishing the leadership and urging the locals forward to take advantage of the present world crisis in building up the proletariat movement, has conspicuously lagged behind."

By the early part of May, 1919, conditions in the Socialist Party became so serious that the Executive Committee of Local New York, according to "The Call," May 8, 1919, issued the following statement on the Left Wing:

"To the Members of Local New York:

"Comrades.--A critical situation has arisen within Local New York. Your executive committee is compelled to take unusual and vigorous measures to combat the disruptive efforts of an internal faction which seeks to dominate the party by undemocratic and unsocialistic methods. The executive committee addresses itself to you, the membership, to explain the gravity of the crisis and to urge your support in saving the organization which has been built up with so much sacrifice by thousands of Comrades.

"The very existence of the party is at stake--its existence as the democratically self-governed party of the working class, laboring to awaken and educate the proletarian masses and to express their class interests on the political field....

"This organization, i.e., the Left Wing, is not open to all party members, nor even to all who accept the ideas set forth in its manifesto and program. Only such persons are admitted as can be counted on to set the authority of the 'Left Wing Section' above that of the party itself. Its meetings are held in secret, and their business is that of a permanent closed caucus to lay plans for controlling the action of the party branches and committees, and of obstructing their activities when it cannot control them.

"Even within the 'Left Wing Section' itself democratic methods are not used. The admission of members, the choice of delegates to Left Wing conferences, and the framing of instructions to those delegates are intrusted to committees composing an inner circle. All members and adherents of the 'Left Wing Section' are called upon in their action as party members and as members of party committees, to give explicit obedience to orders issued by the inner circle. A sufficient sample of this is the appointment of a 'steering committee' for the Left Wingers in the central committee of the local, and the issuance of instructions to delegates affiliated with that section as follows:

"'In all matters involving Left Wing tactics vote as a unit with the steering committee. Do not make motions, ask for divisions, further divisions, roll call, and appeals from the chair. The steering committee will attend to that.'

"The Left Wing Section has not been able to command a majority in the central committee, notwithstanding the drastic methods used in their attempt to capture it. Unable to control they have practised systematic obstruction, and have openly declared that they will not permit the central committee to function so long as their group is in the minority there. Under the direction of their steering committee, the time is consumed with every species of parliamentary delay, with the aim and effect of preventing the central committee from transacting business and carrying on the normal work of the party. These dilatory tactics are supplemented by personal abuse directed against those who will not truckle to the 'Left Wing,' by insults and provocatory threats, and when necessary, by the creation of an uproar designed to attract the attention of the police and to break up the sessions....

"The Executive Committee has heretofore decided not to have a meeting of the central committee on May 13, and has appointed a committee to reorganize Local New York. This committee will begin with such branches as are affiliated with the 'Left Wing Section.' No one will be excluded because of his opinions, but no one can retain a double membership in the party and the so-called 'Left Wing Section.'"

By about the middle of May, 1919, the Left Wing program had been adopted by the Socialist Party in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Kings and Queens Counties, N. Y., and Essex County, N. J. In Hudson County, N. J., the county committee referred it favorably to all the branches, and at the end of the month the New Jersey Convention of the party adopted it. In Chicago, J. Louis Engdahl, sentencedC to twenty years in Leavenworth prison, was reported to have been ousted from the organization, having been considered too conservative by the millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, and the latter's friends who controlled the Communist Propaganda League, the Left Wing faction of the local organization.

"The Call," May 8, 1919, publishes an interesting letter from one of its correspondents:

"It is not so much a question as to Left or Right Wing domination as it is a question of whether we are to have a united or divided party.

"I am not a Centrist, if that means to be in the center of the party as it is today. We must move to the Left--that is understood by all thinking, class-conscious Comrades, but we must move together, not, perhaps, as far as some of the hot-heads would like to have us--they fail to understand what an American Socialist Party should be, for they seem to think of New York City as the whole thing. If they could take a trip to Chicago and back they might find themselves moving toward the Right.

"No one wants to be where the stick-in-the-mud Rights are, either--that is, no one except them. The majority of us see the need for revolutionizing the party. What we don't see is any necessity of disrupting the party in the process. The master class would like to see that; in fact, they have been egging us on to fight among ourselves for the last two or three years, and we have blindly done the very thing that they want most we should do. They are laughing in their sleeves at us--poor boobs that we are."

On May 15, 1919, following the open fight against the Left Wing inaugurated by the New York State Committee and its Executive Committee, the Left Wing Locals of Boston, Cleveland and New York joined in a call for a National Conference of the Left Wing to convene in New York on June 21. This call opened with the following paragraph:

"The international situation and the crisis in the American Socialist Party; the sabotage the party bureaucracy has practised on the emergency national convention; the N. E. C. [National Executive Committee] aligning our party with the social-patriots at Berne, with the Congress of the Great Betrayal; the necessity of reconstructing our policy in accord with revolutionary events--all this and more, makes it necessary that the revolutionary forces in the Socialist Party get together for counsel and action."

Apparently so many bitter letters were sent to "The Call" that it found it expedient to publish the following notice in its edition of May 16, 1919:

"No letters dealing in personalities of any kind will be published in this column. All views and all arguments set forth must be confined strictly to the principles and tactics either defended or attacked. This ruling is by the unanimous vote of the Board of Managers of 'The Call.'"

Morris Hillquit, member of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party till September, 1919, and one of the principle leaders of the Right, published in his paper, "The Call," May 21, 1919, a long article in large type, covering half of the editorial page, under the caption, "The Socialist Task and Outlook." After speaking of the gloomy conditions in the Socialist Party abroad, he thus comments on conditions in the American branch of the international organization:

"All the more unfortunate is it that the energies of the Socialist Party should at this time be dissipated in acrimonious and fruitless controversies brought on by the self-styled Left Wing movement. I am one of the last men in the party to ignore or misunderstand the sound revolutionary impulse which animates the rank and file of this new movement, but the specific form and direction which it has assumed, its program and tactics, spell disaster to our movement. I am opposed to it, not because it is too radical, but because it is essentially reactionary and non-Socialistic; not because it would lead us too far, but because it would lead us nowhere. To prate about the dictatorship of the proletariat and of workers' Soviets in the United States at this time is to deflect the Socialist propaganda from its realistic basis, and to advocate the abolition of all social reform planks in the party platform means to abandon the concrete class struggle as it presents itself from day to day.

"The Left Wing movement, as I see it, is a purely emotional reflex of the situation in Russia. The cardinal vice of the movement is that it started as a wing, i.e., as a schismatic and disintegrating movement. Proceeding on the arbitrary assumption that they were the Left, the ingenuous leaders of the movement had to discover a Right, and since the European classification would not be fully reproduced without a Center, they also were bound to locate a center in the Socialist movement of America.D What matters it to our imaginative Left Wing leaders that the Socialist Party of America as a whole has stood in the forefront of Socialist radicalism ever since the outbreak of the war, that many of its officers and leaders have exposed their lives and liberties to imminent peril in defense of the principles of international Socialism, they are Right Wingers and Centrists because the exigencies of the Left Wing require it. The Left Wing movement is a sort of burlesque on the Russian revolution. Its leaders do not want to convert their Comrades in the party. They must capture and establish a sort of dictatorship of the proletariat(?) within the party. Hence the creation of their dual organization as a kind of Soviet, and their refusal to cooperate with the aforesaid stage Centrists and Right Wingers.

"But the performance is too sad to be amusing. It seems perfectly clear that, so long as this movement persists in the party, the latter's activity will be wholly taken up by mutual quarrels and recriminations. Neither wing will have any time for the propaganda of Socialism. There is, as far as I can see, but one remedy. It would be futile to preach reconciliation and union where antagonism runs so high. Let the Comrades on both sides do the next best thing. Let them separate, honestly, freely and without rancor. Let each side organize and work in its own way, and make such contribution to the Socialist movement in America as it can. Better a hundred times to have two numerically small Socialist organizations, each homogeneous and harmonious within itself, than to have one big party torn by dissensions and squabbles, an impotent colossus on feet of clay. The time for action is near. Let us clear the decks."

By the end of May, 1919, the Left Wing fight had become so serious that the National Executive Committee revoked the charter of the Socialist Party in Michigan and suspended the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukranian, Lettish, Polish, South Slavic and Hungarian branches, expelling or suspending considerably over 25,000 members out of a total dues-paying membership of about 100,000.

"The Ohio Socialist," the party organ of Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and New Mexico, in its issue of June 4, 1919, comments as follows on the expulsions:

"Violating every principle of fair play and square dealing and disregarding every constitutional provision, the National Executive Committee at its session in Chicago, May 24 to 30, expelled without a trial the state organization of the Socialist Party of Michigan, constituting about 6,000 members, suspended the Russian, Lithuanian, Lettish, Polish, Hungarian, Ukrainian and South Slavic Federations of the party, constituting more than 30,000 members, and worst of all--and let it be said to their everlasting shame--are autocratically holding up the national membership referendum for the election of a new National Executive Committee, International Delegates, International Secretary, and the holding of a national convention.

"Never before in the party's history have Socialist Party officials been so lost to all sense of decency and square dealing. A wilful group of seven members of the National Executive Committee usurped power which the constitution does not grant them and which the Socialist Party membership never intended any servants of the party to have. This despotic group of seven did not act as the party's servants, but as dictators and tyrants to defeat the expressed will of the party membership and to perpetuate itself in office.

"Unbelievable as it may seem, seven officials of the party had the monumental effrontery to assume the right to expel and suspend 40,000 members. Think of it. That such a dastardly deed should ever be perpetrated upon the rank and file of our organization is almost beyond comprehension. And yet it was done--it was done by those whom you elected to serve you. Instead they are betraying you, disrupting the organization....

"The intention of these autocrats is plain as daylight. Like a tidal wave, the demand for a Socialism which stands true to the working class at all times has swept the party. The thousands of Comrades who are sincerely working to win the party to a more revolutionary position are known to the Left Wing. This Left Wing understands clearly that the Scheidemann brand of Socialism stands for the betrayal and defeat of the working class and that only the Socialism of Liebknecht and Lenine has within it the potentialities of victory and success....

"There was no trial, no opportunity for defense offered to the Michigan Comrades. A motion to allow Michigan a chance to interpret their action was voted down. The right to appear at a trial was denied....

"Expulsion meant throwing out over three thousand votes. On with the expulsion of Michigan....

"But the expulsion of Michigan was apparently not sufficient to decide the elections in favor of the reactionary moderates. At a subsequent session, accordingly, it was decided to destroy the whole election.

"The National Executive Committee instructed the secretary not to tabulate the vote or make it public. They nullified the referendum vote, destroyed the will of the membership in order to retain control. Most of these National Executive Committee members are out for re-election, are interested parties, knowing that the referendum defeated them for re-election, are now, by this action, perpetuating themselves in office....

"The National Executive Committee's action is equivalent to stealing the elections. The party must act sternly to rebuke this official chicanery.

"After this betrayal of the party the despotic seven seemed to fear the results of the National Convention, which has been called for August 30. A way had to be devised to control the convention. Happy thought: Suspend the federations that have endorsed the Left Wing, and we are safe. Another caucus held. Result: Suspension of the Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Lettish and South Slavic Federations from the Socialist Party--over thirty thousand members. A plain attempt to assure the election of reactionary delegates to the National Convention to approve the abominable actions of the National Executive Committee majority....

"In spite of all these dirty tactics the little group of reactionary autocrats did not feel themselves secure. They still fear that they will not be able to control the coming National Convention. So they formed a corporation, nearly all the directors of which are of the same stamp as the wilful seven, and into the hands of these directors is to be placed the entire property of the Socialist Party, including the new headquarters building upon which $10,000 has been paid. These directors cannot be recalled by the party membership as long as they retain membership in the party, and only four, a minority, can be removed in three years' time....

"They want the Left Wing to desert the party. They want us to leave the party machinery in their hands. They will be disappointed in this. We know their game. We shall not play into their hands. We will not quit. Every Left Winger will work night and day for the reinstatement of the nearly 40,000 members whom the reactionaries are trying to sever from the party in violation of the party's constitution. Every radical will work with might and main to get new members and build, build the Left Wing and the party. Every revolutionist will stick until victory is ours and the Socialist Party is completely won for revolutionary Socialism."

Commenting on the referendum for a new National Executive Committee "The Revolutionary Age" in its May 24, 1919, issue says:

"The moderates claim that the Left Wing represents only a small clique in the party: why, then, not allow the membership to make its decision through the referendum? Why disfranchise the revolutionary Socialists? Why steal votes away from the Left Wing candidates? These desperate tactics are understandable only on the theory that the moderates feel that the revolutionary Socialists are a majority, that they will meet defeat in the referendum votes and revolutionary Socialism will conquer the party."

"The Revolutionary Age," July 12, 1919, informs us that the Massachusetts Comrades were also expelled and that others in other States were threatened:

"Another State gone. Massachusetts is expelled for adopting the Left Wing program at its State Convention and for refusing to recognize the National Executive Committee's act of suspending the Federations. For this latter offense, Pennsylvania is now threatened with excommunication, and very likely Ohio will meet the same sad fate.

"It is a race against time. Will there be anything left for the rump N. E. C. to expel by August 30th?"

Relative to the success of the Left Wing in electing its members to the new National Executive Committee of fifteen, and to the meeting of this new committee, "The Revolutionary Age," July 19, 1919, comments as follows:

"The election of Comrades Fraina, Hourwich, Harwood, Prevey, Ruthenberg, Lloyd, Keracher, Batt, Hogan, Millis, Nagle, Katterfeld, Wicks and Herman appears now to be certain, while there is still a question about the third choice in the First District, Comrade Lindgren leading without the New York vote.

"There is no question, but that the final tally of the party elections is available at the National Office, but according to the action of the National Executive Committee this tally will not be made known till August 30. Meanwhile the State secretaries have published enough of the votes to leave no question of the outcome, except as above indicated....

"According to the party law the new N. E. C. is entitled to control beginning July 1st....

"There can be no legality by which a defunct Executive Committee can keep the newly elected committee from taking office. By such 'constitutionality' the old body could perpetuate itself indefinitely, let the members vote as they like. Stopping referendums is the method chosen to make sure that the members consent."

Accusations and recriminations, charges and counter-charges, continued to fly back and forth between the two Wings, as the secretaries proceeded with the work of expulsion or suspension, carrying out the savage instructions of the Right Wing majority of the National Executive Committee, where Victor L. Berger, Morris Hillquit and Seymour Stedman were the dominating leaders. On the side of the Lefts little more could be done than to set up a howl against the "dictatorship of the proletariat" within the party which forced them to taste the medicine they would have preferred to prescribe for the rest of the country.

During the summer the Left Wing movement was hastened on, dragging the Right Wing after it, by the publication in the radical papers of America of the manifesto issued in Moscow in March, 1919, by the Third or Communistic International in session there. Max Eastman, a Left Wing leader, in an article on "The New International" in "The Liberator," July, 1919, a Left Wing magazine, thus describes the Bolshevik International:

"The Communist International, which met at Moscow on March 2d, 1919, comprised thirty-two delegates with full power to act, representing parties or groups in Germany, Russia, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria, Rumania, Finland, Ukrainia, Esthonia, Armenia, delegates from the 'Union of Socialists of Eastern Countries,' from the labor organizations of Germans in Russia, and from the Balkan 'Union of Revolutionary Socialists.'

"There were also present representatives with consultative powers from parties and groups in Switzerland, Holland, Bohemia, Jugo-Slavia, France, Great Britain, Turkey, Turkestan, Persia, Corea, China, and the United States (S. J. Rutgers, of the Socialist Propaganda League, now merged with the Left Wing section of the Socialist Party). A letter was read from Comrade Loriot, the leader of the Left Wing section of the French Party, repudiating the Berne Congress of the Second International.

"The Russian Communist Party was represented by Comrades Lenine, Trotzky, Zinoviev, Kukharin and Stalin. This party contains many millions of organized class-conscious Socialists, more, perhaps, than are to be found in all the rest of the world."

The Communist Manifesto of 1919, issued by this Moscow International, became the test of fellowship among the simon-pure "Reds" the world over, and since the campaign of the Left Wing grew into an attempt to force the Socialist Party of America to adopt this Bolshevik program, we here quote the salient parts of the Moscow Manifesto from the article by Eastman mentioned above:

"To the proletariat of all countries!

"Seventy-two years have gone by since the Communist Party of the World proclaimed its program in the form of the Manifesto written by the great teachers of the proletarian revolution, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels....

"We Communists, representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the different countries of Europe, America and Asia, assembled in Soviet Moscow, feel and consider ourselves followers and fulfillers of the program proclaimed seventy-two years ago. It is our task now to sum up the practical revolutionary experience of the working class, to cleanse the movement of its admixtures of opportunism and social patriotism, and to gather together the forces of all the true revolutionary proletarian parties in order to further and hasten the complete victory of the Communist revolution.

"The opportunists who, before the war, exhorted the workers, in the name of the gradual transition into Socialism, to be temperate; who, during the war, asked for submission in the name of 'civil peace' and defense of the Fatherland, now again demand of the workers self-abnegation to overcome the terrible consequences of the war. If this preaching were listened to by the workers, Capitalism would build out of the bones of several generations a new and still more formidable structure, leading to a new and inevitable world war. Fortunately for humanity, this is no longer possible....

"Only the Proletarian Dictatorship, which recognizes neither inherited privileges nor rights of property, but which arises from the needs of the hungering masses, can shorten the period of the present crisis; and for this purpose it mobilizes all materials and forces, introduces the universal duty to labor, establish the regime of industrial discipline, thus to heal in the course of a few years the open wounds caused by the war and also to raise humanity to new undreamed-of heights.

"The whole bourgeois world accuses the Communists of destroying liberties and political democracy. This is not true. Having come into power the proletariat only asserts the absolute impossibility of applying the methods of bourgeois democracy, and it creates the conditions and forms of a higher working class democracy....

"The peasant of Bavaria and Baden who does not look beyond his church spire, the small French wine-grower who has been ruined by the adulterations practiced by the big capitalists, the small farmer of America plundered and betrayed by bankers and legislators--all these social ranks which have been shoved aside from the main road of development by Capitalism, are called on paper by the regime of political democracy to the administration of the State. In reality, however, the finance-oligarchy decides all important questions which determine the destinies of nations behind the back of parliamentary democracy....

"The proletarian State, like every State, is an organ of suppression, but it arrays itself against the enemies of the working class. It aims to break the opposition of the despoilers of labor, who are using every means in a desperate effort to stifle the revolution in blood, and to make impossible further opposition. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which gives it the favored position in the community, is only a provisional institution. As the opposition of the Bourgeoisie is broken, as it is expropriated and gradually absorbed into the working groups, the proletarian dictatorship disappears, until finally the State dies and there are no more class distinctions....

"In an empire of destruction where not only the means of production and transportation, but also the institutions of political democracy have become bloody ruins, the proletariat must create its own forms, to serve above all as a bond of unity for the working class and to enable it to accomplish a revolutionary intervention in the further development of mankind. Such apparatus is represented in the Workmen's Councils. The old parties, the old unions, have proved incapable, in person of their leaders, to understand, much less to carry out the task which the new epoch presents to them. The proletariat has created a new institution which embraces the entire working class without distinction of vocation or political maturity, an elastic form of organization capable of continually renewing itself, expanding, and of drawing into itself ever new elements, ready to open its doors to the working groups of city and village which are near to the proletariat. This indispensable autonomous organization of the working class in the present struggle and in the future conquests of different lands, tests the proletariat and constitutes the greatest inspiration and the mightiest weapon of the proletariat of our time. Wherever the masses are awakened to consciousness, Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Councils will be formed....

"The outcry of the bourgeois world against the civil war and the red terror is the most colossal hypocrisy of which the history of political struggles can boast. There would be no civil war if the exploiters who have carried mankind to the very brink of ruin had not prevented every forward step of the laboring masses, if they had not instigated plots and murders and called to their aid armed help from outside to maintain or restore their predatory privileges. Civil war is forced upon the laboring classes by their arch-enemies. The working class must answer blow for blow, if it will not renounce its own object and its own future which is, at the same time, the future of all humanity.

"The Communist parties, far from conjuring up civil war artificially, rather strive to shorten its duration as much as possible--in case it has become an iron necessity--to minimize the number of its victims, and, above all, to secure victory for the proletariat. This makes necessary the disarming of the bourgeoisie at the proper time, the arming of the laborer, and the formation of a communist army as the protector of the rule of the proletariat and the inviolability of the social structure. Such is the Red Army of Soviet Russia which arose to protect the achievements of the working class against every assault from within or without. The Soviet Army is inseparable from the Soviet State.

"Seizure of political power by the proletariat means destruction of the political power of the bourgeoisie. The organized power of the bourgeoisie is in the civil State, with its capitalistic army under control of bourgeoisie-junker officers, its police and gendarmes, jailers and judges, its priests, government officials, etc. Conquest of the political power means not merely a change in the personnel of ministries, but annihilation of the enemy's apparatus of government; disarmament of the bourgeoisie of the counter-revolutionary officers, of the White Guard; arming of the proletariat, the revolutionary soldiers, the Red Guard of workingmen; displacement of all bourgeois judges and organization of proletarian courts; elimination of control by reactionary government officials and substitution of new organs of management of the proletariat.... Not until the proletariat has achieved this victory and broken the resistance of the bourgeoisie can the former enemies of the new order be made useful, by bringing them under control of the Communist system and gradually bringing them into accord with its work....

"The Dictatorship of the Proletariat does not in any way call for partition of the means of production and exchange; rather, on the contrary, its aim is further to centralize the forces of production and to subject all of production to a systematic plan. As the first steps--socialization of the great banks which now control production; the taking over by the power of the proletariat of all government-controlled economic utilities; the transferring of all communal enterprises; the socializing of the syndicated and trustified units of production, as well as all other branches of production in which the degree of concentration and centralization of capital makes this technically practicable; the socializing of agricultural estates and their conversion into co-operative establishments....

"As far as smaller enterprises are concerned, the proletariat must gradually unite them, according to the degree of their importance. It must be particularly emphasized that small properties will in no way be expropriated and that small property owners who are not exploiters of labor will not be forcibly dispossessed....

"The task of the Proletarian Dictatorship in the economic field can only be fulfilled to the extent that the proletariat is enabled to create centralized organs of management and to institute workers' control. To this end it must make use of its mass organizations which are in closest relation to the process of production....

"As in the field of production, so also in the field of distribution, all qualified technicians and specialists are to be made use of, provided their political resistance is broken and they are still capable of adapting themselves, not to the service of capital, but to the new system of production.... Besides expropriating the factories, mines, estates, etc., the proletariat must also abolish the exploitation of the people by capitalistic landlords, transfer the large mansions to the local workers' councils, and move the working people into the bourgeois dwellings....

"The capitalistic criminals asserted at the beginning of the World War that it was only in defense of the common Fatherland. But soon German Imperialism revealed its real brigand character by bloody deeds in Russia, in the Ukraine and Finland. Now the Entente States unmask themselves as world despoilers and murderers of the proletariat....

"Indescribable is the White Terror of the bourgeois cannibals. Incalculable are the sacrifices of the working class. Their best--Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg--they have lost. Against this the proletariat must defend itself, defend at any price. The Communist International calls the whole world proletariat to this final struggle.

"Down with the imperialistic conspiracy of capital!

"Long live the International Republic of the Proletarian Councils!"

As will be seen when we study the I. W. W., the above is the program of the world-wide conspiracy of a single class, a minority of society, to carry out the cynical purpose of I. W. W.'ism--to "take possession of the earth and the machinery of production."

Morris Hillquit, a Right Wing leader of the Socialist Party of America, declared that "The Communist Congress of Moscow made the mistake of attempting a sort of dictatorship of the Russian proletariat in the Socialist International and was conspicuously inept and unhappy in the choice of certain allies and in the exclusion of others."E

Quoting this, Max Eastman, in the article from which we have taken so much, makes the following reply:

"How can he expect them to be any more indefinite and generous in their invitation than they were? In every country where there was a doubt as to what groups had stood true to the revolutionary principle and the principle of Internationalism, they so indicated the alignment as to leave every Socialist free to consider himself their ally who seriously and courageously desired to. This was what they did in America. The S. L. P. (Socialist Labor Party), the Socialist Propaganda League, the I. W. W. and in the Socialist Party 'the followers of Debs!' Could they in a brief word open the door wider to American Socialists, unless they wished to admit prominent members of the Socialist Party who were known to have repudiated them, as Berger did, declaring his solidarity with the Mensheviks who were waging war on them?"



On June 24, 1919, the Left Wing Conference assembled in New York City. The purpose of the Conference was for the first time to unite the forces of the Left Wing throughout the country and to decide upon a common plan of action against the Right. For some time there had been a growing desire among the members of the Left for the formation of a new party to be known as the Communist Party. The Michigan State organization and the different Russian-speaking federations, which had either been expelled or suspended, were particularly anxious for a new party. Then, too, many members of the Left Wing throughout the country believed that, even though they were more numerous than those of the Right, it would be useless to try to control the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party, called for August 30, 1919, in Chicago. They feared that the credentials of the still unsuspended and unexpelled Left Wing delegates would not be recognized by the party machine in the hands of the Right Wing, and, moreover, that even if they were, these Left Wing delegates would not be in the majority because so many other Left Wing delegates had been expelled from the Party.

Almost at the beginning of the National Conference of the Left Wing the Michigan State delegates and the delegates of the foreign-language federations insisted on the immediate organization of a new party to be known as the Communist Party. The majority of the delegates, however, were opposed to immediate organization, claiming that it would be much more prudent to wait till the meeting of the National Emergency Convention, at the end of August, as many Left Wing Socialists would refuse to leave the mother party until it became evident that the Convention could not be captured by the Left Wing. The majority of the delegates decided to call a Communist Party Convention on September 1, 1919. The Michigan State delegates and the Russian-speaking federation delegates thereupon broke with the majority of the Left Wing, causing a serious split, which continued till about the end of July, 1919.

In that month, however, most of the members of the National Council of the Left Wing who had been leading the faction of the Left Wing which had refused the call for the immediate formation of the Communist Party, went over to the minority faction, which included the Michigan State organization and the Russian-speaking federations. A compromise had been reached whereby the aforesaid members of the National Council agreed not to insist upon attendance at the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party, while the Michigan organization, together with the federations, were willing to wait till September 1, 1919, for the convention of the Communist Party.

Even on these terms John Reed, Ben Gitlow and some other leading members of the Left Wing refused to go over to the Communist Party, having decided to fight for the rights of the Left Wingers in the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party. This group of Left Wingers later on, as will be seen, became the nucleus of a third party, the Communist Labor Party. Several statements from the joint call for the convention of the Communist Party, cited from "The Revolutionary Age," August 23, 1919, will interest the reader:

"The party will be founded upon the following principles:

"The present is the period of the dissolution and collapse of the whole capitalist world system, which will mean the collapse of world culture, if capitalism with its unsolvable contradictions is not replaced by Communism.

"The problem of the proletariat consists in organizing and training itself for the conquest of the powers of the state....

"This new proletarian state must embody the dictatorship of the proletariat, both industrial and agricultural, this dictatorship constituting the instrument for the taking over of property used for exploiting the workers, and for the reorganization of society on a Communist basis....

"The dictatorship of the proletariat shall carry out the abolition of private property in the means of production and distribution, by transfer to the proletarian state under Socialist administration of the working class....

"The present world situation demands the closest relation between the revolutionary proletariat of all countries....

"We favor international alliance of the Communist Party of the United States only with the Communist groups of other countries, such as the Bolsheviki of Russia, Spartacans of Germany, etc....

"The party shall propagandize class-conscious industrial unionism, and shall carry on party activity in cooperation with industrial disputes that take on a revolutionary character."

The national organ of the Communist Party was "The Communist" of Chicago. In its issue of August 23, 1919, it thus criticises the Socialist Party:

"The majority of the readers of 'The Communist' are familiar with the form of organization of the old Socialist Party, with its state autonomy and its bureaucratic officialdom. Every state is practically organized as an Independent Socialist party. 'Official socialism' of Milwaukee is entirely different from6 'official socialism' in Ohio, both in regard to platforms and form of organization. Every state has a 'Socialism' of its own brand, and even dues are not uniform throughout the country. 'Official papers' of the party are in most cases organs of independent associations, not at all affiliated with the central party organizations. Such important weapons in the struggle of the proletariat are left in the hands of the petty bourgeois ideologists who, in reality, prostitute the labor press. As examples, we have, for instance, 'The Milwaukee Leader,' the 'New York Call,' the Jewish 'Daily Forward,' the 'Appeal to Reason,' and many others scattered throughout the United States, and each contradicting not only the others, but containing in each issue glaring contradictions that an intelligent person who reads them becomes disgusted with the whole muddled mess."

The fight among the revolutionists was a fight to the finish. The leaders all wanted to become Trotzkys and Lenines, all wanted to be bosses. It seems reasonable to conclude that if Bolshevism were ever introduced into the United States, either by the mother Socialist Party or by its offspring, the Communist Party or the Communist Labor Party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that wonderful piece of nonsense which we hear so much about, would be grasped at by an amazing number of competitors. In Russia Lenine and Trotzky seem to constitute the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In the Socialist Party of the United States Berger and Hillquit, of the old National Executive Committee, constituted a first-class dictatorship. In the Communist Party, Dennis Batt, lately jailed, and Alexander Stoklitsky would surely give the Communist rank and file plenty to do--everything of course being done according to their wills. John Reed and Ben Gitlow would make an ideal "dictatorship of the proletariat," if the Communist Labor Party ever made Bolshevism the law of the land.

"Truth," one of the organs of the Communist Labor Party, published in Duluth, Minn., in its issue of August 29, 1919, devotes nearly two of its eight pages to bitter attacks on the Communist Party. Two short quotations will suffice to show the spirit of envy that exists:

"'Tis said that distance lends enchantment, and perhaps that is the reason why some of you in the East have responded to the cuckoo-call of Michigan-Federations. Frankly, we see nothing hopeful in the alignment presented by the Michigan-Federation combine. We are fearful of the consequence of such leadership. The so-called Communist Party, as it is now constituted and especially with the accretion of a part of the National Council, presents the prettiest bunch of 'eligibles' that man ever laid eyes upon. And as I gaze upon this august array of talent, I wonder where the working class is going to get off at. We of the left wing of Cook County are reluctant to join with an organization under the guidance of a few doctrinaires from Detroit and the would-be Lenine of the United States.F We do not consider that the welfare of the revolutionary movement would be zealously guarded in their hands."

From "Truth," of the same date, we also quote an open letter to Louis C. Fraina, which reads in part as follows:

"Do you know how the Russian Federation is being ruled? Do you know that a 'firing squad' is constantly on the job expelling members and branches from the Federation who dare to disagree on anything with the would-be bosses of the Russian Federation?...

"Do you know that a regular secret service system is being employed by these 'bosses' to hunt down the undesirables?

"Do you know that a worse than military censorship is being maintained in the domain of Stocklitzky (the Northwestern States), where it is prohibited to the branches to communicate with each other or to send out or receive any correspondence otherwise than through the hands of the censors, the Executive Committee, and that this censorship committee, like the imperialists in the world's war, are holding up the mail of these branches and do not deliver at all the 'undesirable' mail?"

August 30, 1919, the day for the assembling of the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party, at last arrived. Delegates of the Right Wing, and many of the Left, including John Reed, I. E. Ferguson and Rose Pastor Stokes, were present. The Left Wing delegates, to the number of about 84, arrived early at the place of meeting, Machinists' Hall, 113 South Ashland Boulevard, Chicago. Trouble immediately began, for the seats being occupied by the Left Wingers, the members of the Right were crowded out.

Germer and Gerber of the Right seem to have lost their heads. "The Chicago Herald and Examiner," of August 31, 1919, informs us that Adolph Germer, National Secretary of the Socialist Party and one of the leading members of the Right Wing, called in the police, who cleared the hall. "The Chicago Tribune" of the same day tells us that everybody was exchanging fisticuffs when the police arrived. Detective Sergeant Lawrence McDonough, head of the anarchist squad, with the aid of a dozen uniformed policemen, seems to have saved the day for the Right Wingers. John Reed, of the Left Wing, was furious, and "The Call," New York, August 31, 1919, tells us that he issued a statement which he addressed to the delegates of the Emergency Convention:

"We address you to inform you of occurrences this morning which every Revolutionary Socialist on the floor of this convention will protest against.

"Delegates from Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Nebraska, California and other states entered the convention floor and took their seats in readiness for the opening of the convention.

"At nearly 10 o'clock Gerber of New York and Goebel of New Jersey, who were at the door and attempted to refuse the above named delegates admission, called the police and these delegations were ejected from the hall by police power, many of them being roughly handled."

Press reports inform us that after the belligerents had calmed down the meeting was again convened, and that Victor Berger, in referring to the Lefts, said: "They're just a lot of anarchists; we are the party." Berger did not say whether or not by the word "we" he meant the old National Executive Committee, which should have gone out of office in July,G but seemed to have given itself a "mandate" to run the National Emergency Convention.

On August 31, 1919, the hot-heads and sore-heads again assembled, and a dispute arose as to who called the "cops." As a result the Left Wingers next met by themselves downstairs, on the first floor of the hall, while the Right Wingers remained higher up on the second floor. On the same day the Minnesota group was seated by the Convention, but was denied a vote.

On September 1st the high climbers of the Right Wing purged the party still more by unseating the Washington State delegation and expelled Katterfield "for the good of the party." The California delegates then threw a bomb into the Right Wing Convention by announcing that they would not take their seats until all of the contested delegations were seated and the police were withdrawn from the hall. These delegates finally went down to the first floor and joined ranks with the Left Wingers there, this section henceforth being known as the Communist Labor Party.

On the same day the Convention of the Communist Party assembled at Smolny Institute, 1221 Blue Island Avenue, Chicago. Red flags were displayed and Bolshevist songs were sung until the police of the anarchist squad finally demanded the removal of the blood-colored standards of revolt.

"The Call" informs us that on the next day, September 2nd, the Communist Party, composed of the Michigan crowd, the Russian Federation and the former Left Wing National Council, nearly split in two when, at a concerted signal, there resigned from the emergency committee of the convention, Louis C. Fraina, C. E. Ruthenberg, I. E. Ferguson, Maximilian Cohen, S. Elbaum and A. Selakowich, and, from other offices, A. Paul of Queens and Fannie Horowitz. It seems that these members were anxious to have the Communist Party amalgamate with the Communist Labor Party, but that the foreign federations, fearing that they would be outnumbered by the English-speaking members, were very much opposed to the union.

On this same day Dennis Batt, one of the principal leaders of the Communist Party, was jailed.

Moreover, on the 2nd of September the Communist Labor Party--the group that had first met with the Right Wing, and, later on, down stairs on the first floor of the hall on South Ashland Boulevard--assembled at the I. W. W. Hall at 119 Throop street. This party, heart and soul, is in favor of the propagation of Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism in the United States, and if not completely broken up by the Government, seems destined to become more numerous than either the rapidly disintegrating Socialist Party or the Communist Party, which is principally made up of foreigners who speak the various Russian languages. The principal leaders of the Communist Labor Party are John Reed, William Bross Lloyd, formerly known as the millionaire Socialist, and Benjamin Gitlow.H It seemed likely, too, that Fraina, Ferguson, Ruthenberg and Cohen, prominent "Reds," who resigned from the emergency committee of the Communist Party, would soon be found among the leaders of the Communist Labor Party. At the time of the convention no national organ of the Communist Labor Party had yet begun publication, but "The Voice of Labor," edited by Reed and Gitlow, and "Truth," formerly the Socialist paper of Duluth, were local organs.

Both the Communist Party and the Communist Labor Party are strongly Bolshevist. The Communist Labor Party is decidedly more in favor of the I. W. W. than the Communist Party; but the main differences between these two parties seems to be a matter of race, language, and especially of personal jealousy and dislike among the leaders.

For years the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party have remained separated from each other, so that now, with the two new parties, the Communist Party and the Communist Labor Party, there are four parties of rebels, all plotting a revolution against our National Government, while the great body of the American people sleep and dream.

Quite a number of educated people in the United States, including the editors of some of our leading dailies, seem to think that the remnant of the Socialist Party is not at all a Bolshevist organization and not at all revolutionary in character. They are very much deceived, having let the crafty, deceptive, hypocritical leaders of the Right Wing fool them badly. The Left Wingers have indeed been much more open in admitting their intentions to overthrow our government by force of arms. They are dangerous, but perhaps not nearly so much so as the slippery "Yellows," cunning weasels of the imported Russian Hillquit type, who, though they do not talk as openly as the "Reds," are spreading their subversive principles on every side, and especially among the less educated classes of our people, into whose minds they instil the spirit of hatred between employers and employees, while at the same time encouraging strikes, wherever they can, with the hope of overthrowing our Government when conditions become sufficiently critical. Both parties of the Socialists and both parties of the Communists, along with the I. W. W., are all revolutionary in the strictest sense, and the sooner the American people wake up to the fact and take some intelligent action to stamp them out, the better it will be. It is not yet too late, but soon may be.

The Bolshevist Socialists of Russia and the two new parties of Socialists that at Chicago in September, 1919, seceded from the mother party, have all adopted the name, "Communist," which "The Call," New York, July 24, 1919, informs us was used by Marx and Engels, the founders of modern Socialism, adding that though the name is somewhat confusing, inasmuch as the word has another and a distinct meaning in English, still, "wherever it is used it means revolutionary Socialists as distinguished from Social patriots and mere parliamentary Socialists." Is this definition an alibi for Hillquit and Berger?

Many persons have hastily assumed that the main reason why the Left and Right Wings of the Socialists fought each other like cats and dogs was that the Right Wing members of the party are opposed to Bolshevism. This is nonsense. The Socialist papers of the country, Right and Left, with the possible exception of the once powerful "Appeal to Reason," which in recent years has fallen into great discredit among Socialists because it favored our entrance into the World War--have been and still are advocating Bolshevism every day. If anyone has any doubt, let him read any of the rebel sheets.

The Socialist Party of St. Louis, in its appeal for party unity, published in "The Call," July 19, 1919, informs us that the Socialist Party is whole-heartedly with the Russian Bolshevists and their cause:

"Promptly, and notwithstanding all obstacles and persecution, the Socialist party hurried to the front in defense of the cause of our Russian Comrades. Mass meetings were held, demonstrations in behalf of Soviet Russia were arranged, our Socialist press gave all possible support to counteract the sinister work of the American capitalist press."

Eugene V. Debs, many times the presidential candidate of the Socialists and the idol of "Reds" and "Yellows" alike, has all along been an ardent Bolshevist. Listen to these words of his in his article, "The Day of the People," published in many Socialist papers in the early part of 1919, and taken by us from the March number of "Party News," the official organ of the Socialist Party of Philadelphia:

"In Russia and Germany our valiant Comrades are leading the proletarian revolution, which knows no race, no color, no sex and no boundary lines. They are setting the heroic example for world-wide emulation. Let us, like them, scorn and repudiate the cowardly compromisers within our ranks, challenge and defy the robber-class power, and fight it out on that line to victory or death!

"From the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am Bolshevik, and am proud of it."

The report of the Right Wing majority of the old National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, made to the National Emergency Convention, and here quoted from "The Call," September 3, 1919, contains the following defense of their Bolshevism, against the aspersions of the Left Wing leaders who had challenged the committee's attitude toward Russia:

"Ever since the revolution in Russia, the party has hailed it as the first great gift of the International. At every meeting of the National Executive Committee held since the second revolution in Russia [the revolution which put Lenine and Trotzky in power] the committee has issued some ringing declaration in favor of the workers' and peasants' government in Russia....

"Rarely has a meeting been held under party auspices that our speakers have not taken advantage of it to present the claims and achievements of the Russian revolution. The party's position may be easily ascertained by consulting the party bulletins and the party press."

The Executive Committeemen who signed this defense of the committee's Bolshevist complexion were Victor L. Berger, Seymour Stedman, James Oneal, A. Shiplacoff, Dan Hogan, John M. Work, Frederick Krafft and George H. Goebel. These, with Morris Hillquit, were the men who had violently expelled or suspended tens of thousands of members of the party without warrant of the party Constitution and without granting a trial or the right of self-defense to those thus dealt with; who had maintained themselves in office after July 1, 1919, in express violation of the party Constitution, having suppressed announcement of the result of the referendum vote by the rank and file to elect executive committeemen, by which vote Left Wing committeemen had been elected, as the report to the National Emergency Convention of the Right Wing committee appointed to investigate this referendum had to acknowledge; and who, by these devices and a similar high-handedness committed by themselves and friendly delegates had seized control of the National Emergency Convention and organized it in their own interest.

In their report to the convention they further defended themselves against the Left Wing charge that this majority of the Executive Committee had allied itself with the Berne Conference. Under this head the above-mentioned committeemen say:

"While no definite date may be set for the beginning of the present party dissension, it is certain that they began to be generally noticeable in January of this year [1919], when the National Executive Committee elected delegates to the Berne Conference owing to the fact that the delegates elected by referendum could not serve, and the assembling of the Berne Conference in March made necessary the election of delegates by the National Executive Committee.

"The so-called Left Wing members of the National Executive Committee participated in the election, nominating and voting for candidates. None of their nominees were elected, and shortly after the election an organized attack was made against the international delegates by the Left Wing....

"The National Executive Committee, in session, decided that if our delegates arrived at Berne in time and the conference failed to take the position of the party on war and imperialism, we were to withdraw with any other elements favoring a genuine working-class International. It was agreed that we would not affiliate with any International that excluded the Russian Comrades, who were fighting world imperialism, or the Comrades opposed to the Ebert-Scheidemann regime in Germany.

"Before our delegates could leave the country, the National Executive Committee learned that the Berne Conference had failed to respond to its opportunity.... Learning this, the National Executive Committee decided to send one delegate abroad to impart information to the Comrades in Europe, informing them of our attitude on international questions."I....

"Yet, despite all this, a systematic campaign of falsehood has been waged against the party by a faction within the party. This faction has falsely claimed that the party is allied with the Berne Conference.... They have denounced the party and its officials as an organization of 'Scheidemanns' and 'Noskes,' asserting that if the party were intrusted with public power it would murder our own Comrades with machine guns and hand grenades....

"These slanders have been accompanied with a similar propaganda regarding Russia. The party and its officials, especially the members of the National Executive Committee, have been charged with being 'Kolchaks' and 'counter-revolutionists,' the implication being that the party has been committed to counter-revolution in Russia, allied intervention, and support of Kolchak in Siberia.

"As in the case of Germany, so in the case of Russia, the National Executive Committee and the party in general have opposed intervention in Russia or support of Kolchak and have supported the Russian Comrades at the head of the Soviet power against a campaign of international lying.

"There has never been a single utterance of the National Executive Committee quoted by the Left Wing to support these slanders. The Comrades may rest assured that this faction would quote the National Executive Committee if it could."

It is technically true that the Left Wing writers were not able to quote the Executive Committee as such; but they could and did quote the dominating leaders of the Right Wing majority of the Executive Committee, Hillquit and Berger, through their organs, the "Call" and "Leader"--"The Call" as characterizing the Bolsheviki as "anarchists" and Berger as proclaiming his solidarity with the Mensheviki--and we have nowhere seen any evidence that these leaders could purge the record of these charges. That these leaders were the Executive Committee, to all intents and purposes, seems abundantly shown by their ruthless use of it to smash the party, going so far as to cast out nearly two-thirds of the entire party membership to get rid of their accusers, the Left Wing leaders.

This scandal and disaster to a cause they pretended to serve are logical outcomes of a double hypocrisy--an effort to fool the voting public and our Government officials by a pretense of moderation in papers and electioneering speeches, while at the same time fooling the dues-paying rank and file of their party with expressions of loyalty to radicalism.

The significant facts in estimating the revolutionary character of the American Socialist Party, as recruited and indoctrinated by its double-faced leaders are two: the fact that as lately as September, 1919, some 70,000 of their pupils graduated into the open course of revolutionary violence adopted by the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party, and the fact that the more manageable 40,000 remaining with these leaders were so much like their seceding Comrades that their leaders were compelled to defend their own radicalism in the fashion above shown, and were also compelled, as we shall soon see, to take an open stand for revolution and I. W. W.'ism in order to keep even the remnant of the party from deserting them.

Thus a serious mistake has been made by the many who fancy that the "Yellow" Socialists--Hillquit's Right Wing which still constitutes the Socialist Party of America--are not plotters who work for a revolution to overthrow our Government. Of course they are, and any one who has read the Socialist papers and publications, even to a very limited degree, may easily see that these alleged "moderates" appear such only in contrast with the more rabid "Red" rebels of the Left; and that the one object of Right and Left alike is to stir up discontent and foment hatred of class against class precisely in order that a rebellion may some day break out.

True it is that the crafty leaders of the Right do not act as imprudently as the hot-headed leaders of the Left, for they fear lest rashness should precipitate them in a premature and unsuccessful outbreak; yet they are sowing the seed of revolution as certainly as are the Communists, and perhaps with much more success, because they proceed more prudently. Once in a while, when they are off their guard, the "cat escapes from the bag." As an example we quote from an article that appeared in the May Day, 1919, issue of "The Call," the paper founded and controlled by Hillquit, the foxy leader of the Rights:

"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future, has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the masses and the shining example of the martyrs. Its spread is irrepressible. The bridges are burnt behind the old capitalist society and its path is forever cut off. Capitalist society is bankrupt, and the only salvation of humanity lies in the uprising of the masses, in the victory of the Socialist revolution, in the revolutionary forces of Socialism.

"The World War, which is now about to be officially closed, has slid into a condition neither war nor peace. However the war of nations has been followed by the war of the classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the great cities for life or death."

Yet the Right Wing papers, on the whole, are much more reserved than those of the Left. As an example of the openness with which the Left Wing or Communist papers instigate rebellion, a quotation from "The Communist," Chicago, April 1, 1919, will interest the reader:

"The Communist Propaganda League of Chicago came into existence on November 7, 1918, first anniversary of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the very day of the German Revolution.

"A group of Socialist Party officials and active party members came together for consultation as to ways and means for giving the American Socialist movement a revolutionary character in harmony with all the significance of November 7th, the most glorious date in all history. At the hour of that little meeting bedlam reigned in the streets of Chicago by premature celebration of peace. The calling of this meeting during the mass tumult of November 7th is prophetic of the revolutionary vision which brought these Comrades together. On that day the seething proletariat ruled Chicago by sheer force of numbers. One thing alone was needed to give this mass expression identity with the proletarian uprisings of Europe--one thing: the revolutionary idea!

"The Communist Propaganda League is an organization for the propagation of the revolutionary idea. The civilization of tomorrow is with unorganized masses who greeted the news of peace and revolution in Germany with what may be safely described as the greatest spontaneous expression of mass sentiment ever witnessed in America. To give direction and inspiration to the advancing and irresistible army of the preletariat is the mission to which this League is dedicated."

This League, with the millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, at its head, became part of the Communist Labor Party.

The indications are that the Communist Labor Party, had it been left undisturbed by our Government, would soon have surpassed in numbers the remnant left in the old Socialist Party, whose dues-paying membership dwindled from 109,589 in January, 1919, to 39,750 by July of the same year. Evidently, when the Left Wing secession occurred, a few real rebels came out of the Socialist Party, which used to boast in election campaigns that it was merely a party of evolution, not of revolution. Those who still remain in the old party are rebels, too, but the rank and file is restrained by seasoned leaders, who are more prudent but less honest than the hot-headed Communists.

The Socialists now have in the country four revolutionary organizations: the Socialist Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the Communist Party and the Communist Labor Party. The scum of the land, the wrecks and wreckers of civilization, deluded ignoramuses, thus find ample opportunity for selecting an organization of rebellion in which there is "no political corruption." The members of these parties find fault with everything under the Stars and Stripes, and yet hesitate to pass over to Russia and live under the bloody standard of Lenine and Trotzky. If these four rebel parties do not suffice for some of the rebels, there still remains the I. W. W. All are pretty much the same, their principal differences being the varying degrees of hypocrisy, boldness and lust for power of their leaders.

The open and pronounced revolutionary character of the I. W. W., Communist Party and Communist Labor Party, evidenced in their inflammatory utterances and tactics, had established their criminal status with our National and State police and legal departments, while startling wholesale arrests, deportations and indictments of these three classes of law-breakers soon impressed a recognition of their criminal status upon the public mind. It is important to establish the further fact, if it be one, that the only difference between the rank and file of these organizations and the rank and file of the remnant still attached to the Socialist Party of America is the difference between tweedledee and tweedledum.

The late inquiry into the qualifications of five suspended Socialists to sit as law-makers in the New York Assembly created an astonishing furore, disclosing amazing ignorance concerning American Socialism among our most intelligent citizens. The confusion of the public mind was still further increased by the Attorney-General of the United States, whose convincing characterization of the two Communist parties, given out on January 23, 1920, contained the following sentence:

"Certainly such an organization as the Communist Party of America and also the Communist Labor Party cannot be construed to fall within the same category as the Socialist Party of America, which latter organization is pledged to the accomplishment of changes of the Government by lawful and rightful means."

But can the facts so far brought out in this book "be construed" as indicating any substantial difference between the 39,000 or 40,000 Socialists who have kept their old party name and the 70,000 or 72,000 who separated from them in September, 1919? Up to the moment of separation were not all alike under the same "pledge" to use "lawful and rightful means?" But if this public profession of lawfulness meant nothing to 70,000 of them, why think it means more to the rest?

We have the further striking evidence, shown above, that the leaders who had compromised their attitude toward Bolshevism felt compelled, in order to hold any of the rank and file, to argue that "the National Executive Committee and the party in general" had "supported the Russian Comrades at the head of the Soviet power." Yet in spite of this defense the old National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party was rebuked and kicked out of office during the Emergency Convention, even by delegates who were friendly to the compromised leaders. The "Call," September 5, 1919, gives some of the details:

"The rebuke of the National Executive Committee was in the form of an amendment to the original motion to adopt its report. The amendment carried by 63 to 39....

"Perhaps Frederick Haller expressed the general sentiment of the convention when he said:

"'We must endorse this supplemental report of the National Executive Committee, but we must go back to our constituents and tell them that we gave the National Executive Committee hell.'"

These "constituents," the rank and file, determine the character of the party, and not the thimble-rigging games of their political leaders, who support themselves and have "made a good thing" out of Socialism by carrying water on one shoulder for gullible voters, and on the other for their credulous disciples. This is not the first time that self-serving, hypocritical teachers, in compassing sea and land to make proselytes, have made them twofold more the children of hell than themselves.

The National Emergency Convention of 1919 affords still other evidence of the mind of the rank and file of the Socialist Party in the report of the committee which investigated the referendum vote of 1919 which the old National Executive Committee had suppressed. The "Call," September 1, 1919, says:

"The report states that on the face of the returns, referendum B and D were carried by large majorities, and a National Executive Committee, consisting of Louis Fraina of New York, Charles E. Ruthenberg of Cleveland, Seymour Stedman of Chicago, Patrick S. Nagle of Oklahoma and L. E. Katterfeld of Cleveland was elected. The returns also showed on their face that John Reed and Louis Fraina had been elected as the party's international delegates and Kate Richards O'Hare its international secretary."

Thus the party was "Red" or Left-Wingish "by large majorities," and was distinctly Bolshevist, as we learn from the "Call's" explanation of "referendum B and D," which "were carried by large majorities."

"Referendum B put the question of holding a National Emergency Convention up to the membership. Referendum D asked the membership to decide whether the party should record itself as being opposed to entering any other international Socialist alignment than that of the Third National [International?] which held its first conference at Moscow early in March.

"Its adoption means that the Socialist party will not take part in any international conference from which the Bolsheviki of Russia and the Spartacans of Germany are excluded, or in which they refuse to participate."

Thus at the Emergency Convention of August-September, 1919, the Socialist Party of America was tied to the will of the Russian Bolshevists and the German Spartacides, who held the powers of approval and veto in deciding what internationals the members of the Socialist Party of America might associate with! A more anomalous product of the double-faced generalship of Berger and Hillquit it would be hard to imagine.

But this is not all. The Moscow Manifesto of March, 1919, was before the Emergency Convention. This Russian Communistic Manifesto is addressed "To the proletariat of all countries" (see Chapter IV) and reads: "We Communists, representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the different countries of Europe, America and Asia, assembled in Soviet Moscow." Would the Socialist Party of America accept its inclusion among those in "America" thus designated, or refuse? The committee which considered the matter split, bringing in majority and minority reports. The majority report, favored by Berger, considered the Third International as not yet constituted, thus hanging the Socialist Party of America in the air, without fellowship with Moscow, Berne or any other thing--a trapeze performance truly Bergeresque. The minority report, voted for even by a third of the machine delegates in the Emergency Convention, favored affiliation with the associates of the Moscow Conference as constituting the Third International. It was decided to submit both reports to a referendum vote of the party, which should have been taken in January or February, 1920, if the requirements of the party Constitution were followed.

The concern of the Socialist Party managers to keep the facts from the general public, evidenced by their tactics in the case of the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen at Albany, might have led to another unconstitutional delay or manipulation of a referendum. But this was immaterial in determining the mind of the rank and file, as we have documentary evidence showing that the only opposition within the party to a clear-cut Bolshevik committal sprang out of fear either of legal prosecution or of the loss of votes through public condemnation. The following illuminating discussion is extracted from a letter of Alexander Trachtenberg, a conspicuous Socialist, as printed in the "Call" of November 26, 1919:

"The members of the Socialist Party now have before them two referenda--Referendum E, consisting of the various changes in the party Constitution which were decided upon at the Chicago Convention, and Referendum F, on international Socialist relations....

"The question of international affiliation is at this moment probably the most important before the Socialist Party. The two reports which emanated from the convention, known as the majority and minority reports, will no doubt receive very careful consideration by the members....

"A close examination of the two reports reveals that the condition laid down for the International, with which the Socialist party cares to affiliate itself, are the same. Both reports agree that:

"a. The Second International is dead.

"b. The Berne International Conference hopelessly failed in its indeavor to reconstitute the International.

"c. The New International must consist only of those parties:

"1. Which have remained true to the revolutionary International Socialist movement during the war.

"2. Which refused to co-operate with bourgeois parties and are opposed to all forms of coalition.

"In short, both reports agree that the Socialist Party will go only into such an International the component parties of which conduct their struggle on revolutionary class lines. The difference between the two reports is, that while the majority report leaves the matter of the reconstruction of the International hang in the air, the minority report has something tangible to offer. It also more specifically outlines the Socialist policy on the question of international affiliation, and gives several reasons for joining the Third (Moscow) International....

"The Socialist Party of America cannot afford to remain amorphous at the present stage of the building of the new International. It has refused to go with those elements who have either betrayed or were unwilling to remain true to their professions. It belongs among those parties which have remained true to International Socialism and who alone have the right to build the edifice of the new International.

"By voting for the minority report the Comrades will give expression to what they have professed and believed in during the past critical years in the life of the international Socialist movement."

A letter on the same subject, by Benjamin Glassberg, appears in the "Call" of December 4, 1919, from which we take extracts showing the Bergeresque argument of Hoan, Berger's mayor of Milwaukee:

"The most important question before the members of the Socialist Party just now is the referendum on the majority and minority reports on international relations. Comrade Trachtenberg has argued in the columns of 'The Call' in favor of the minority report, and Hoan of Milwaukee for the majority, and Comrade Warshow has argued against both.

"A careful examination of the position taken by both Hoan and Warshow fails to reveal why the minority report should be voted down. Comrade Hoan is naturally very much concerned at the possibility that 'in the coming political battles the capitalistic henchmen will flaunt in your face that the above is the program of the Socialist Party' (referring to the statement in the governing rules of the Communist International that the revolutionary era compels the proletariat to make use of mass action).

"The important thing, according to Hoan, is not whether the minority report is right or not, but rather what will the effect be at the next election. In this respect he is typical of the pure and simple political Socialist....

"In one breath Comrade Warshow calls for a new International to which shall be admitted all Socialist parties of the world who believe in the class struggle, and in the next he defends the Socialists supporting a coalition government. How can one subscribe to the doctrine of the class struggle and at the same time approve of Socialists joining in a coalition government, which of necessity will not be the agent of the workers but of the class with which the workers are at all times at war?....

"In all our official declarations, including the Chicago manifesto, we have voiced our support of the Bolsheviki. In our meetings and in our literature we have taken our stand solidly with our Russian Comrades, our friends, the Left Wingers to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Why, then, hesitate to affiliate with them?"

Thus, whether or not Berger's policy of dissimulation prevailed--and his wholesale slaughter of dues-payers with the ax of the Executive Committee had shown all who opposed him what they might expect--it remained true that identification with the Bolshevist principles and tactics of Lenine and Trotzky was what the present members of the Socialist Party in America "have professed and believed in during the past critical years" and was in accord with "all" their "official declarations," their "meetings" and their "literature."

The base ingratitude of Berger toward those who have followed and supported him; the gross, incredible savagery of his egotism in turning to rend those he had discipled into revolutionaries the moment their allegiance to the principles he taught them stood in the way of his cowardice and ambition; his butcher insensibilities in making his party's Constitution a "scrap of paper" and the party a shambles for the hewing down of two-thirds of his "Comrades;" his burlesque effrontery in posing in the convention as a law-and-order man, railing at his own victims as "anarchists"--these daubs of color paint the cubist portrait of Wisconsin's mock hero, one of the meanest caricatures of human life that ever swaggered on a political arena.

When the two Wings of the Convention raised the question, "Who called the cops?" Berger's pale and innocent figure rose with the trembling remark: "If they had not been here yesterday morning we would not be here now. The two-fisted Reed and the other two-fisted Left Wingers would be here." He took pains to have the delicate pathos of his martyrdom sketched into the Executive Committee report he signed, "Victor L. Berger, in addition to a sentence of 20 years, has four more indictments pending against him, besides being refused his seat in Congress. All the Socialist candidates for Congress in Wisconsin and the State Secretary also are under indictment. No mail whatever is permitted to be delivered to the 'Leader,' the party daily in Milwaukee," etc. On the other hand, against the terrible "anarchs" who had so outraged his own gentle spirit and sense of order, he even fulminated outside the Convention Hall, as in the interview which we take from the "Call" of September 4, 1919:

"Ever since the Socialist movement has existed there have been two very distinct tendencies apparent--the Social Democratic tendency and the Anarcho-Syndicalist tendency....

"But the revolution in Russia and Hungary, which had been predicted by us, as well as in Germany, has had a peculiar psychological effect on many of the rank and file of the party, especially upon those who had come from Russia and Hungary. They really believe this revolt can be repeated today in America.

"The revolution in Russia and the psychological effect of it penetrated into the foreign federations affiliated with the Socialist party of America and gave the Anarcho-Syndicalists, who have joined us in great numbers in the last six months, a chance to split up the Socialist party of America into three groups.

"First, the old Socialist Party, which will remain longer to aid the old ideals of Social Democracy, even though there may be a change in tactics required by changed conditions.

"Then there are the Communist Socialists, led by John Reed and a few hysterical men and women, who try to bring about a Russian revolution or God knows what other things, they themselves don't know tomorrow morning.

"And, finally, there is the Communist Party, led by Louis Fraina, which consists mainly of Russians, Ukrainians7, Slovenic races and other foreign federation members, who have been suspended for stuffing ballot boxes in the last referendum, and who also want revolution of some kind, the wherewith and howwith they haven't been able to explain so far."

Do we exaggerate the humbuggery of leadership uncloaked in this Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party of America? Let the reader judge from the supreme example of it, the motive of which we present in the words of the organ of one of the chief conspirators, Hillquit's "Call." The issue of August 31, 1919, declared: "The convention will adopt a stand, expressed in a manifesto that is expected to satisfy all those in the Left Wing who are contending for what they believe to be revolutionary principles." In the issue of September 3 we read:

"There will be a restatement of party principles which is expected to cut the ground from under the feet of the former members and organizations of the party who have read themselves out and will remain suspended in mid-air between the newly formed and still more newly revised Communist-Labor Party and the Communist Party."

In the "Call" of September 5, which published the manifesto, we also have this comment on it by James Oneal: "The American movement can congratulate itself on having produced such a splendid document. It will tend to rally members who have been uncertain of the outcome of the convention, and will eventually bring to us many who are sick of the hypocrisies, the shams and the illusions that have held them in chains for nearly three tragic years."

What hypocrisies, shams and illusions are referred to? Who were their authors? In another column of the same issue we are told: "With every delegate on his feet and cheering, the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party unanimously adopted its manifesto this afternoon. [September 4th.] It was the big moment of the convention. The document is regarded as the most revolutionary the party has ever drawn up, and one certain to bring back into the organization thousands of members temporarily outside of it, either because their local organizations were expelled or by reason of what Lenine has called 'the intoxication of the revolutionary phrase.'"

Thus this manifesto was adopted by the wreckers of the Socialist Party to hold the "revolutionary" rank and file still left them and to draw back the revolutionary seceders--minus their leaders, of course. Nevertheless the manifesto is truly revolutionary--"most revolutionary"--the revolutionary creed of a revolutionary organization. It is, of course, carefully worded, so as to deceive if possible that public whose intelligence the cynical Socialists despise at the same time that they appeal to it for votes, and this careful wording we can understand from a comment in the "Call" of September 5, 1919: "Before reading the manifesto, Block told the convention the manifesto was largely based upon one suggested by Morris Hillquit, now ill at Saranac Lake, N. Y."J

Seen through its mask of verbiage, however, the manifesto of the Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party of America joins with the famous Preamble of the I. W. W. and the manifestoes and programs of the Communist and Communist Labor Parties in advocating the plundering of mankind by proletarians, the elimination of the private ownership of natural wealth and the machinery of production, and the wresting of "the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of their present ownership and control so as "to place industry and government in the control of the workers."

This revolutionary document incites "American labor" to "break away" from its present leadership, called "reactionary and futile," and "to join in the great emancipating movement of the more advanced revolutionary workers of the world"--the I. W. W.'s and Bolshevists. It is "the supreme task" of "the Socialist party of America," its "great task," to which its members "pledge all" their "energies and resources," to "win the American workers" from their "ineffective" leadership, "to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class interests, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation," namely, "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States from the capitalists and their retainers" and "place industry and government in the control of the workers."

Furthermore, "to insure the triumph of Socialism in the United States the bulk of American workers must be strongly organized politically as Socialists, in constant, clear-cut and aggressive opposition to all parties of the possessing class" and "must be strongly organized in the economic field on broad industrial lines, as one powerful and harmonious class organization, co-operating with the Socialist Party, and ready in cases of emergency to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action." (See, a few pages further on, the manifesto itself, from which we have quoted in the three last paragraphs.)

Is this the thing which Berger and Hillquit have let loose--after blocking a much less compromising resolution of long-distance affiliation with Moscow? Does Berger think the people of Wisconsin such blockheads that they will shy at a word like Bolshevism, but are unable to understand the plain, bold English of a conspiracy to bring about industrial organization "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of the hands of the American people and into the hands of a special class? Indeed, if the "workers" take everything, what will become of the drones--the Socialist political hacks?

While we reserve the details for Chapter XVI, we add here in passing that on February 10, 1920, it was acknowledged in testimony at the trial of the five Assemblymen at Albany that affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International had been carried by referendum vote in the Socialist Party of America with a large majority.

Before giving the reader the text of that part of the Emergency Convention manifesto which we have been discussing we must call attention to another piece of evidence--Morris Hillquit's letter in his paper, the "New York Call," shortly after the Emergency Convention, in which he says:

"The split in the ranks of American Socialism raises the question: What shall be the attitude of the Socialist Party toward the newly formed Communist organization?" His letter answering this important question was read out of the "Call" into the record of the New York Assembly's inquiry into the qualifications of the five suspended Socialists to act as law-makers and will be found in the "New York Herald" of January 29, 1920, from which we take it:

"Any attempted solution of the problem must take into account the following fundamental facts:

"First--The division was not created arbitrarily and deliberately by the recent convention in Chicago. It had become an accomplished fact months ago, and the Chicago gatherings did nothing more than recognize the fact.

"Second--The division was not brought about by differences on vital questions of principles. It arose over disputes on methods and policy.

"Third--The separation of the Socialist Party into three organizations need not necessarily mean a weakening of the Socialists. They are wrong in their estimate of American conditions, their theoretical conclusions and practical methods, but they have not deserted to the enemy. The bulk of their following is still good Socialist material. When the hour of the real Socialist fight strikes in this country we may find them again in our ranks.

"Our quarrel is a family quarrel, and has no room in the columns of the capitalistic papers, where it can only give joy and comfort to the common enemy. The unpardonable offense of the Simons-Russell-Spargo crowd [which withdrew from the Socialist Party of America on account of its unpatriotic and un-American opposition to the people and Government of the United States at war, as expressed in the Socialist Party's St. Louis Convention utterances in April, 1917] was not so much their social-patriotic stand during the war as the fact that they rushed into the anti-Socialist press maliciously denouncing their former comrades as pro-German and deliberately added fuel to the sinister flame of mob violence and government persecution directed against the Socialist movement.

"We have had our split. It was unfortunate but unavoidable, and now we are through with it. Legitimate constructive work of the Socialist movement is before us. Let us give it all of our time, energies and resources. Let us center our whole fight upon capitalism, and let us hope our Communist brethren will go and do likewise."

Thus all three organizations, Socialist Party of America, Communist Party of America and Communist Labor Party, have merely had "a family quarrel" and are still one kin, one blood, one "family," without "fundamental" "differences on vital questions of principles," so that the Socialist Partyites and their "Communist brethren" can go on doing "likewise" against our present Government and institutions until, "when the hour of the real Socialist fight"--the Great Rebellion--"strikes in this country" the members of the Socialist Party "may find" the members of the two Communist parties "again in" their "ranks." Thus by Hillquit, at least, all three parties can only "be construed" to be in one and the same "category."

We end this chapter by reproducing from the "New York Call" of September 5, 1919, a considerable part of the Socialist Party's Emergency Convention manifesto. This offspring of Hillquit's brain declares "solidarity with the revolutionary workers of Russia" and "radical" Spartacides of Germany and Communists of Austria and Hungary. Let the reader carefully weigh this document's meanings, comparing them with the call for and manifesto of the Moscow Conference, the definition of "industrial unionism" and "mass action" in the Left Wingers' writings, the Communist and Communist Labor manifestoes and programs, and the principles and tactics of I. W. W.'ism as set forth elsewhere in this volume, and then ask himself if the latest official utterance of the Socialist Party of America can in any way "be construed" as placing that party in any "category" which does not also contain the Communist organizations and the I. W. W. The salient parts of the manifesto follow:

"The capitalist class is now making its last stand in its history. It was intrusted with the government of the world. It is responsible for the prevailing chaos. The events of recent years have conclusively demonstrated that capitalism is bankrupt, and has become a dangerous impediment to progress and human welfare. The working class alone has the power to redeem and to save the world....

"It now becomes more than ever the immediate task of international Socialism to accelerate and organize the inevitable transfer of political and industrial power from the capitalist class to the workers. The workers must recognize the economic structure of human society by eliminating the institution of the private ownership of natural wealth and of the machinery of industry, the essence of the war-breeding system of international commercial rivalry. The workers of the world must recognize the economic structure of human society by making the natural wealth and the machinery of industry the collective property of all....

"The workers of Great Britain, France and Italy, the workers of the newly created nations, and the workers of the countries which remained neutral during the war, are all in a state of unprecedented unrest. In different ways and by different methods, either blindly impelled by the inexorable conditions which confront them, or clearly recognizing their revolutionary aims, they are abandoning their temporising programs of pre-war labor reform. They are determined to control the industries, which means control of the governments.

"In the United States capitalism has emerged from the war more reactionary and aggressive, more insolent and oppressive than it has ever been....

"But even in the United States the symptoms of a rebellious spirit in the ranks of the working masses are rapidly multiplying. Widespread and extensive strikes for better labor conditions, the demand of the 2,000,000 railway workers to control their industry, sporadic formation of labor parties, apparently, though not fundamentally, in opposition to the political parties of the possessing class, are promising indications of a definite tendency on the part of American labor to break away from its reactionary and futile leadership and to join in the great emancipating movement of the more advanced revolutionary workers of the world.

"Recognizing this crucial situation at home and abroad, the Socialist Party in the United States at its first national convention after the war, squarely takes its position with the uncompromising section of the international Socialist movement. We unreservedly reject the policy of those Socialists who supported their belligerent capitalist governments on the plea of 'national defense,' and who entered into demoralizing compacts for so-called civil peace with the exploiters of labor during the war and continued a political alliance with them after the war.

"We, the organized Socialists of America, declare our solidarity with the revolutionary workers of Russia in the support of the government of their Soviets, with the radical Socialists of Germany, Austria and Hungary in their efforts to establish working class rule in their countries, and with those Socialist organizations in England, France, Italy and other countries, who, during the war as after the war, have remained true to the principles of uncompromising international Socialism....

"The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States from the capitalists and their retainers. It is our purpose to place industry and government in the control of the workers with hand and brain, to be administered for the benefit of the whole community.

"To insure the triumph of Socialism in the United States the bulk of the American workers must be strongly organized politically as Socialists, in constant, clear-cut and aggressive opposition to all parties of the possessing class. They must be strongly organized in the economic field on broad industrial lines, as one powerful and harmonious class organization, cooperating with the Socialist Party, and ready in cases of emergency to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action.

"To win the American workers from their ineffective and demoralizing leadership, to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class interests, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation, that is the supreme task confronting the Socialist Party of America.

"To this great task, without deviation or compromise, we pledge all our energies and resources. For its accomplishment we call for the support and co-operation of the workers of America and of all other persons desirous of ending the insane rule of capitalism before it has had the opportunity to precipitate humanity into another cataclysm of blood and ruin.

"Long live the International Socialist Revolution, the only hope of the suffering world!"



Morris Hillquit, a ring-leader among Socialists of the United States, writing in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487, informs us that the term Socialism is used indiscriminately to designate a certain philosophy, a scheme of social organization and an active political movement.

Socialism, used to designate a certain philosophy, may better be distinguished by being called Socialism in theory. Socialism as an applied scheme of social organization may be termed Socialism in practice, and means nothing other than a form of government according to the principles of Socialist philosophy. Socialism, as an active political movement, means the Socialist Party. Thus, when we say that Socialism won several times in Milwaukee, we do not mean that the system of Socialist philosophy was voted upon and accepted by the majority, for most of the voters knew practically nothing about the philosophy of Socialism; nor do we mean that the form of government in accordance with the principles of Socialist philosophy was adopted at the polls, for, as a matter of fact, we know that the government of Milwaukee has never been in accordance with the Marxian principles; but we mean this, and only this, that the active political movement of the Socialists, in other words, the Socialist Party, elected its candidates. No doubt the victorious candidates would have ruled Milwaukee according to the philosophy of Socialism, applying the Marxian principles to their government, if they could have done so, but the Constitution of the United States as well as that of the State of Wisconsin would have stood in the way, as will be seen when Socialism is explained more in detail.

The first form of Socialism to be explained in detail is Socialism in theory. There seem to be about 57 hundred times 57 hundred varieties of Socialists, owing to the conflicting views that members of the party hold on different subjects which they wish to include in Socialism, and also because of their different interpretations of the fundamental principle of Socialism. There is, however, one underlying principle that seems to be held quite generally by Marxians the world over. No matter what other radical measures individual Socialists may favor or wish to see included in the Socialist philosophy, and no matter how many different interpretations are given to the principle of Socialism, the basic principle that stands out above all others and is accepted generally by Socialists the world over may be said to be the demand for a government, democratic in form, under which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation and communication.

The Industrial Workers of the World form one of the few classes of Socialists who object to the generally accepted fundamental principle just mentioned. "The One Big Union Monthly," March, 1919, prefers to drop the words "democratic form of government," because the I. W. W.'s are not sure that ownership by the people as a whole would succeed better under a democratic form of government than under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

"The Labour Leader," the organ of the Socialist Independent Labor Party, Manchester, England, February 6, 1919, declares that Socialism is "the complete ownership and control of the means of life by the people, and the development of industry and the distribution of its fruits under a genuine and absolute democracy." In explaining Socialism, it says that "it means that the land shall become the property of the people, not of private individuals. It means that the great industries shall become the property of the people. It means that the railways and the canals shall become the property of the people. It means that the shipping shall become the property of the people. In short it means that everything essential to the life of all shall become the property of all, and shall be administered not for the profit of the few, but for the use of all. And it demands intelligent control of public affairs by the people, women as well as men."

Practically the same ideas are expressed in other words by Jaurés in "Studies in Socialism," page 32 of 1906 edition, translated by Minturn. This great leader of the French Socialists, who was assassinated at the beginning of the World War, and in whose honor there was a tremendous demonstration in Paris on April 6, 1919, prophesied that "the time is not far off when no one will be able to speak to the public about the preservation of private property without covering himself with ridicule and putting himself voluntarily into an inferior rank. That which reigns to-day under the name of private property is really class property, and those who wish for the establishment of democracy in the economic as well as the political world should give their best effort to the abolition and not to the maintenance of this class property."

In "The Revolutionary Age," Boston, January 11, 1919, page 4, we read:

"What is Socialism? It is the public ownership of all the wealth, the mills, the mines, the factories, the railroads and land. Things that are used in common, must be owned in common, by the people and for the people under democratic management by the people, instead of the present system of private ownership for profits."

According to Morris Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487:

"The Socialist program advocates a reorganization of the existing industrial system on the basis of collective or national ownership of the social tools. It demands that the control of the machinery of wealth creation be taken from the individual capitalists and placed in the hands of the nation, to be organized and operated for the benefit of the whole people."

Hillquit, in his various articles, has, of course, like many other Socialists, given his explanation of the detailed method of organization and operation of industries under a Socialist form of government. It reads very nicely and appears attractive, as his statements do till truth's searchlight falls on them, but it does not seem worth while to present his views, for very many of the leading Socialists of the world not only differ with each other as regards the method of organization and operation that they advocate for the Marxian state, but they are also very much at variance with the plan of organization and operation that Hillquit describes.

Eugene V. Debs, in his "Daily Message from Moundsville Prison," published in "The Call," New York, April 21, 1919, tells us what Socialism is:

"The earth for all the people! That is the demand.

"The machinery of production and distribution for all the people! That is the demand.

"The collective ownership and control of industry and its democratic management in the interest of all the people! That is the demand.

"The elimination of rent, interest and profit and the production of wealth to satisfy the wants of all the people! That is the demand.

"Co-operative industry in which we all shall work together in harmony as the basis of a new social order, a higher civilization, a real republic! That is the demand.

"The end of class struggles and class rule, of master and slave, of ignorance and vice, of poverty and shame, of cruelty and crime--the birth of freedom, the dawn of brotherhood, the beginning of MAN! That is the demand.

"This is Socialism!"

In the Preamble to the American Socialist Party Platform, adopted by national referendum, July 24, 1917, we are told:

"The theory of a democratic government is the greatest good to the greatest number. The working class far out-numbers the capitalist class. Here is the natural advantage of the working class. By uniting solidly in a political party of its own, it can capture the government and all its powers and use them in its own interests.

"The Socialist Party aims to abolish this class war with all its evils and to substitute for capitalism a new order of co-operation, wherein the workers shall own and control all the economic factors of life. It calls upon all workers to unite, to strike as they vote and to vote as they strike, all against the master class.

"Only through this combination of our powers can we establish the co-operative commonwealth, wherein the workers shall own their jobs and receive the full social value of their product. The necessities of life will then be produced, not for the profits of the few, but for the comfort and happiness of all who labor. Instead of privately owned industries with masters and slaves, there will be the common ownership of the means of life, and all the opportunities and resources of the world will be equal and free to all."

The fundamental principle of Socialism, namely, a government, democratic in form, in which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation and communication, will be more clearly understood if the several component parts of the basic principle are explained.

A government, democratic in form, would, of course, require the overthrow of all limited monarchies as well as the annihilation of those that are despotic. Even a republican form of government, like that of the United States, is very far from being satisfactory to the Revolutionists, for they demand that the citizens have as direct a voice as possible, first in the election of all public officers, secondly in the framing of the laws, and thirdly in the management of the many industrial departments of the proposed government.

By the citizens' collective owning of the different things enumerated is meant that they would own them just as the citizens of the United States, as a body, to-day own the post-offices, arsenals, navy and public lands. Of course, collective ownership does not imply that, after the state should have taken over the things referred to, each citizen would be entitled to an equal share of them as his own private property, to be used by him according to his desires.

The management of the property of the Socialist state and the remuneration8 for labor would not be in the hands of private individuals acting independently, but would be subject to the will of the majority of the citizens.

By the principal means of production, transportation and communication is meant any instrument of production, transportation or communication that would be used for purposes of exploitation, in other words, for making profit through the employment of hired labor. To illustrate this, several examples will be given. Mines, factories and mills of all kinds, large business houses and stores, together with those farms whose owners would employ hired labor for the production of goods to be sold at profit, would all be looked upon as being among the principal means of production. On the other hand, a sewing-machine used for family needs would not be included in the list.

There are many Socialists who have held that their intended state would allow the private ownership of very small farms, provided that the products were raised without the employment of farm hands. But it seems likely that such a plan of private ownership would not be tolerated under a Socialist government, for, first of all, a very large number of Socialists are opposed to such a plan, and, secondly, the political actionists who have favored it either have sacrificed thereby the principles of their party, or else by advocating the private ownership of small farms, have done so with the intention of deceiving farmers and small land owners in order to win their votes. More will be said about this further on.

Railroads, street car lines, express and steamship service would be among the principal means of transportation; while included in the list of principal means of communication there would be the public telephone and telegraph systems. Automobiles, horses and carriages, if used without the assistance of hired labor, would not be considered as being principal means of transportation. So, too, under similar conditions, a private telephone or telegraph line running to the house of a friend would be excluded from the principal means of communication.

The state would, of course, own all the goods produced in its mines, factories, shops, etc., until they were purchased with money or labor certificates. The people would then retain these goods as their own private property, and would not, according to the leading American Socialists, be compelled to divide them up with their fellow countrymen.

The Socialist plan looks very nice on paper, allures many impoverished workingmen of the present day, appeals strongly to the uneducated, and offers great inducements to the "downs and outs" of society. It is, however, a deadly poison, and this will be proven conclusively in the chapter on "Socialism a Peril to Workingmen." There it will be shown not only that a Socialist state cannot possibly be a success, but that it would be a source of continued civil strife and discord, thoroughly unsatisfactory to workingmen, whom it would overwhelm with all the evils attendant on crime, strife, rebellion and chaos. In the Marxian state the industrial establishments, land, and business enterprises would be confiscated; neither interest, rent nor profit would be tolerated; the wage system would be abolished; no satisfactory plan could be devised for assigning so many millions of workingmen to the different positions, while at the same time satisfying them with remuneration for their daily toil; religions of all kinds would be the object of persecution; free-love would be legalized; and political corruption would be much more widespread than today. These are but several of the factors that would make a successful Socialist state an impossibility.

It may interest the reader to know that Socialists of the highest authority inform us that in the new state women would be called upon to work. The late August Bebel, one of the foremost of German Socialists, says that as soon as society is in possession of all the means of production, "the duty to work, on the part of all able to work, without distinction of sex, becomes the organic law of socialized society." ["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 275 of the 1904 edition in English.] Frederick Engels, in his book, "Origin of the Family," teaches that the emancipation of women is primarily dependent on the reintroduction of the whole female sex into the public industries. ["Origin of the Family," by Engels, page 90 of Untermann's 1907 translation into English.] In "The Call," New York, February 27, 1910, it is stated that "the man who professes himself to be a Socialist, and then says that under Socialism men will provide for women, is wide of the mark."

Keeping clearly before their minds the fundamental principle of Socialism, the people of America must be careful to distinguish between Socialists ruling under our present form of government, and Socialists ruling in a Socialist state. Possible success in the first case would by no means indicate success in the latter. If our citizens are cautious in this respect, the enemies of our country will not dare to boast of the so-called success of Socialism in those places in which the members of their party, elected to public office, may have given a good administration under our constitutional system of government.

Though Socialism, in the strictest sense of the word, is concerned exclusively with economics, still this does not mean that those who profess it do not advocate, as part of their program, many pet projects not appertaining to economics. By a vast majority, the members of the Socialist Party either advocate atheism and opposition to religion, or at least do not oppose those Socialists who do. Most of them, too, in their cravings for what is base and low, are by no means adverse to seeing free-love reign supreme in their contemplated state. The word Socialism is, therefore, frequently used in a broader sense, and is made to include not only the common doctrine advocating the democratic form of government under which the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation and communication, but also those other doctrines that are taught or silently approved by the majority. It is in this broader sense, then, that the opponents of the Marxians justly claim that Socialism is atheistic, anti-religious, and immoral.

We are told by Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 486, that "like all social theories and practical mass movements, Socialism produces certain divergent schools, bastard offshoots clustering around the main trunk of the tree, large in number and variety, but insignificant in size and strength. Thus we hear of State Socialism, Socialism of the Chair, Christian Socialism and even Catholic Socialism."

Persons who call themselves Socialists may be divided into two classes, in the first of which are those who are Socialists merely in name, for they go no further than to vote the party ticket. It is in the second class that we find the real Socialists, men who besides severing all connections with the other political organizations and voting regularly for the Socialist candidates, have taken out membership cards which entitle them to vote on party policies by the payment of several dollars a year into the treasury of the party. Many of the first class are, of course, not guilty of propagating atheism, free-love, and other radical doctrines. In fact, it often happens that they scarcely know that such things are taught by Socialists, for the deceitful Revolutionary orators and writers, having blinded them with vivid pictures of their misfortunes, lead them to believe that the movement is morally upright, and that the contemplated state of the future will bring them every blessing under Heaven.

But unless those who are Socialists merely in name sever their connection with the party of Karl Marx, it will not be long before many of them will lose all sense of honor, decency and morality. Indeed they often sink lower than the base character who composed the "poem" that takes up half a page of "The Call" of May 10, 1914. Though "The Call" seems to consider the "poem" an excellent specimen of literature, or else uses the large type that it does in order to attract the attention of its readers to the sublime virtues of the author, the quotation of but a small part of the production will suffice to bring out its real worth and at the same time show us the benign effects of Socialist teachings:

/P "You who are exalted by pictures but not by people: you who worship a book and a god rather than hearts and men and women: I'd rather have my world and its flesh and its devil than your heaven and its spirit and its god:.... And while I don't blame man for being base or praise man for being noble, I embrace man as my brother for being man: And there you have the whole story, my man intoxication: I am drunk with man: you see how it is: You can have your bibles: I don't need your christs: your creeds would be an insult to me: I have man: I am drunk with man: That's the secret of secrets: that's the confession of confessions: that's the inside of the inside of me: I don't expect you to take it in: drunk with man: no: that's too much like mockery to you: you shudder at it: To you man always comes last: man never comes first: gods, mountains, laws--they come first: man can take his chances: That's the rule of precedence as you have fixed it: that's the up and down and around of your cosmos: But I say no: I who am drunk with man can't give up my faith for your blasphemy: you who are sober with god." P/

The attention of the reader must now be drawn to something of vital importance. There is no doubt that "Knights of the Red Flag" have advocated many excellent social reforms, such as higher wages, shorter working hours and greater safety for laborers, legislation against trusts, and the prevention of child labor and political corruption. Great credit would they deserve if their real object were not to gain votes to secure the establishment of a Socialist form of government. It is probable that before long, voting with true social reformers, they will see the materialization of many of the immediate demands enumerated in their platform. But it is to be remembered that no matter how many beneficial reforms Socialists may help to procure under our present constitutional system, they thus in no way prove the superiority of a Socialistic government, democratic in form, in which the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation, and communication. The reason is that our constitutional government would still be in vogue, and the contradictory fundamental principle of Socialism could not be applied by the ruling Marxians.

Persons who judge the Socialist movement solely by the immediate demands of its political platform, or by social reforms instituted after a political victory, understand very little either about Socialism or the methods and purposes of the Marxians. Yet this was the short-sighted manner in which the press persistently, and for a long time, viewed the tactics of Socialist politicians. Only a revolutionary movement far enough advanced to neglect gradual transformation by means of immediate demands would be able to sweep away by force, at a single stroke, all the old conditions of production, together with our present form of government, and the existing order of society.

The so-called "Immediate Demands" of the Socialists may be termed political campaign Socialism or vote-catching Socialism. They are the sugar coating of the poisonous pill of Socialism itself. Their object is to attract and interest the voter, and at the same time keep his mind off of the fallacies of Socialism proper. They keep him from asking too many unanswerable questions about the detailed method of organization under a Socialist form of government--for instance, how the millions upon millions of government employes would be assigned to positions that would suit them, and at the same time receive satisfactory remuneration for their labors.

These same immediate demands also give the voter a chance to find fault with our present system of government and to criticise it, thereby rendering it less able to withstand successive Socialist assaults. The immediate demands are, of course, meant for the present day and even if they should materialize, under our present system, they could not be continued in a Socialist state, that would be necessarily weak, poverty-stricken, strife-ridden, politically corrupt and chaotic. It is one thing to make demands, quite another thing to be able to grant them. A highway robber can demand a million dollars from the person whom he attacks, but that doesn't make the one assaulted able to surrender the sum; nor would it prove that the robber himself could afford to pay a like amount if he should afterwards be held up for a million.

The immediate demands of the 1918 Congressional Platform of the Socialist Party are entirely too many conveniently to enumerate. They are classed under

/P A--International Reconstruction. Peace Aims. Federation of Peoples. B--Internal Reconstruction. Industrial Control. Railroads and Express Service. Steamships and Steamship Lines. Telegraph and Telephone. Large Power Scale Industry. Democratic Management. Demobilization. The Structure of Government (i.e., of the present system of government). Civil Liberties. Taxation. Credit. Agriculture. Conservation of Natural Resources. Labor Legislation. Prisons. The Negro. P/

The immediate demands are so numerous as to require a booklet of 24 pages, published by the National Office, Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill. It is very hard to find a single reference to Socialism itself in the entire 24 pages of the Congressional Platform.

In a letter of Moses Oppenheimer, published in "The Call," New York, April 14, 1919, we are told that under the opportunist leadership of men like Hillquit, Berger, Ghent, and Robert Hunter the struggle for reforms has gradually overshadowed and supplanted the demand for the abolition of wage slavery. The writer continues:

"More and more it has resulted in petty tactics for vote catching. Berger's Old Age Pension bill was a glaring exhibit of opportunist incapacity.

"Immediate demands are a tactical problem! Comrade Lee knows that the tactics change with changed conditions. There was a time when the opportunists expected to win the votes of the bulk of A. F. of L. workers. Hence the sugar coating of the Socialist pill and three years of Chester M. Wright in control of 'The Call.'

"That is now ancient history. Lee could not repeat that chapter if he would. Nay, I believe he wouldn't if he could.

"The powerful impulse from the movement in Europe makes itself felt over here. There is great need for reforming our front, for recasting our tactics. The old roar of opportunism led us nowhere, except to barren failure. If nothing else the experience with our Ten in Albany and our Seven in the City Hall should open our eyes. The time for picayune politics is irrevocably gone."

In an article published in "The Proletarian," Detroit, April, 1919, page 4, Oakley Johnson thus criticises the Socialist policy of reformism as manifested in the immediate demands of the party platform:

"Socialists have been dazed time and again by the glitter of reformism. In every country the question has been an ever-present one, and, as a result, the rainbows of reform have found many chasers in the ranks of the workers. The matter seemed, up to near the end of the war, to involve more an academic dispute on tactics than a principle of vital importance. There seemed too many good reasons why immediate demands for slight concessions should not be worked for, as a step in the direction of proletarian emancipation.

"When, however, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia showed the stand taken by the reformist groups--a stand in defense of capitalism when capitalism was about to fall--the uncompromisingly revolutionary attitude of Marxian Socialists toward reform in the past was amply justified. And when, in the course of a few months, the reformistic Majority Socialists of Germany took exactly the same stand as the Kerensky crowd had taken, there could no longer be any doubt that the purpose of reform parties in capitalistic society is to function as the last obstacle to the victory of the proletariat....

"The fact is, there is a threefold objection to reformism as a working-class policy. In the first place it is a waste of effort, for the same zeal displayed by short-sighted reform-Socialists would, if applied in the propagation of straight Socialism, treble the strength of the movement in a few months' time. In the second place reformism obscures the real end in view, develops confusionists rather than revolutionists, gives capitalist political parties a chance to steal a few 'Socialist' planks and thus bid for the Socialist vote, and, worst of all, paves the way to such tragedies as are now occurring in Germany, where Liebknecht and Luxemberg have been murdered by their 'reform' comrades(?). And finally, in the third place, even if reform be the sole object in view, reformism is the poorest policy to follow to get it. A proletariat organized for revolutionary ends has no difficulty in securing reforms; it does not need to ask for them, for an awakened and apprehensive bourgeoisie will shower reforms upon them like the proverbial manna. If, indeed, workers want only reforms, why take the longest way around?"

"The New Age," Buffalo, April 10, 1919, page 4, rejoices that the reformists of the Socialist Party, whose policy it is to pay more attention to the immediate demands than to the principles of Socialism, have now a serious rival in the New Labor Party:

"Now that the New Labor Party is established (and in Chicago recently they polled more votes than the Socialists), we wonder what the old machine will do to combat this new octopus that threatens the big vote that used to belong to 'US.' Answer: Teach the working class real Socialism, the Socialism of Marx and Engels."

The millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, of Chicago, has a very interesting article on "Socialist Platforms" in "The Communist," Chicago, April 1, 1919:

"Confession is good for the soul. Let the Socialist Party of the World now stand up and confess that it bears a close resemblance to other political parties in that, like the others, its platforms are mostly bunk.

"The difference between its platforms and others is that the others mean nothing while its platforms mean anything. The difference between Socialists and other politicians is that the Socialists mean what they think their platforms mean while the others mean only to get office.

"This follows from the state of affairs we have had in the world since 1914, when Socialists became so diverse in words and deeds. Most of those on both sides are honest. The trouble is the vagueness of the words of the Socialist propaganda.

"Socialist thought should be so clearly stated in its platforms that no one can doubt its meaning. This will eliminate from the party the reformers and compromisers who are such a source of weakness to the movement. It will also make clear to the workers that the movement really means something.

"Take, for instance, the case of the party's attitude toward war. Socialists are said to be opposed to all wars--then come the exceptions: wars of 'defense,' 'invasion,' 'emancipation,' 'liberation,' and all the meaningless tribe. Confusion results. We have the German Majority Socialists, i.e., so-called Socialists, supporting their government in a war of 'defense' against 'invasion' and of the maintenance of their 'liberties'--God save the mark--against Russian autocracy....

"Without knowing the precise intention of those who drafted the St. Louis platform, I infer that it was partly written in the hope--if not belief--that the American workers would rise against their oppressors and the situation to which they have been subjected. It was a ringing declaration--a 'mass movement' of the delegates to the convention, later endorsed by the party membership. And as these delegates separated hot-foot for home, they got cold feet as they dispersed into the cold-footed isolation of the individual Socialist scattered here and there throughout this land. The platform contained no statement of individual duty, no individual program of action Each Socialist began to ask as his feet got colder and colder: 'Where are these "mass movements;" what are the others going to do?' The situation was made worse by the action of the National Executive Committee which told every Socialist to read the St. Louis platform and then act as his conscience dictated. Fine business for a revolutionary mass movement seeking to establish the co-operative commonwealth. No anarchist could be more individualistic.

"The party's attitude toward war should be cleared up. It should definitely provide for mass action, and bind the individuals of the party as units of the party mass. This war platform should be followed by a Workers' Mobilization plan carefully worked out in detail and laying down action in response to each step taken in approach to war. For instance, on the introduction of the War Declaration in Congress, a one-day general strike just to show the rulers what was in store. On passage of the War Declaration a general strike, refusal to serve in the military forces, and such other measures as may be effective."

"The Appeal to Reason" some years ago was the leading Socialist paper of the United States. In 1917 it came out in favor of war with the Central Powers. Either because of this, or because it violently assailed Bolshevism for a long while, it is now outlawed by the greater part of the Socialist Party.

On the editorial page of "The Call," New York, April 24, 1919, we read:

"Instead of the 'Appeal to Reason' asking for a pardon for Debs, it should ask a pardon from Debs."

In "The Bulletin," Chicago, March 24, 1919, there appears on page 12 a bitter attack on "The Appeal" by no less a personage than Adolph Germer, National Secretary of the Socialist Party. In this official paper, issued by the National Office, Socialist Party, we read:

"An Open Letter to 'The Appeal.'

"March 19, 1919.

"Editor Appeal to Reason,

"Girard, Kans.:

"Sir.--In the issue of the 'Appeal to Reason,' March 15, 1919, you publish an appeal for $30,000 CASH, for an alleged 'Amnesty and Construction Fight.'

"You give yourself credit for having 'won' the first skirmish in the amnesty fight and on the basis of this unfounded claim, you justify your appeal for $30,000 CASH. To make your appeal seem legitimate, you use such names as Eugene V. Debs, Kate Richards O'Hare, Rose Pastor Stokes and refer to 'many of our comrades.' I happen to be one of those who is facing a prison sentence and if you have included me in 'many of the comrades,' I want you to strike my name from your list. I loathe to be a 'comrade' of yours. You and your paper helped to create a hatred against the Socialist Party and you wilfully and maliciously lied about the National Executive Committee when it refused to follow a course that would put more of our members in prison. In other words, you and your paper must bear a part of the responsibility for the prosecution and persecution of the Socialists and it is rank hypocrisy for you to prate about your fight for amnesty.

"Others may speak for themselves, but I scorn any effort that you make in my behalf. A thousand times would I rather spend the rest of my life behind prison bars than to have one word from you whom I hold responsible for the persecutions of which my colleagues and I are victims.

"I look upon your appeal for $30,000 CASH, in the name of 'Amnesty,' as a sinister method of filling your own coffers.

"You have lied to us and about us and betrayed us in the past and I resent your hypocritical prattle about amnesty.

"Yours without respect,

"Adolph Germer,

"National Secretary, Socialist Party."

Judging from the bitter attacks that Socialists are making upon each other, it would seem that there might be a little harmony in the party if their platforms were limited to the principles of Socialism and were not concerned with "immediate demands" to the almost total exclusion of Socialism itself.



Now that considerable has been said about Socialism in theory, we shall make the transition to Socialism in practice by quoting what may be called George Herron's dream of Socialist perfection. On page 28 of his booklet, "From Revolution to Revolution," we are told: "Perhaps we shall learn in time, before accentuated capitalism has intensified the universal misery of labor. Socialism is already on its way to the conquest of Europe. And it may be that we shall yet behold that glorious uprising of the universal peoples which is to begin man's real history, and the world's real creation--that united affirmation of the world's workers which Socialism foretells, knowing boundaries neither of nations nor sects nor factions, speaking one voice and working together as one man for one purpose, filling and cleansing the world with one glad revolutionary cry. When the peoples thus come, divine and omnipotent through co-operation, the raw materials of the world-life in their creative hands, no longer begging favors or reforms, no longer awed by the slave moralities or the slave religions that teach submission to their masters, but risen and regnant in the consciousness of their common inheritance and right in the earth and its fullness, of which they are the makers and preservers, then will the antagonisms and devastations of classes vanish forever, and the peace of good will become the universal fact."

"Glorious," indeed, have been the uprisings of the Bolsheviki of Russia, the Communists of Hungary and Bavaria, and the Spartacans of Germany, all of whom are Socialists of the most pronounced type. These uprisings, instead of being the "beginnings of the world's real creation," are rather the beginnings of its destruction and ruination. The world's workers have been "wonderfully united" in Russia, Hungary, Bavaria and Germany since Socialism came into power--and no better proof need be given than the way in which they have been shooting each other down and trying to oust each other from office. Though the Socialists were not supposed to know "the boundaries of nations, sects or factions," but were to "speak one voice and work together as one man for one purpose," the Spartacans, it seems, would be better off if they had not only an imaginary boundary to separate barbarians of their type from the rest of civilization, but a barrier of mountains with heights towering in the clouds to divide Germany into two parts, in one of which the Spartacans could rest in peace, safe from the attacks of their beloved brethren of the Ebert-Scheidemann group.

If the Communists of Bavaria had only built half a dozen Chinese walls around Munich, they might still be holding out against the Socialist army that besieged them and overcame them. Lenine's Government caused such rivers of blood to flow in Russia that it could well dispense with imaginary boundary lines to separate "Bolsheviki Land" from the domains of Socialist Siberia. "One glad revolutionary cry" was to go up from Socialists all over the world, but the cry is: "Workers in anti-Socialist countries, save us from our false, hypocritical, reactionary, murderous Marxian brethren!" Have the Socialist peoples the world over become truly "divine" by their attacks on God and all religions? Have they become "omnipotent" wherever they are in power--so omnipotent that law, order and decency are no longer needed? The "raw materials of the world were in their creative hands," and yet the Russian people were starving by the millions, and the longer the period since the world war, the worse things became in those vast domains once so famous for their natural resources, wheat, cattle, wool, minerals, oil and wood.

The Socialist dream was one of "no submission to masters;" but, strange to say, the dictator, Lenine, rules "Bolsheviki-Land" just as he pleases; Bela Kun so ruled Hungary; while the supposedly democratic Soviets just issued decrees of murder or plunder, and no national representative body of all the Russians or of all the Hungarians ever seemed to meet. The Socialists of Russia, Hungary and Bavaria were indeed "regnant in the consciousness of their common inheritance," provided, of course, that by inheritance, confiscated property is meant. Yet although "antagonism and devastations of classes" were destined to "vanish forever, and the peace of good will become the universal fact," somehow or other certain "scientific reformers" forgot that there were such things as fools' paradises and overlooked the old saying that "all that glitters is not gold."

In Chapters X and XI much more will be said about the Lenine-Trotzky dictatorship of Socialist Russia, the Bela Kun administration of Hungary, the criminal Socialist crew of Bavaria, and, of course, the fiery Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg group that at times in certain localities replaced the Ebert-Scheidemann government of Germany.

In "The Call," New York, April 28, 1919, under the caption, "Socialist Government of Yucatan Grapples With the Binder Trust," we read:

"We get vastly less news nowadays from our next-door neighbor, Mexico, than from Europe and Asia, therefore a 'Call' reporter, meeting a Comrade who has recently returned from the tropic peninsula, fell upon him and demanded news of the Socialist, labor and co-operative movements there.

"'We are facing a very much tangled-up situation down there,' answered the man from Yucatan. He is W. Elkin Birch, a well-known American Socialist and business man, who has lived in Mexico several years. He came up to 'the States' on a business trip, and is returning to Yucatan, where he is prominent in the Socialist and co-operative movements.

"'The forces of capitalism in Mexico are so strong, and the commercial system is so vicious,' he began, 'that I am not very optimistic about the future of Socialism in Yucatan.'

"'But we thought that Alvarado had established almost a paradise down there,' cried the reporter. 'A year ago we learned that you had elected a complete Socialist administration in Yucatan; then, a few months since, we heard that it had not put any part of the Socialist program into effect. We wondered what was the reason, but hardly any news comes through now.'

"'Alvarado did work a wonderful transformation, and much of the good he did remains. It is true, we have an administration of Socialists, but we find that that is a very different thing from a Socialist administration. Yucatan is still in the grip of the commercial interests, and the game is blocked at every move. As fast as the radicals devise some means of stopping the robbery of the people by special privilege, the privileged interests find a way of circumventing the radicals by apparently yielding, but really maintaining their domination.

"'Alvarado took over the Reguladora, through which the henequem, Yucatan's principal product, is sold for export; he took over the railroads, and the line of steamships running to the States....

"'The government still controls the Reguladora, but, as I said, it is in a deadlock with the powers who control its market. We still have government-owned railroads in Yucatan, but government ownership merely takes the public utility out of the hands of private capital and places it under the control of a political organization. And private capital already has secured control of that political organization, and graft and robbery are running riot. Government ownership of railroads has increased the cost of operation 100 per cent. The payrolls are packed with friends of officials and friends of friends. If a man can control a few votes, they reason, why shouldn't he have a job? What's the railroad for, if not to provide jobs? The folks down there are very much like people in other countries, you see.'....

"'But why doesn't the Socialist administration take control of industry and commerce, and put the interests out of power?' demanded the reporter, determined to uphold the faith in the face of disappointing facts.

"'Well, of course, that sounds easy; but Socialists are just people, after all, and when a Socialist gets into office he finds it quite as hard as ordinary folks to resist the subtle influences that surround officials. A man can't be sure that he is a real Socialist until he is put to the test of being a part of the government. The commercial interests offer him opportunities to make money; they give him and his family social advantages. He begins to see that capitalism has its good points, after all.' Mr. Birch smiled half-satirically, half-tolerantly. 'Some members of the Assembly have made fortunes during their year of office. One member, who handles concessions, illegal and otherwise, has cleared over a million pesos."

The February, 1918, issue of the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, was suppressed by the authorities of the United States government, and, as a consequence, it is probable that not very many copies are in circulation. The author of "The Red Conspiracy," however, has in his possession a copy of this edition, in which there is a very interesting article, beginning on page 414, entitled, "Your Dream Come True."

"A Land of practical Socialism in active operation.

"Nearly 4,000,000 people without one cent of money in circulation; and where no man owns a foot of land or the tools of production--trades unionism, industrialism, single tax and socialism all rolled into one.

"Ninety thousand square miles without a policeman; where gold rings are placed in the public markets in large baskets, to be had for the asking.

"A work day of two hours for the strong; of play for the young, middle-aged and old. A land where there is plenty of candy for the kiddies, playgrounds for all; and from which the spectre of want has departed.

"Land of peon-slaves awakened from centuries of capitalist misrule to the glories of co-operation, without master or landlord.

"This is no dream, but an actualized verity right here in America--in southern Mexico. Shades of Thomas Moore, Edward Bellamy and William Morris arise and rejoice, for your wildest visions have become facts.

"Across the miles I stretch my hand in fellowship with Mexico's great democrat--Zapata. Don't forget that name. The capitalist press has not told much about him--for obvious reasons. He is putting into practice the basic principles of co-operation. The golden rule is being translated into action.

"General Zapata now absolutely controls 90,000 square miles, comprising parts of Morelo, Jalisco, Chapas, Quintana Roo and Tabasco. This land is well under cultivation. The population (on a rough estimate, without the advantages of a scientific census) is from three to four millions. The inhabitants are nearly all peons, who for centuries had existed in a degrading state of slavery. More than ninety-five per cent. can neither read nor write.

"Zapata's control began in 1910, but only in the three years past has the co-operative system been placed on its present basis. The greatest development has been made during the past two years.

"Methods of propaganda have been simple and effective. Direct action is the keynote. The people awoke to a knowledge of their slavery and the realization of their heritage--and took what belonged to them. The only message sent to the people was somewhat similar to the I. W. W. preamble, but much shorter than that classic document.

"Having aroused the slaves to realize their status by saying in substance: the rich unjustly possess the land; we want all that is ours and are not willing that any man should possess that which is not his--Zapata would lead his army into some rich valley and simply dispossess the wealthy 'owners.' Then the peons on the land would be given the use of the land. Not one man in the ninety thousand square miles holds a title to one foot of land. After getting the new territory, the land was cultivated and the district organized.

"When strong enough the army--the propaganda branch of the revolution--held another convention in some other fertile valley and benevolently assimilated some other opulent set of slave-driving usurpers of the land....

"Every citizen of each community is given a little brass citizenship tag. It is necessary to show this only in strange towns. It is his passport for whatever he needs for food, clothing and shelter. Each person goes into the stores and gets what he needs for the simple asking.

"We have heard endless discussions as to the nature of the future medium of exchange. Many volumes have been written on the subject. Zapata isn't worrying over these problems. He is leaving them where they belong--to the philosophers. There isn't any medium of exchange in Zapata's land. Why should there be on a free earth? If a man wanted ten pairs of sandals or shoes he could have them, but why would he want them? He can always go--in Zapata's country--to any store and get a pair when he needs one. So with all other provisions. In practice, in the few years the plan has been in operation, the peons have not abused the privilege. They are producers, and realize it. Why rob themselves? There is not one idea of profit in all that 90,000 square miles, and human nature is just as it was when Adam delved and Eve spun.

"Travelers are not being admitted freely just now, in these unsettled times, because of the lying reports carried away by spying emissaries of capitalism. But when one is given permission to visit the country, his route is marked out and listed on the passport given him. He pays the government and then is provided freely on all the travels over the designated route.

"No women or children are to be found in any line of manual labor in mill, field or factory.

"The young and middle aged men alone work. They work from one and one-half to three hours a day. Some will work more steadily for a week and then go away to some town for two or three weeks to enjoy their country. For the first time in history the workers have a country that is really theirs. Workers? Yes, for all are workers. There are no landlords or 'bosses' and overseers to prod them into exhausting toil. And these people are simple enough to believe that man should enjoy life--that all people should find pleasure in living.

"Of course there are foremen and superintendents in the administration of industry. But they receive no wages, just what they need to live on, and every man, woman and child gets that. The men will work two hours and then go out to play hand-ball and other games in the plaza or courts.

"When the fields need attention, men go from ranch to ranch wherever help is needed. In like manner all industry is carried on.

"One example will show something of how matters are managed. One big sugar refinery formerly employed 2,500 men, working them fourteen hours a day. Employees now work two hours a day. The refinery still is in operation fourteen hours daily. There are seven shifts of workers. All told, there are 25,000 employees of that refinery. All are happy and have all of the food, clothing and shelter the land affords. The children have big sticks of candy as large as they can carry--and there is no talk of conservation of supplies anywhere.

"Access to the land and co-operation did it. There isn't any regular freight and passenger service. The trains operate as required. Production for profit has ceased on 90,000 square miles of this planet and the mills and mines are run to manufacture products for use only. When goods are needed anywhere, the trains haul them. Occasionally a few hundred men, women and children will be taken into the mountains by the trainload for a few days' outing. It is all a part of living--no fares to pay....

"The churches are being used as schools, for lecture centers, as play houses and for similar useful purposes. There is no liquor sold. This is not the result of any decree or election. The people had so little desire for booze that they quit its manufacture....

"It is not to be inferred that Zapata has solved all of the problems of society. Everything can't be done at once, even by the magic wand of his propaganda. Still, his achievements make the genii of Alladin's lamp look pretty small and cheap. In three years every worker has been united into one industrial union; all titles to land and ownership of the tools of production swept away; labor's hours shortened to the minimum; the entire population fed, clothed and sheltered--all through cooperation on a free earth."

This is the kind of "stuff" that is served up to the "learned," "scientific Socialists," who place so much confidence in the leaders who are supposed to be honest and worthy of leading them into the Marxian Paradise. This is the way they spoke of "Socialism" in Mexico some years ago, and today they are speaking of it in Russia in much the same way.

Act the Second

Scene--A large photo of Zapata--4 by 6 inches, in "The Call," the Socialist paper of New York City, April 24, 1919.

Under the photo there is the following inscription:

"General Emiliano Zapata, Mexico's apostle of terrorism, and recently officially reported to have been killed by Carranza's troops, was a former plantation stirrup-boy, who, at the zenith of his rebel power, gained temporary control of Mexico City. Twice since 1910, when he began his revolt in Morelos, he and his Indian followers took brief possession of the capital. For nine years he ravaged southern Mexico, co-operating for a time in 1914 with Villa. He was the most implacable enemy of peaceful reconstruction through several regimes. Poor, uneducated, primitive but magnetic, Zapata was the leader of Mexico's half-savage Indians, in whose power he planned to place control of the country. Toward the last he was little more than a hunted renegade, and is reported to have been killed by strategy of troops operating under General Pablo Gonzales in Morelos."

The wood-cut of Zapata appears in connection with an article by Jack Neville, part of which is hereby quoted:

"Cuautla, Mexico, April 23.--The death of Emiliano Zapata removes Mexico's most ruthless destructionist and implacable enemy of peaceful regeneration.

"Now, on the wreckage of his empire, where the rebel chief laughed at civilization and played his huge joke on 100,000 confiding workers, General Pablo Gonzalez is placing firm underpinning for freedom and progress.

"Here in the world's richest garden spot, where exploited humanity has been kept poorest, and where Zapata 'gave' his half-savage followers the land only to commandeer all crops--here the peon is for the first time in centuries enjoying the fruits of his toil and supporting instead of hating government."

The next day, April 25th, 1919. "The Call" published another article of Neville's under the title, "Mexican Peons Rejoice in First Taste of Freedom." Only a small part of the article will be quoted:

"I stepped into a pulque-reeking cantina. A group of former Zapatistas invited me to join them--to have a glass. It was the open sesame. They chattered like children. Presented me with cornhusk cigarettes; told me tales of Zapata; his perfidy, his ruthlessness.

"'Not more than 800 rebels were yet in arms when Zapata was killed,' they said. These, they explained, had ousted Zapata from leadership because he had refused to divide the loot with them. They told me of Zapata's former army of 30,000, blood-letting surianos and ayetes (unarmed men carrying ropes) who formed the rear guard to carry away the loot....

"Alongside the old church, where the patriot Morelos had more than a century ago made a successful stand against the Spaniards, a train was disgorging families returning to their homes, now that Zapata was gone.

"A little man stepped out--the bishop of Cuernavaca, coming back to his diocese under the conciliatory program of Don Pablo after eight years' exile.

"I rode into the country with Colonel Sanchez Neira and talked with the workmen in the field. They crowded round to pose for pictures.

"They laughed and sang while they worked.

"We rode to the headquarters of one of the 2,000,000 acre haciendas. The gigantic sugar mill, formerly worth more than $1,000,000, was a shell filled with debris. We rode to another mill. The same! Thirty-seven of them. All ruined, wrecked wantonly under Zapata's rule.

"In the village of Youtopec I drank lemonade with Gen. Pilar Sanchez, while Zapata's captured band serenaded us. We rode down the Inter-Oceanic railway and viewed the right of way, strewn with wrecked rolling stock. We saw utterly demolished villages, the work of Zapata and communism.

"I saw a bridge where train after train was dynamited, where Zapatistas had ruthlessly executed more than three thousand peaceful men, women and children passengers."

From these articles published in "The Call," the great Socialist paper of New York City, it seems that the poverty-stricken, perpetually begging staff of Hillquit's paper does not relish the Chicago brand of Socialism described so beautifully in the "International Socialist Review." The more "talented" and "progressive" "evolutionists" near the shore of Lake Michigan have many a year's hard work to perform before they can sufficiently develop the brains of their backward chums and brethren on the lower east side of New York City. It takes editors like Kerr, Haywood, the Marcys and all the Bohns on the staff of the "Review" to reveal the true glories of Socialism.

As recently as February, 1920, it could safely be said that the principles of Socialism had never been put into full operation in any country. The nearest approach to a truly Socialist state is Bolshevist Russia, that strife-ridden land of crime and bloodshed. The penalty paid for the foolish attempt has already been a dreadful one. How much greater it will be, as time goes on, nobody knows. The Socialists of America have hailed Russian Bolshevism as true Socialism; but, no doubt, as the evil consequences of Lenine's Red rule become more widely known and more universally feared, or if, even on the low ground of materialistic economics, the attempt fails, the slippery Marxians will try to prove that Bolshevism was not Socialism after all, since the Russian government was a dictatorship, with the principles of Socialism never fully applied.

We should add that even if the Russian dictatorship succeeds in realizing the mere economic success which seems to be the height of its ambition, this will not prove to be an argument in favor of Socialism, but a terrible indictment of it. For the road the dictatorship is now taking, which indeed offers it the only possible hope of even a passable economic success, is the barren, heartless, unspiritual, materialistic tyranny of machine-like "industrialism" which the I. W. W. represents. In the two chapters immediately following, VIII and IX, the reader will learn something of the loss of all moral standards and the cruel, lawless violence to which the atheistic, anarchistic materialism of I. W. W.'ism leads; and will also find that Bolshevism is already committed to this system as the only economic solution of its bloody experiment.

Is it worth while? In Chapters X and XI the reader will face some of the appalling details of the blood, violence and despair which have been tyrannically imposed upon Russia's groaning millions for the sake of an experiment which leads to nothing but the pagan barbarism of I. W. W.'ism. Is it worth while? Even if at last they are able to produce and distribute enough to clothe and feed themselves, can human beings be happy in such a state? Is this the dream of the dreamer come true?

Again, the hope of a bare economic solution of the question of bread and butter is possible in Russia only through such an absolute and tyrannous dictatorship as has been established, under which the reluctant and disorganized proletariat can be forced back to work, whether they wish or no, at the point of the bayonets of the Red Guard. Would the American working-man think this worth while in America?

It has been said that the Lenine desperadoes are determined to win an economic success even at the cost of forcing Russian labor to toil under literal military conscription. If they do this, they may succeed--economically merely. But does American labor think such an experiment here would be worth what it costs?

Furthermore, in the Russian land of Socialistic experiment the people, left to themselves by the other nations, cannot find peace among themselves. Why should there be peace as long as any manhood is left in Russia to lift up its hand out of its despair against its Bolshevist oppressors? Is civil war worth while--for such a barren result?

Finally, if the proletarian tyrants wear all Russia down until a spirit of resistance is left in no breast, still will there be no peace; for, as will be found quoted elsewhere in this book, Lenine declares that Socialism cannot endure in a world half Socialistic and half Capitalistic, so that his wretched Russian slaves seem likely to be dragged into a war against the rest of the world to help out the crazy experiment of domination by the proletariat. Is it worth while?


THE I. W. W.

The I. W. W., or the so-called "Industrial Workers of the World," whose policy may be summed up in the words, "I Want to Wreck," and who in derision are termed the "I Won't Works," the "Imported Weary Willies" and the "Wobblies," enjoy the unenviable reputation of being classed among the most insurrectionary, impious and infamous workers of the world to-day. This industrial union, also known as the One Big Union, is the bitter rival of the American Federation of Labor. Joseph J. Ettor, in his I. W. W. pamphlet, "Industrial Unionism," page 5, speaking of the fear that people have of the I. W. W. says:

"Yes, gentle reader, our ideas, our principles and object are certainly dangerous and menacing, applied by a united working class would shake society and certainly those who are now on top sumptuously feeding upon the good things they have not produced would feel the shock."

The I. W. W. was organized at a secret conference in Chicago, January 2, 1905, attended by 26 of the most radical Socialists in the country, including Eugene V. Debs, William D. Haywood, William E. Trautman, Thomas J. Haggerty, Daniel MacDonald, Charles H. Moyer, Charles O. Sherman, Frank Bohn and A. M. Simons. Daniel De Leon was prominent at the first convention, June 27, 1905, and for three years afterward, the organization being founded on his theory that the Socialistic revolution would not come by voting but by a violent seizure of the industries of the country by Socialistic workmen industrially organized.

"The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, page 4, referring to the hungry and desperate masses tells us:

"In some countries these revolting, desperate masses may come out victorious, and establish a rule of their own, like the Russian Bolsheviki, only to find that they will have to keep on running society on private ownership basis, until industrial organization of the workers is so far advanced that it can take over the responsibility. There is no way in which the masses can escape industrial unionism. What they do not want to do now at our prompting, they will have to do later of their own initiative, driven by economic necessity. Our new society is bound to come. It will be firmly established in ten years if we are energetic. It will take longer if we are indifferent. We cannot stand still socially, because there is no footing before we reach the bottom. We cannot go back, any more than the butterfly can again become a larva. We must go forward to Industrial Democracy."

On page 23 of the same issue of "The One Big Union Monthly" we are informed that Industrial Unionism is International:

"Industrial unionism arises out of and is modeled after modern capitalism. Unlike trade unionism, it is not born of the capitalism of fifty years ago. Industrial unionism recognizes that capitalism is not only interindustrial, so to speak, but also international. That just as it binds industries together by means of machine processes and financial investments, so also does capitalism tend to bind nations together. Industrial unionism follows the same trend. It, too, is not only interindustrial but also international. Industrial unionism seeks to organize the industrial workers of the world just as capitalism seeks to exploit them. Industrial unionism is spreading wherever international capitalism exists. Like international capitalism, industrial unionism knows no boundaries, color, race, creed or sex. As international capitalism knows only profit, industrial unionism knows only the industrial exploitation by which profit is possible. Industrial unionism organizes to make industrial exploitation an impossibility. And capitalism is its most valued assistant."

Ettor, in "Industrial Unionism," page 21, tells us, that the I. W. W. does not organize by trades, but by industries: "All the workers in any plant, factory, mine, mill or any given industry in a given locality organize in one Local Industrial Union. All the Local Industrial Unions of a given general industry are banded together in the National Industrial Union. The National Industrial Unions are banded again stronger in the Industrial Department and then all Departments, six in all, are brought under one head, the General Administration of the I. W. W. One Big Union of all workers, welded together in such a manner that, imbued with the war cry: 'an injury to one is an injury to all,' all its members can act together in fighting the common enemy."

Explaining organization by industries rather than by trades, "The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, page 25, takes for instance the stockyards:

"We do not know how many crafts there are in the stockyards, but there are many. According to the old style, these crafts would be organized each by itself, the carpenters belonging to the national union of carpenters, the engineers to the national union of engineers, the butchers to the national union of butchers, etc. It also belongs to old style unionism to leave the unskilled workers unorganized. Our method would be to organize all the workers in a plant, as a branch of the Stockyard Workers' Industrial Union. This would imply the cancelling of trade distinctions and craft lines. As against the employer we would face him not as butchers, laborers, carpenters or engineers, but as stockyard workers, no matter whether we are office clerks or laborers, or carpenters, or engineers. This is what we mean with industrial unionism. The various branches would combine into district organizations if necessary, and all of them together would form the Stockyard Workers' Industrial Union as part of the Industrial Workers of the World. By being thus organized we hope to be able to carry on the fight locally, or by districts, or on a national scale with better chance of success, than if we were split up in a great number of unions in each plant, with little or no contact with one another. The advantages of the one big union idea are so apparent that no honest worker will, in earnest, contradict us."

The famous Preamble to the platform of the I. W. W. throws a startling light upon this revolutionary industrial union, which has, within recent years, been getting a very strong hold on immigrants from Europe:

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people, and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life.

"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system.

"We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class.

"These conditions can be changed and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one, an injury to all.

"Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.'

"It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the every-day struggle with the capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming a structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

Giovannitti, editor of the New York City Italian Socialist publication, "Il Proletario," one of the official Socialist organs enumerated in the "Proceedings9 of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," writing in the April 5, 1913, edition of his paper, says:

"The aim of the Socialists and of the Syndicalists is precisely that of dispossessing the middle class by transferring property to the working class.

"We shall take possession of the industries for three very simple reasons: because we need them, because we desire them, and because we have the power to take them.

"Whether it is just or unjust, moral or immoral, it is no concern to us. We shall waste no time whatever in providing the validity of our legal titles, yet, if it will be necessary, after the dispossession will have been accomplished, we shall engage a couple of lawyers and judges to adjust the contracts and to render the act perfectly legal and respectable. So, too, if it will be necessary, we shall find a couple of most learned bishops to sanctify it. These matters can always be arranged--all that is strong and powerful becomes in time just and moral--and for this reason, we Syndicalists maintain that the social revolution is not a question of necessity and justice, but of necessity and strength."

"The New Unionism," by Tridon, on page 112, informs us that Arturo Giovannitti was, in turn, a minter, a bookkeeper, a theological student, a mission preacher and a tramp. Ettor, in "Industrial Unionism," page 15, speaking of the I. W. W. principles of morality, says:

"New conceptions of Right and Wrong must generate and permeate the workers. We must look on conduct and actions that advance the social and economic position of the working class as Right, ethically, legally, religiously, socially and by every other measurement. That conduct and those actions which aid, help to maintain and give comfort to the capitalist class, we must consider as Wrong by every standard."

"The New Unionism," page 104, gives us Vincent St. John's statement of the methods and tactics employed by the I. W. W., of which he has been a prominent leader:

"As a revolutionary organization the Industrial Workers of the World aims to use any and all tactics that will get the results sought with the least expenditure of time and energy. The tactics used are determined solely by the power of the organization to make good in their use. The question of 'right' and 'wrong' does not concern us. No terms made with an employer are final. All peace so long as the wage system lasts is but an armed truce. At any favorable opportunity the struggle for more control of industry is renewed....

"The organization does not allow any part to enter into time contracts with the employers. It aims where strikes are used, to paralyze all branches of the industry involved, when the employers can least afford a cessation of work--during the busy season and when there are rush orders to be filled."

In the Socialist Labor Party paper, "Weekly People," New York, February 10, 1912, the following article by Arthur Giovannitti shows the part that the I. W. W. is expected to take in bringing about the Marxian rebellion through the instrumentality of a general strike:

"The future of Socialism lies only in the general strike, not merely a quiet political strike, but one that once started should go fatally to its end, i.e., armed insurrection, and the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.... The task of revolution is not to construct the new society, but to demolish the old one, and, therefore, its first aim should be at the complete destruction of the existing state, so as to render it absolutely powerless to react and re-establish itself.... The I. W. W. must develop itself as the new legislature and the new executive body of the land, undermine the existing one, and gradually absorb the functions of the state until it can entirely substantiate it through the only means it has, the revolution."

On May 1, 1919, plans for a nation-wide strike on July 4th were disclosed by I. W. W. orators at a mass meeting in the workingmen's hall, 119 South Throop Street, Chicago. It was Simms, a colored man, who gave the details of the strike plan:

"The workmen will lay down their tools on July 4th, and on the morning of July 5th not one will take them up again....

"It will be the opening of the social revolution. Moreover, not one workman will take up his tools again until every prisoner of the workers now incarcerated in the capitalistic prisons is released."

"The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, page 22, declares:

"Socialism rears new institutions. It weaves a new fabric for our social life. In Russia it is the Soviets; in America it is the One Big Union. This fabric is proletarian only. Within its limits the Socialist Revolutionist halts. This new organism--this One Big Union--may, or may not seek Democracy. Democracy is merely a method of governing. If that method leads to Socialist goals it will be followed. Otherwise, we will seek further for our avenue. But the great end is proletarianism. It is the social ownership of the means of production. It is the creation of a society where all classes will be melted into one, and where the class war will soften into an all-race proletarianism."

Another I. W. W. publication, "The Evolution of Industrial Democracy," page 40, speaking of government after the "Wobblies" get into power, goes still further:

"Government, as now understood will disappear--there being no servile class to be held in subjection--but in its place will be an administration of affairs."

Relative to property rights in the future, "The Evolution of Industrial Democracy," page 39, informs us:

"Rights of inheritance would disappear with the right to hold private property in the lands, tools and machinery of production. Any accumulation by the individual that might be used for exploitation would pass to the collectivity at the death of the holder. Society would be the heir of the individual and, vice versa, the individuals would be the heirs of society. The right to freely function at the machines and enjoy the social value of his toil would guarantee the worker a full competence."

As regards compensation for work in accordance with the I. W. W. plan, we are told on page 39:

"Compensation in the industries would necessarily be upon the basis of the 'man-day'--the average production of an average man in an average day when working under average conditions--and in those industries not of an actual productive nature, such as 'public service,' etc., the man-day must prevail there also (being based upon the average production of all the industries served) for the reason that no man could be induced to serve for less than that average--to do so being to confess himself an inferior being--and to compel him to serve for less would be to set up a new slavery, which the moral sense of the new community could not endure."

Giovannitti, in "Il Proletario," New York, April 5, 1913, gives a lesson in sabotage to the Italian Socialists and members of the I. W. W.:

"We are not yet sufficiently strong to restore them [i.e., the instruments of production] to ourselves, it is true, but it is also true that we cannot allow any opportunity to escape of reaping any advantage from them.

"Thus, if to-morrow we shall be justified in wrenching from capitalism all the industries, why, when it is a question of life or death for us to win or to lose a strike, is it not just to remove a screw, derange a wheel, break a thread, or commit, in any way whatever, an act of sabotage on a machine which otherwise would become the very beginning of our defeat in the hands of the scabs?

"We cannot understand how it is still possible while we have a right to all the produce of our work, we have not an entire right to a part of it."

Other illustrations of sabotage may be of interest to the reader. The following one is taken from the Chicago "Syndicalist," February 15, 1913:

"A few drops of sulphuric acid placed on top of a pile of woolen or cotton goods never stops going down.

"Two decks of cards in a grain separator cover the screen and cause the grain to vanish out of the blower.

"A piece of iron dropped in a crucible full of glass will eat through it. Crucibles are made of graphite and cost $40.

"A handful of salt in paint will allow a good-looking job for a day or two, but when dry will fall off in sheets.

"Maclay Hoyne, Chicago's district attorney, is analyzing a spontaneous fire powder that allows the user to be miles away when it breaks forth.

"Castor oil capsules dissolved in varnish destroy the ability of the latter to dry. The job must be washed down and started all over again.

"The suffragettes of England have significantly notified their opponents that a fire in every shire was the way the word was flashed in days gone by."

Pages 40 to 48 of "The New Unionism," by Tridon, furnish us with some more barbarous examples of sabotage:

"We may distinguish three forms of sabotage:

"1. Active sabotage which consists in the damaging of goods or machinery.

"2. Open-mouthed sabotage, beneficial to the ultimate consumer, and which consists in exposing or defeating fraudulent commercial practices.

"3. Obstructionism or passive sabotage, which consists in carrying out orders literally, regardless of consequences.

"If you are an engineer you can, with two cents' worth of powdered stone or a pinch of sand, stall your machine, cause a loss of time or make expensive repairs necessary. If you are a joiner or woodworker, what is simpler than to ruin furniture without your boss noticing it, and thereby drive his customers away? A garment worker can easily spoil a suit or a bolt of cloth; if you are working in a department store, a few spots on a fabric cause it to be sold for next to nothing; a grocery clerk, by packing up goods carelessly, brings about a smashup; in the woolen or the haberdashery trade a few drops of acid on the goods you are wrapping will make a customer furious ... an agricultural laborer may sow bad seed in wheat fields," etc.

"With two cents' worth of a certain stuff, used by one who knows, a locomotive can be made absolutely useless."

"The first thing to do before going out on strike is to cripple all the machinery. Then the contest is even between employer and worker, for the cessation of work really stops all life in the capitalists' camp. Are bakery workers planning to go on strike? Let them pour in the ovens a few pints of petroleum or of any other greasy or pungent matter. After that, soldiers or scabs may come and bake bread. The smell will not come out of the tiles for three months. Is a strike in sight in steel mills? Pour sand or emery into the oil cups."

"The electrical industry is one of the most important industries, as an interruption in the current means a lack of light and power in factories; it also means a reduction in the means of transportation and a stoppage of the telegraph and telephone systems. How can the power be cut off? By the curtailing in the mine the output of the coal necessary for feeding the machinery or stopping the coal cars on their way to the electrical plants. If the fuel reaches its destination what is simpler than to set the pockets on fire and have the coal burn in the yards instead of the furnaces? It is child's play to put out of work the elevators and other automatic devices which carry coal to the fire room. To put boilers out of order use explosives or silicates or a plain glass bottle which thrown on the glowing coals hinders the combustion and clogs up the smoke exhausts. You can also use acids to corrode boiler tubes; acid fumes will ruin cylinders and piston rods. A small quantity of some corrosive substance, a handful of emery will be the end of oil cups. When it comes to dynamos or transformers, short circuits and inversion of poles can be easily managed. Underground cables can be destroyed by fire, water or explosives," etc.

"The New Unionism," the book from which the above quotations were taken and which was purchased by the author of "The Red Conspiracy" at the I. W. W. headquarters, 1001 West Madison Street, Chicago, in the latter part of the spring of 1919, also informs us on page 123:

"As far as sabotage is concerned, all the I. W. W. speakers and the I. W. W. press countenance it although they steadily warn the workers against the indiscriminate and unsocial use of that weapon of warfare."



Members of the I. W. W. and Socialists who advocate sabotage or get into trouble in one way or another, especially in strikes, are often put into prison for their revolutionary talk or their violent methods. The One Big Industrial Union and, of course, the Socialist Party then proclaim their innocence, collect funds for their defense, and urge all the working men of our country to strike in behalf of amnesty for "poor, persecuted, noble protagonists of the cause of labor jailed because freedom of speech and liberty of action are no longer tolerated by the government." Thus on page 409 of the February, 1918, edition of the "International Socialist Review," which was suppressed by the United States Government, we read:

"Socialists Demand Fair Trial for Indicted I. W. W.--In a declaration adopted by its National Executive Committee the Socialist Party calls for a fair and unprejudiced trial for the indicted members of the Industrial Workers of the World. The demand says:

"'The Socialist Party repeats its declaration of support of all economic organizations of the working class and declares the lynching, deportation, prosecution and persecution of the Industrial Workers of the World is an attack upon every toiler in America, and we now call attention to the fact that the charges of incendiarism, the burning of crops and forests and of vicious destruction of property, made by the public press against the I. W. W., have been proven pure fabrications when put to legal test. The Socialist Party has always extended its aid, material and moral, to organized labor wherever and whenever it has been attacked by the capitalist class, and this without reference to form of organization or special policies; therefore we pledge our support to the Industrial Workers of the World now facing trial in Chicago and elsewhere, and demand for them a fair and unprejudiced trial and urge our members to use every effort to assist the Industrial Workers of the World by familiarizing the public with the real facts, to overcome the falsehoods and misinformation with which the capitalist press has poisoned and prejudiced the public mind and judgment against these workers, who are now singled out for destruction, just as other labor organizations and leaders have been singled out for destruction by the same capitalist forces in the past."

The Socialist Party, in pledging its support to the Industrial Workers of the World, pledges its support to a revolutionary organization like itself. "The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, page 4, under the caption, "The Red Tidal Wave," says:

"With great satisfaction we record the fact that the red revolutionary wave is encircling the globe, sweeping away the last remnants of feudal rubbish from the body social, and some of the capitalistic. The world war acted like a vigorous laxative on the stomach of the nations."

"The Rebel Worker," an I. W. W. paper of New York City, in its issue of April 15, 1919, after printing the word, "Revolution" in the heaviest type all the way across the paper, publishes an article on the first page entitled "Terrible Days Ahead in the United States."

"'The United States is in the grip of a bloody revolution! Thousands of workers are slaughtered by machine guns in New York City! Washington is on fire! Industry is at a standstill and thousands of workers are starving! The government is using the most brutal and repressive measures to put down the revolution! Disorganization, crime, chaos, rape, murder and arson are the order of the day--the inevitable results of social revolution!'

"The above is what we may expect to see on the front pages of what few newspapers survive the upheaval. No one who has the interest of the working class at heart wants to see such a revolution. But whether those interested in the working class want to see such a revolution or not, there are powerful forces in the United States that are making for just such a catastrophe. The Industrial Workers of the World has in the past and is now using all of its energies to avert such a cataclysmic debacle. It is not yet too late to avoid this terrible and sanguinary strife--provided that the I. W. W. is allowed to carry out its program of organizing and educating the workers for the purpose of taking control of, and operating industry and giving to those who work the full social value of the product of their labor."

"The New Solidarity," the Chicago organ of the I. W. W., in its edition of April 19, 1919, publishes on the editorial page an article entitled, "When We Are Ready," part of which is hereby quoted:

"Frequently the question is asked how the proletariat is to know when they are ready for the revolution, how it would be possible to know a sufficient number were class conscious enough for the revolutionary change. This question is asked with the idea that there must be a periodical counting of noses, and that little or nothing may be done except educate until an absolute majority has been obtained....

"It matters not how many members of the working class do or do not stand up to be counted for or against capitalism, just as soon as the organized workers can overthrow that system of industry they will do it and not wait to be counted....

"To wait for majorities at all times is to enervate and emasculate the working class movement. To constantly attack, and attack for the purpose of taking and administering industry for the workers by action on the job and in the Union halls, is to strengthen and encourage the workers in their task, and is the plan that must ultimately win the age-long struggle against exploitation."

On September 5, 1917, the I. W. W. headquarters, 1001 West Madison street, Chicago, and the Socialist headquarters were raided by the United States authorities. On March 10, 1919, Solicitor General Lamar of the Post Office Department submitted a memorandum to the Senate propaganda committee stating that the I. W. W., anarchists, socialists and others were "perfecting an amalgamation with one object--the overthrow of the government of the United States by means of a bloody revolution and the establishment of a Bolshevik Republic." Mr. Lamar said his conclusion was based upon information contained in seized mail matter. Accompanying the memorandum were several hundred excerpts from the mail matter. The solicitor named the following organs, published in the interest of the I. W. W. or Bolshevist movements: "The New Solidarity," English, weekly, Chicago; "One Big Union," English, monthly, Chicago; "Industrial Unionist," English, weekly, Seattle; "California Defense Bulletin," English, weekly, San Francisco; "The Rebel Worker," English, bi-monthly, New York; "La Neuva Solidaridad," Spanish, weekly, Chicago; "Golos Truzenta," Russian, weekly, Chicago; "Il Nuovo Proletario," Italian, weekly, Chicago; "Nya Varlden," Swedish, weekly, Chicago; "Der Industrialer Arbiter," Jewish, weekly, Chicago; "Probuda," Bulgarian, weekly, Chicago; "A. Fels Badulas," Hungarian, weekly, Chicago. After referring to the excerpts from the seized mail matter, the solicitor general's memorandum said in part: "This propaganda is being conducted with such regularity that its magnitude can be measured by the bold and outspoken statements contained in these publications and the efforts made therein to inaugurate a nation-wide reign of terror and overthrow of the government.

"In classifying these statements, they are submitted in a major or general class as follows: I. W. W., anarchistic, radical-socialistic and socialist. It will be seen from these excerpts and it is indeed significant that this is the first time in the history of the so-called radical movement in the United States that the radical elements have found a common cause (Bolshevism) in which they can all unite. The I. W. W., anarchistic, socialists, radical and otherwise, in fact all dissatisfied elements, particularly the foreign element, are perfecting amalgamation with one object, and with one object in view, namely, the overthrow of the government of the United States by the means of a bloody revolution and the establishment of a Bolshevik republic.

"The I. W. W. is perhaps most actively engaged in spreading this propaganda and has at its command a large field force known as recruiting agents, subscription agents, etc., who work unceasingly in the furtherance of 'the cause!'

"This organization publishes at least five newspapers in the English language and nine in foreign languages. This list comprises only official papers of the organization and does not take into account the large number of free lance papers published in the interest of the above organization."

In the April 19, 1913, edition of "Solidarity," the eastern organ of the I. W. W., we are informed that "among other diseases common to all nations and particularly prevalent in the United States is respect for law and order." The same edition of the paper extends greetings to "all Rebels" from its new home in Cleveland.

During the 1913 Paterson strike, which was managed by the I. W. W., Quinlan, one of the leaders, declared on May 17th:

"Paterson is a dangerous place to live in just at this time, no matter in what direction you are looking. The longer the strike lasts, the stronger and more bitter and the madder the workers are growing. Out of it all we want to build up an organization that will be able to fight efficiently, and fight to win--to fight to win, if necessary, by dying.

"And we are going to win this strike or Paterson will be wiped off the map. If the strike is not won Paterson will be a howling wilderness and a graveyard industrially, because the workers will not stay there. We have had too long and bitter a fight to lay down what we have gained so far. Heaven might fall and hell might break loose, but the strike is going to be won."

Boyd, another speaker, is reported as saying on the same day:

"We are going to get what we want whether the courts want it or not. We are going to call a general strike, if it is necessary, to free our fellow-workers. We are going to cut off the lights in Paterson, and tie up the street car system. We shall reduce the city to a condition of absolute helplessness. We are going to paralyze Paterson, and we are going to win in Paterson just as we are going to win in New York City."

Robert Plunkett, said to be a former Cornell student, who was introduced as a "fellow-worker," urged the strikers and their sympathizers to use every means to free their leaders, even if Paterson had to "starve or go naked." He said that the lights would be put out in Paterson, and that the street cars would be tied up, so that Paterson would become a dead city.

Mohl, who also made his appearance at the silk mills strike in Paterson, declared on May 18, 1913:

"The American flag is pretty to look at. Its colors are striking--red, white, and blue, with two or three twinkling stars here and there, but it is not good to eat."

The I. W. W. is, of course, an atheistic and anti-religious organization. In the March 1, 1919, issue of "The One Big Union Monthly," page 40, we read under the caption, "Help Wanted, Male or Female:"

"Priest or Minister to show the One Big Union family why our Solidarity Dogma is not superior to the ethical teachings of Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed, also to demonstrate the inside of the religious business, and where it is interwoven with Wall street."

"The Call," New York, May 3, 1919, in an editorial on "The Bomb Plot," which had just aroused the whole nation, said:

"The bomb and torch have not the slightest relation to any branch of the organized labor movement in this country, and the editors know it. Those who print such unfounded and slanderous insinuations place themselves in the same class as the would-be-assassin."

This editorial was published the day after the following special dispatch was sent to "The New York Times:"

"Sioux City, Iowa, May 2.--'We will blow the whole town to hell if you put Mayor Short out of office.' This was the threat on a postcard addressed to E. J. Stanson, who is trying to secure the recall of Mayor Short. The card was received today. It was signed 'I. W. W. Alliance for Short.' The police are rounding up all suspicious characters, and those known to have a leaning toward the Bolshevists of the I. W. W. Citizens are seeking to oust Short because he welcomed delegates to a recent 'wobblies' convention here."

In the latter part of the spring of 1919 the author of "The Red Conspiracy" obtained at the I. W. W. headquarters in Chicago a leaflet entitled, "To Colored Workingmen and Women!" Part of it is hereby quoted:

"To the black race, who, but recently, with the assistance of the white men of the northern states, broke their chains of bondage and ended chattel slavery, a prospect of further freedom, of Real Freedom, should be most appealing.

"For it is a fact that the negro worker is no better off under the freedom he has gained than the slavery from which he has escaped. As chattel slaves we were the property of our masters, and as a piece of valuable property our masters were considerate of us and careful of our health and welfare. Today, as wage-workers, the boss may work us to death at the hardest and most hazardous labor, at the longest hours, at the lowest pay; we may quietly starve when out of work and the boss loses nothing by it and has no interest in us. To him the worker is but a machine for producing profits, and when you, as a slave who sells himself to the master on the installment plan, become old, or broken in health or strength or should you be killed while at work, the master merely gets another wage slave on the same terms.

"We who have worked in the south know that conditions in lumber and turpentine camps, in the fields of cane, cotton and tobacco, in the mills and mines of Dixie, are such that the workers suffer a more miserable existence than ever prevailed among the chattel slaves before the great Civil War....

"The only problem, then, which the colored worker should consider, as a worker, is the problem of organizing with other workingmen in the labor organization that best expresses the interest of the whole working class against the slavery and oppression of the whole capitalist class. Such an organization is the I. W. W., the Industrial Workers of the World."

"The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, page 6, publishes an article entitled, "The Chinese and the I. W. W.":

"The Chinese workers in this country have discovered the I. W. W....

"Long enough have workers been divided along colored lines. The old, old misunderstanding created by our masters is fading away as we mutually discover that we are all condemned to slavery if divided, and that freedom is ours if we unite. The accessions of Chinese workers to our ranks fills us with great joy. May they also succeed in soon carrying the gospel of Working Class Solidarity and Industrial Organization to their native country. That hope takes the sadness out of the news of their possible deportation."

"I. W. W. Songs," a Red booklet published at the Chicago headquarters, has already met with such popularity among the "Wobblies" that fourteen editions have been published. Several songs, showing the spirit of the Reds, are given here:

The Preacher and the Slave By Joe Hill (Tune: "Sweet Bye and Bye")

Long-haired preachers come out every night, Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right; But when asked how 'bout something to eat They will answer with voices so sweet:


You will eat, bye and bye, In that glorious land above the sky; Work and pray, live on hay, You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

And the starvation army they play, And they sing and they clap and they pray. Till they get all your coin on the drum, Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out, And they holler, they jump and they shout. "Give your money to Jesus," they say, "He will cure all diseases to-day."

If you fight hard for children and wife-- Try to get something good in this life-- You're a sinner and bad man, they tell, When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite, Side by side we for freedom will fight; When the world and its wealth we have gained To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

Last Chorus

You will eat, bye and bye, When you've learned how to cook and to fry, Chop some wood, 'twill do you good, And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

Tie 'Em Up!

(Words and music by G. G. Allen)

We have no fight with brothers of the old A. F. of L., But we ask you use your reason with the facts we have to tell. Your craft is but protection for a form of property, The skill that you are losing, don't you see. Improvements on machinery take your tool and skill away, And you'll be among the common slaves upon some fateful day. Now the things of which we're talking we are mighty sure about.-- So what's the use to strike the way you can't win out?


Tie 'em up! Tie 'em up! That's the way to win. Don't notify the bosses till hostilities begin. Don't furnish chance for gunmen, scabs and all their like; What you need is One Big Union and the One Big Strike.

Why do you make agreements that divide you when you fight And let the bosses bluff you with the contract's "sacred right?" Why stay at work when other crafts are battling with the foe, You all must stick together, don't you know. The day when you begin to see the classes waging war You can join the biggest tie-up that was ever known before. When the strikes all o'er the country are united into one, Then the workers' One Big Union all the wheels shall run.

Walking on the Grass

(Tune: "The Wearing of the Green")

In this blessed land of freedom where King Mammon wears the crown, There are many ways illegal now to hold the people down. When the dudes of state militia are slow to come to time, The law upholding Pinkertons are gathered from the slime. There are wisely framed injunctions that you must not leave your job, And a peaceable assemblage is declared to be a mob, And Congress passed a measure framed by some consummate ass, So they are clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.

In this year of slow starvation, when a fellow looks for work, The chances are a cop will grab his collar with a jerk; He will run him in for vagrancy, he is branded as a tramp, And all the well-to-do will shout: "It serves him right, the scamp!" So we let the ruling class maintain the dignity of law, When the court decides against us we are filled with wholesome awe, But we cannot stand the outrage without a little sauce When they're clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.

The papers said the union men were all but anarchist, So the job trust promised work for all who wouldn't enlist; But the next day when the hungry horde surrounded city hall, He hedged and said he didn't promise anything at all. So the powers that be are acting very queer to say the least-- They should go and read their Bible and all about Belshazzar's feast, And when mene tekel at length shall come to pass, They'll stop clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.

Although the I. W. W. does not yet officially constitute a part of the Socialist organization, still very many of its members are most active Socialists. Indeed, it may be said that the I. W. W. is related to the Socialist Party quite as closely as a child is to its mother, for not only does the I. W. W. owe its origin to the followers of Karl Marx, but they are its directors and leaders, and have assisted and encouraged it in not a few of its principal strikes, notably at Lawrence, Mass., and Paterson, N. J.

Though we readily concede that quite a number of Socialists are individually antagonistic to the I. W. W., still they are opposed to it not because the I. W. W. differs in essential principles from the Socialist Party or even because this unfriendly minority of Socialists would oppose violent methods, if such were considered expedient, but because the "Yellow" Socialists prefer political action which is made light of by the I. W. W. direct actionists who are looked upon as enemies, for they seem to be doing harm to the Socialist political propaganda. In verification of this, an excellent proof is furnished by no less an authority than John Spargo, then a Socialist, and a most prolific writer, whose opposition to the Syndicalists and to the direct actionists of the Socialist Party was a well established fact even before the publication of his book, "Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism and Socialism." On page 172 of this work he writes:

"If the class to which I belong could be set free from exploitation by violation of laws made by the master class, by open rebellion, by seizing the property of the rich, by setting the torch to a few buildings, or by the summary execution of a few members of the possessing class, I hope that the courage to share in the work would be mine."

Spargo, in "Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism and Socialism," admits that the Socialists have continually and consistently given aid to the Industrial Workers of the World in their strikes. Yet notwithstanding this active support, many persons have been led to believe that the Socialists have repudiated the I. W. W. This incorrect opinion may be due to the fact that the Socialist Party did not endorse the I. W. W. at its 1912 National Convention, or else to the fact that William D. Haywood was subsequently removed by a referendum from the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party. But the 1912 Indianapolis Convention of the Socialist Party did not repudiate the Industrial Workers of the World. The representatives of the party only declared for a neutrality between this organization and the American Federation of Labor, and would in all probability have endorsed the I. W. W. and repudiated the American Federation of Labor if the Socialists had not nursed a hope of getting control of the latter organization and turning it into an industrial union similar to that of the Industrial Workers of the World.

That the Socialist Party by no means repudiated the I. W. W., but on the contrary was still on the most friendly terms with it after the 1912 Convention, is evident from several facts. "The Call," May 17, 1912, affirms that the Convention decided for neutrality in affairs of unions.

In the "Appeal to Reason," May 25, 1912, we read: "So after long weeks of discussion in the press, after days of apprehensions and fencing for advantage, the labor organization committee brought forth a unanimous report, which after a few speeches, all expressing the spirit of solidarity, was adopted without a dissenting vote. It was a compromise resolution. Each side declares itself completely satisfied with it. Each declares that it expresses its sentiments."

William D. Haywood, who perhaps more than any other person had the interests of the I. W. W. at heart, declared, according to "The Call," May 17, 1912, that with the adoption of this declaration concerning the neutrality of the party towards the two rival labor unions he felt that he could go to the 8,000,000 workers of the nation and carry to them the message of Socialism. "This," he continues, "is the greatest step that has yet been taken by the Socialist Party."

Although Haywood was for the time being removed from the National Executive Committee of the party, charged with favoring direct action rather than political action, he was never expelled from the party--which yet boasted so much of the constitutional clause adopted at the 1912 National Convention demanding that any member who opposes political action, or advocates crime, sabotage, or other methods of violence as a weapon of the working class, to aid in its emancipation, shall be expelled from membership in the party.

"The New Unionism," page 119, points out some of the "merits" of the I. W. W., in comparison made with the Socialist Party, against which it was somewhat offended by the anti-sabotage and anti-direct action plank adopted at the 1912 National Convention:

"There are vote-getters and politicians who waste their time coming into a community where ninety per cent. of the men have no vote, where the women are disfranchised 100 per cent., and where the boys and girls under age, of course, are not enfranchised. Still they will speak to these people about the power of the ballot, and they never mention a thing about the power of the general strike. They seem to lack the foresight, the penetration to interpret political power. They seem to lack the understanding that the broadest interpretation of political power comes through the industrial organization; that the industrial organization is capable not only of the general strike, but prevents the capitalists from disfranchising the worker; it gives the vote to women, it re-enfranchises the black man and places the ballot in the hands of every boy and girl employed in a shop, makes them eligible to take part in the general strike, makes them eligible to legislate for themselves where they are most interested in changing conditions, namely, in the place where they work."

Again we read, on page 122 of "The New Unionism":

"The politicians in the Socialist Party, who want offices in the government, fight the I. W. W. because we have no place in our ranks for them, and if our idea prevails, it will crowd them out and destroy their influence as 'saviors of the working class.' These politicians cater for votes to the middle class--to business men, farm owners and other small labor skinners--while the I. W. W. appeals only to wage-workers, and allows none but actual wage-workers to join our ranks. The Socialists can never get a majority of votes for a working class programme (if they had such a programme) because the majority of voters are middle class, since about ten million male wage-workers are disfranchised (being foreigners or floaters without long enough residence in one place to have votes). But the wage-workers are a big majority of the whole people, and produce nearly all wealth, so when they organize as the I. W. W. proposes, the working class will control the country, and with similar organizations in other countries will control the world. Foreigners, women, children and other non-voters at elections, have equal rights in the union, and take part in its activities, regardless of nationality, age, sex, or any other consideration except that they are wage-workers with common interests in opposition to those of the employers."

It may come as a surprise to the reader to hear that at the 1917 St. Louis Convention of the Socialist Party the anti-sabotage and anti-direct action plank of the Constitution was dropped. The "International Socialist Review," May, 1917, page 669, commenting on the removal of the clause, says:

"It has served its purpose, which was to guillotine and drive out most of the revolutionary workers from the party. The Constitution committee recommended that it be striken out by unanimous consent without going on the minutes or records. Ruthenberg opposed. He insisted that it be struck out and the minutes show the record of the action. It was carried almost unanimously."

Further on we read in the same issue of "The International Socialist Review":

"An industrial union plank to be inserted in the platform was defeated by a vote of 63 to 61. Had it been offered as a resolution it would have gone through by a big majority." Though most of the Convention favored the I. W. W., evidently a small majority feared to put the Socialist Party on record.

In 1918 and 1919 the Socialist Party grew more and more friendly to the I. W. W. At present they seem to have fallen in love with each other. The American Federation of Labor is held in greatest contempt by the Socialist press, while the I. W. W. is lauded to the skies. Its meetings are advertised, sympathy and aid are extended to its imprisoned officials and everything is being done to help it along.

Eugene V. Debs has all along been the sincere friend of the I. W. W. In the February, 1918, issue of the "International Socialist Review," page 395, he says:

"Every plutocrat, every profiteering pirate, every food vulture, every exploiter of labor, every robber and oppressor of the poor, every hog under a silk tile, every vampire in human form will tell you that the A. F. of L. under Gompers is a great and patriotic organization and that the I. W. W. under Haywood is a gang of traitors in the pay of the bloody Kaiser.

"Which of these, think you, Mr. Wage-Slave, is your friend and the friend of your class?....

"The war within the war and beyond the war in which the I. W. W. is fighting--the war of the workers of all countries against the exploiters of all countries--is our war, the war of humanity against its oppressors and despoilers, the holiest war ever waged since the race began."

"The Call," New York, April 19, 1919, published at the top of its editorial page, "Debs' Daily Message from Moundsville Prison:"

"Though Jailed, He Speaketh.

"The clear voice of the awakened and dauntless few cannot be silenced. The new unionism is being heard. In trumpet tones it rings out its revolutionary shibboleth to all the workers of the earth: 'Our interests are identical--let us combine industrially and politically, assert our united power, achieve our freedom, enjoy the fruit of our labor, rid society of parasitism, abolish poverty and civilize the world!'....

"There can be no peace until the working class is triumphant in this struggle and the wage system is forever wiped from the earth."

In the May Day issue of "The Call," May 1, 1919, there is a very long article on Debs' Imprisonment by David Karsner, staff correspondent. He tells us that on the afternoon of April 28 he sat talking with Debs in his little room in the prison hospital at Moundsville, West Virginia, and that the many-times presidential candidate of the Socialist Party among other things said, when told of an intended visit by Karsner to the Leavenworth Federal prison to see William D. Haywood and the other 93 I. W. W. prisoners:

"I want you to take my love to Bill Haywood and all the other boys you see out there. We all stand shoulder to shoulder together."

The staff correspondent then goes on to say:

"The reference of Debs to Haywood and the I. W. W. brought vividly to my mind the little scene enacted between 'Gene' and 'Big Bill' in the corridor of Judge Landis' courtroom in Chicago last August during the I. W. W. trial.

"'You and the boys are making a great and noble fight,' said Debs to Haywood at that time, patting the cheek of Big Bill. 'You are a born champion of the underdog.' Haywood clasped Debs' in his own great palm and said affectionately, 'You are the champion of the underdog, Gene, and you always will be.' There was something thrilling and inspiring in witnessing this friendly and comradely felicitation between two noble men, both of whom have never retreated one jot from their ideas of emancipation of the working class.

"I recalled as I saw him this afternoon that seven years ago, or at the time of the Indianapolis Convention of the Socialist party, Debs pleaded for unity of the movement. He refused to be stampeded into any position that would compromise the noble work that confronted himself and the Socialist Party. Debs has always been for industrial unionism. His speeches and writings are filled with the spirit of organization and solidarity on the industrial field as well as on the political. But above everything else he has warned his fellow Socialists and industrialists that the thing to do is to keep united, to solidify their economic and political strength to the end that when our day comes we shall be ready to enjoy the fruits of our victory."

"The One Big Union Monthly," March 1, 1919, pages 14, 19 and 21, gives us some very interesting information about the I. W. W. attitude toward Bolshevism and the two extreme groups of the Socialists:

"We have long predicted the revolutionary cyclone that is now sweeping over the world, even though few people cared to believe us. We asked them to prepare for it by building up the framework of the new society within the shell of the old, in other words to see to it that we had the new house ready to move into, before we dynamited the old one....

"Personally we are convinced that Russia will never again return to the old order. The workers have control and they will not let go of it. As the days go by, they will gradually organize production and distribution on the lines of industrial unionism, as Lenine assures us, and that will be their salvation.

"The plight of the Russian people is a warning to other peoples to immediately start building the new society, by building industrial unions right now, before the structure of the old society topples over. Industrial unions are the only social apparatus that will make abolishment of wage slavery possible....

"The Bolshevik Revolution has emphasized this sad fact. Socialism in Russia, facing for the first time in Socialist history, the problem of inaugurating a working class state, found itself paralyzed by the existence of a parliamentary form of Democracy. The Revolution was at stake. In order to destroy capitalism it was necessary to destroy parliamentary Democracy, and Lenine destroyed it. In its place he reared a new form of Democracy--the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is Socialism.

"And yet, so misled is the thinking of our European Socialists that in the very presence of a living, accomplished Socialist commonwealth, they hastened to repudiate it because it was not 'Democratic.' Plekhanov betrayed it. Kautsky reviled it. Albert Thomas called upon the capitalists of France to send their soldiers there and crush it. Mr. Walling, Mr. Spargo and Mr. Russell baptized themselves into a 'Socialist' crusade to destroy Socialism. Could idiocy be more abject?

"The alternative is presented, to choose between Socialism or Democracy. Or perhaps it would be better to put it--between industrial Democracy and parliamentary Democracy. And our pitiable Spargos, duped by a stale phrase, abandon their Socialism because it is not 'Democratic.'

"In America, it is this same issue of Democracy which has long been the dividing line between the Socialist Party and the I. W. W. Like the Bolshevists of Russia, the I. W. W. have championed Democracy but we have refused to allow the capitalist thinkers to define it for us. We have practiced Democracy in our organization and we have sublimated it into the most perfect of Democratic organizations. But always, it has been a Democracy only of proletarians. We have built the framework of a new society which says that those shall not vote who do not work. And this, indeed, is Socialism.

"But the political Socialists have feared to draw this distinction. They have not built themselves upon the proletarian rock. Into their ranks they have admitted, not only the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker, but also the lawyer, the doctor, the merchant, the sky pilot, yes, and even the capitalists--known as millionaire Socialists. Out of such a medley, a medley philosophy was sprouted. Democracy, to the political Socialists, could not be rigidly proletarian, because the political Socialists, themselves, were not proletarians. And their ideals paled into evasion and compromise.

"Again, the I. W. W. being proletarian, spurned a parliamentary action which would have drawn it together with the exploiting class. It realized, before Spargo took that fatal dodge, that, from parliamentary Socialism to parliamentary Democracy it was but a step. Hence we spurned politics and parliamentarism, and substituted a Democracy, grouped around unions, and not around parliaments.

"But the political Socialists, immersed in parliamentary hack work, stifled the Socialist concept of Democracy by recognizing and participating in the capitalist form of Democracy. Entering the parliaments, they dreamed that they could transform these parliaments into Socialist republics. Only too soon they discovered that the parliaments had transformed them into 'Democratic' apologists. Like a poisoning strain, parliamentarism spread out over Socialism. And so, when Socialism came at last in Russia, without the aid of the foolish parliaments, deluded Socialists cried that Bolshevism was not Socialism."

The year 1919 witnessed a very marked drawing together, in the United States and throughout the world, of I. W. W.'ism, or Syndicalism, and all the bodies of radical, revolutionary Socialism. The Moscow Bolshevists gave a great "boost" to the I. W. W. principle of industrial unionism by endorsing it and declaring that Russia was being reorganized economically along similar lines. Bolshevism in Russia, in fact, has had the help and counsel of I. W. W. experts from the United States, and I. W. W. leaders in America have naturally been elated. John Sandgren wrote in "The New Solidarity," April 12, 1919:

"The immortal gains of Bolshevism for humanity lie on the political field. When it comes to economic reconstruction, the Bolsheviks are going to find that it cannot be made from the top through laws and regulations. Any attempt to make the people the real owners of the means of production and distribution must start with the industrial organization of the workers themselves as outlined in the I. W. W. program. In the meantime, let us hope that Bolshevism will sweep victoriously over all such parts of the world where it still has a mission to perform. After that, begins the I. W. W. period in human history."

The April 1, 1919, issue of "The One Big Union Monthly," published the Russian Communist Party call and invitation to the Moscow Conference [see Chapter III for a copy of this document], remarking that "as to the general demand for the overthrow of Capitalism, the dis-establishment of private ownership and making the working-class the rulers of the world, there is apt to be little if any dissension." However, noting that "the I. W. W. of this and other countries" had been invited to the conference, it declared that "we have no reason to get excited over the invitation," since, "with the exception of the I. W. W., there is hardly any of the thirty-nine invited bodies who seriously endorse industrial unionism as the basis of a new society.... The proposed communist conference would consequently be a congress of radical political Socialists to consider the question of discontinuing the use of the ballot and adopting the methods used by the Russian communists in the past in overthrowing capitalist society." The I. W. W. world-scheme is then outlined:

"The I. W. W. has given up all thought of using the machinery of the present state for its purposes. It proposes to create an entirely new machinery of administration in which not even a particle of the old shall enter as a constituent part. We propose to re-group all mankind on industrial lines in industrial organizations which we hope will make superfluous and crowd out the political groupings which constitute the state. We propose to make the unit of industry, the place of work, the shop, the mill, the field, the ship, the basis of our new social organization. These units will combine in two different manners. From a purely industrial standpoint, they will unite with other units into large industrial unions, calculated to embrace the whole world, each and every one of them. For the purpose of local administration, we propose that the local industrial units shall form a district industrial council or local administrative body to take care of local affairs. As we propose to order all branches of human activity along these lines and include them in a world scheme of industrial co-operation, we must conclude that our program, although fundamentally aiming at the same thing as the program of the Communist Party, somewhat differs from the program proposed as a basis of unity."

An editorial in the same issue on "Soviet Government in the U. S." says:

"The papers have informed us that the police and the secret service have unearthed a gigantic plot among the Socialists of this country to gather up all the radical elements with a view to establishing a Soviet government in this country.... We do not deny that this agitation is useful, for it stirs people to thought and excites contradiction, ... but when that is said, we have said all the good we can about it....

"The Russians made their revolution not because they had Soviets, but because the people willed it.... The I. W. W. has at least on paper an institution corresponding to the Soviet, namely, the District Industrial Council, ... a local representative body of the various industrial unions in each locality. So far, it lacks all practical significance because we are not numerous enough, but whenever there is to be a radical change in this country, the change will have to be made through these councils locally. They will take over the functions which were taken over by the Soviets in Russia."

Another editorial in the same issue treats of the overtures of the Left Wing Socialists:

"Of late we have noticed an ever-increasing tendency to hush us up in the name of unity. We are being told not to show up political Socialism; we are told not to attack Anarchism. We are asked to be more lenient toward the A. F. of L. [American Federation of Labor.] We mustn't touch on church and religion....

"It appears that political Socialists, anarchists and other labor elements feel that the bottom has fallen out of their programs and they want us to keep quiet about it, and as a reward we will secure their friendly services. The I. W. W. is not willing to enter into any such bargain."

Another editorial gives further light on the "boring in" process begun by theoretical Socialists with an itch for revolution--paper soldiers anxious to get a-straddle of the great strike-conducting war-horse of I. W. W.'ism and ride into "the dictatorship of the proletariat." This is thus dealt with:

"There is a large element in this country who want a radical change if not a revolution. This element would like to see the change made to suit them with the smallest possible cost to themselves.

"The most insistent agitators belong to the upper-class radicals, and their object seems to be to stir the working masses into some sort of revolutionary activity, not clearly defined. It seems they built great hopes on the participation of the I. W. W. They know we are a compact mass of industrial workers, able to manipulate such great affairs as the general strikes in Seattle and Butte, the strike of the silk workers, the strike on the Mesaba Range, and so on, and we are just what they need for their purpose.

"For this reason we have met with an unusual amount of courtesy and consideration of late, but we are sorry to say that we do not consider it disinterested. If these revolutionists were sincere in their friendship for us, they would throw everything aside and help us build up industrial unionism, but that is exactly what they are not doing to any considerable extent. Their activities are directed on aims that are strange and foreign to us. Some of their adherents in overalls are getting into our ranks because they work in the industries we have organized or because our recruiting unions are open to them, and their activity is frequently annoying to us, as it has little or nothing to do with the industrial organization of the workers."

The same issue contains an article by a Left Winger, I. E. Ferguson, a "Little Corporal" ready to step to the front of I. W. W.'ism and lead it to glory. He complains:

"The attempt to 'hog the market' of propagandizing the Russian Revolution in the United States for the I. W. W. is leading to excesses which ought to be checked right now, else these excesses will accomplish injury to the American Socialist movement. This does not mean to repudiate the claims of the I. W. W. to any extent, but to controvert the negative proposition that all of the American revolutionary socialist movement is and necessarily must be within the folds of the I. W. W....

"The I. W. W. is the livest thing in the American Socialist movement, therefore, truly, the Greatest Thing On Earth for the American working class. But ... when the same organization carries on the business of unionism and the business of revolution at the same time, it is more than likely, when it becomes overburdened, to throw overboard the more remote job in favor of the more immediate one. Revolution is a political proposition, or, if you please, anti-political. Its direct task is the overthrow of the capitalist state, the bulwark of capitalist industrialism. There is no question in the world but that the I. W. W. form of labor organization is the most powerful possible weapon for the overthrow of the capitalist state, because of its adaptability to great mass protests and mass movements of the proletariat. But only an organization with the sole aim of revolution can take the responsibility for leadership in this fight."

Granting some truth in the above argument, it is not probable that a great practical organization like the I. W. W., which does things, and very rough things, will invite theorists, non-working drones, to come in and take charge of it. Nor is it willing to be borrowed, and diverted into an engine to run toy revolutions. This is the substance of the reply to Ferguson made by Harold Lord Varney in the same magazine. We quote its pith:

"Like the Left Wingers of the Socialist Party; like the editors and the writers of the Revolutionary Age and the Class Struggle; like the Eastmans, the Nearings and the Frainas of our American movement, my critic is obsessed with Russia. To him, the Bolshevists and their mass action revolutions are like dazzling, fiery suns which blind and obscure all rivals....

"As proletarians, I. W. W.'s rejoiced at the Lenine triumph. As proletarians, we have unwaveringly supported the Bolshevist regime in all our propaganda. Those of our members who happened to be in Russia when the October Revolution came (and there were thousands of them) were all found in the Bolshevist army. Bill Shatoff, Volodarsky, Martoff, Kornuk and others who have been leaders in the Bolshevist army were all old members of the I. W. W. In brief, then, were we in Russia, all I. W. W.'s would be Bolsheviki. But from this it does not necessarily follow that in America the I. W. W. must turn Bolshevist also....

"Mr. Ferguson's proposition is that after all these years of struggle we should now discard this One Big Union goal and unite with political Socialists to create an American Bolsheviki. And in that proposal he demonstrates the impractical artlessness of the Left Winger. The I. W. W. is a Socialist who is a materialist. The Left Winger is a Socialist who is an ideologist. The I. W. W. seeks for verities and for concrete, ponderable power. The Left Winger follows the intoxicating dreams of his own imagination....

"Of course, the I. W. W. wants unity. But we will have no unity with any who are not willing to accept the proletarian conception of Socialism. We will have no unity with any who do not belong to our class. And we will have no unity with any who flinch at the 'radicalism' of our program....

"The I. W. W. is not anti-political. Its members are free to be members of the Socialist Party and thousands of us, the writer included, do carry Socialist cards....

"The social revolution is not a thing of theories. It is merely the final act of working-class organization. It is the historic mission of the working class to mount to supreme power. They do this, not by debating nor by marching in the street; they do this by the slow process of organization. In their union halls, the workers learn class consciousness. In their union halls, the workers learn self-government. In their union halls, the workers are disciplined and solidified for the 'final conflict.' Every strike is a revolution in miniature. Every gain which organized workers make, by a conscious act of their own, weakens capitalism and is revolutionary. In short, the union movement is the schoolhouse of the new society....

"Mr. Ferguson is not correct in asserting that the I. W. W. does not have 'the sole aim of revolution.' In our Preamble, he will find the boldest revolutionary utterance which has ever been penned.... Even were we silent in revolutionary words, our very form of organization and mode of action stamp us as revolutionists. We are organized against capital. We are an army that is ever battling....

"The real I. W. W. is not to be read in books of the intellectuals. It does not flash in phrases. It is written in the hearts of strong silent men. It can be read in the ineffable tales of anguish which ring from the prisons of the land. It can be read in the tragic sacrifices of the Littles, the Joe Hills, the Barans, the Looneys, the Jonsons, the Rabinowitzes, the Gerlots, the Jack Whytes whom destiny has claimed from among us. Its chapters have been penned, not with words, but with the living dramas of Spokane and San Diego, Lawrence and Paterson, McKee's Rocks, Everett and Mesaba Range."

This is indeed the spirit of the most dangerous organization of devoted fanatics in the world today, and if our present order of society hopes to survive its steady, unrelenting assault, it must take into its hands the weapons of truth and justice.

We have given these quotations to show clearly both the difference and the bond of union between the I. W. W.'s and the other brands of Socialists. A Left Winger sums it up concisely ("The Communist," August 23, 1919): "The syndicalist and the Socialist have this in common: That they both strive for the reduction of the state to zero and the 'building of a new society within the shell of the old.' The fundamental difference between the two is that the syndicalist naively strives to build the new society while the capitalist class controls the coercive power, and the Socialist aims to destroy that power first and then begin the 'building' process."

But I. W. W.'ism is the more logical, and, in conditions like those in the United States, much the more dangerous, because it is revolution going on every day of the year, holding what it gets, be it much or little. Moreover, since I. W. W.'ism will not give up its position, Socialism in America has adopted the industrial unionism creed. This now is the backbone of all the recent Socialist platforms, including that of the Socialist Party of America. Even with the Left Winger's buoyant faith in a speedy overturn of the United States, he now sees that the One Big Union is the necessary steam-roller to accomplish it, and for months he has been at work, "boring from within," to get the forces of American labor industrially organized for revolutionary action. In short, there has been a general following of the advice which "Truth," Left Wing organ in the Northwest, gave in its issue of May 23, 1919, as its answer to the above-quoted challenge of Varney to Ferguson:

"The Left Wing represents the revolutionary portion of the Socialist Party in opposition to the opportunism of the Right Wing. Therefore we must, in order to make the Socialist Party a revolutionary expression of the working class, join hands with the Left Wing....

"The I. W. W. represents the revolutionary section of the working class in opposition to the opportunism of Gompers et al. Therefore we must, in order to make working class organizations revolutionary, join hands with the I. W. W.

"The resolutions and the manifestoes of the Left Wing are revolutionary expressions. But action counts for more than words. If all Left Wingers are sincere they will join in the I. W. W. and endeavor to make the I. W. W. the dominant working-class organization throughout the country. The times demand that we must make ready to enforce our demands. No pious resolutions will bring us freedom. Only POWER through organization on the job will bring us freedom. True it is that we have to resort to mass action. But the basis of our mass action must be organization on the job. The I. W. W. represents the highest form of industrial organization and therefore merits our support. So we trust that ALL Left Wingers will join with the I. W. W. This is not the time to indulge in hair-splitting. If you are enraptured by what has taken place in Russia, do your share here in America."

This appeared in May, 1919. Six months later we open the December, 1919, "One Big Union Monthly" and read:

"We need hardly repeat the now well known facts that the workers of western Canada and of Australia have in mass adopted our principles in the course of this year. Close upon these significant events came the news that the three fragments into which the Socialist Party was split endorsed industrial unionism, while two of them rather outspokenly favored the I. W. W.

"Later we were able to state that the increase in our own membership in the course of the 12 months, September 1, 1918, to September 1, 1919, was about 50,000. Now we are able to inform our readers that the growth of the last three months has been unprecedented. Lumber workers, miners, construction workers, marine transport workers and many other unions report many thousands of new members. We are getting a footing in fields that we have never been able to touch before, such as the printing industry and building construction. Carpenters and painters are joining us by the thousand. On November 9th delegates of eight independent unions in different industries, representing something like 250,000 workers, met in New York City and took the first steps for an affiliation with the I. W. W.--in spite of jails and persecution. And let us not forget that the Negro workers of the U. S. are organizing on the basis of our program.

"But the influence of our principles is not limited to the English-speaking people in America and Australia. Other races and countries are enthusiastically taking up our program and proudly announcing that they are with the I. W. W. Thus in Mexico our movement has taken form and been laid out on a national basis. In South America, where the labor movement always has been in sympathy with us, the workers are going one step further and have started organizing as an I. W. W. In Buenos Ayres there is already an organization of 2,800 marine transport workers in such an organization.

"Furthermore it is to be noted that practically all the old trade unions on this continent prove to be honey-combed with friends of the I. W. W.

"Over in Europe it is the same story. The rebuilding of production and distribution in Russia is said to be largely based on our principles. At last report there were about 3,500,000 industrial workers organized in industrial unions for the carrying on of production and distribution. The Russian people are taking possession of the industries through their industrial unions.

"In Italy 'The Italian Syndicalist Union,' 300,000 strong, is forging ahead along the same lines as the I. W. W. In Spain our adherents are to be numbered by the hundreds of thousands. In France the proposition has recently been made in the organ of the Communist Party, 'L'Internationale Communiste,' to start reorganizing the French working class on our program, in opposition to the C. G. T. [Confédération Générale du Travail, or French Confederation of Labor]. In England there is a separate organization of the I. W. W. that is advancing rapidly, while the influence on the old trade unions is very noticeable in their changed attitude of late toward 'direct action.' ...

"But the biggest surprise of the year we received from Germany. At least two separate calls have been issued by the German workers to organize exactly as the I. W. W. The recently formed 'Freie Arbeiter Union' is also a federation of industrial unions that endorse our principles. And, finally, from distant, unknown Greece we are receiving news that the One Big Union is the aim of all the organized workers of that country."

Several very important facts have been proven in this and the preceding chapter: first, that the Industrial Workers of the World is a revolutionary organization in the strictest sense and has for its object the overthrow of the United States Government; secondly, that, like the Socialist Party, it is constantly seeking to stir up trouble whenever it can do so; thirdly, that it respects neither morality nor the law and appeals to the basest passions in man; and, finally, that all sections of the Socialist Party are on the strictest terms of friendship with it and are giving it full support.



Shortly after the Lenine-Trotzky government came into power in Russia, in the latter part of the year 1917, Bolshevism became very popular in America among the radicals, especially the Socialists. Among those who helped most to bring it into such high esteem was Albert Rhys Williams, who had spent but one year of his life in Russia, hardly spoke the Russian language, and while staying in that country was in the pay of the Bolsheviki, as he testified before the Senate Committee.

The Bolsheviki came into power by violence and have sustained themselves in power by violence and terrorism. Their main support, the so-called Red Army, in which the Chinese and Letts have played a prominent part, is an army of mercenaries who are well paid and well fed, while thousands of civilians are dying from starvation in the cities and towns of Russia.

The first success of the Bolsheviki was the dissolution by bayonets of the Constituent Assembly, which for forty years had been the goal of all Russians--even of the Bolsheviki up to the time when they found it overwhelmingly against them. Then they invented a new double name for their anti-democratic government: Soviets, or dictatorship of the proletariat. Next they dissolved all the democratic Municipal Councils and Zemstvos and proceeded to take away the various liberties won in the revolution against the regime of the Czar.

The dictatorship of the proletariat led rapidly to an almost complete stoppage of industry. Governmental expenditures increased by leaps and bounds with the growing pauperization of the people; for the growing staffs of Bolshevist officials were utterly incompetent, a large army of mercenaries was required in order to keep down the ever-increasing number of insurrections and the ceaseless attacks from many foreign foes, enormous subsidies had to be paid to Bolshevist workingmen, regardless of the fact that the factories were producing sometimes little and sometimes nothing, and, finally, the Lenine government spent great sums in revolutionary propaganda in the different countries of the world. Political and economic slavery, moral corruption and the starvation of millions of people, are a few of the "blessings" bestowed upon Russia by Bolshevism.

Catherine Breshkovsky, the "Grandmother of the Russian Revolution," herself a Socialist, speaking of the Bolsheviki, said:

"In addition to the crimes in their foreign policy, which culminated in the treacherous Brest-Litovsk 'peace' with German militarists, the Bolsheviki have committed innumerable crimes in their internal policy. They have destroyed all civil liberties in Russia: freedom of speech, of the press, of assemblage and of organization; they have filled prisons through the country with their political adversaries, proclaiming 'enemies of the people' not only the Liberals, the Constitutional-Democratic Party, but also the party of the Socialists-Revolutionists and the Social-Democrats Mensheviki, that is, the parties of the Russian peasantry and proletariat. They have instituted a system of terror unequaled in cruelty, and while hundreds of innocent hostages would pay with their lives for the assassination or for the attempt to assassinate a Bolshevist commissaire, they did not punish the Red Guards who assassinated the two Ministers of the Provisional Government, Kokoshkin and Shingariev, while the latter were under Bolshevist arrest, lying sick in a hospital."

The January, 1919, issue of "The Eye Opener," the official organ of the National Office, Socialist Party, publishes the full text of the Russian Bolshevist Constitution under the caption, "Here's Constitution of World's First Socialist Republic." Some quotations from the document will no doubt prove interesting as well as instructive:

"For the purpose of realizing the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among husbandmen without any compensation to the former owners, in the measure of each one's ability to till it.

"All forests, treasures of the earth, and waters of general public utility, all implements whether animate or inanimate, model farms and agricultural enterprises are declared to be national property.

"As a first step toward complete transfer of ownership to the Soviet Republic of all factories, mills, mines, railways and other means of production or transportation, the Soviet law, for the control by workmen and the establishment of the Supreme Soviet of National Economy is hereby confirmed, so as to assure the power of the workers over their exploiters....

"Universal obligation to work is introduced for the purpose of eliminating the parasitic strata of society and organizing the economic life of the country.

"For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of the complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all toilers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class be disarmed....

"The Russian Republic is a free Socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural Soviets....

"The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic considers work the duty of every citizen of the Republic, and proclaims as its motto: 'He shall not eat who does not work.'

"The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:

"Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain from it an increase in profits.

"Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.

"Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers.

"Monks and clergy of all denominations."

This Bolshevist Constitution shows that the Lenine government has decreed the socialization of all the land, factories, mills, mines and other means of production, as well as the railways and the various means of transportation. This program has been carried out, though as yet probably not completely. Conditions in Russia were deplorable under the regime of the Czar, but the Socialist government has made them a thousand times worse. Industry has been reduced to an almost negligible minimum, property has been destroyed on every side and possession made a crime. The country has been reduced to chaos, for no one cares to sow where others will reap; and unemployment is widespread, for employers are outlawed, and the government has not enough satisfactory positions to offer. The right to hold property is one of the binding forces that holds civilization together and supplies incentive to labor. Some of the evil effects of the confiscation and socialization of property in Russia are shown from the following articles, published by the Socialists-Revolutionists, a faction of the Marxians opposed to the Bolsheviki. Their paper, "Vlast Naroda," declares:

"The village has taken away the land from the landlords, farmers, wealthy peasants and monasteries. It cannot, however, divide it peacefully, as was to be expected.

"The more land there is, the greater the appetite for it; hence more quarrels, misunderstandings and fights.

"In Oboyansk County, many villages refused to supply soldiers when the Soviet authorities were mobilizing an army. In their refusal they stated 'in the spring soldiers will be needed at home in the villages,' not to cultivate the land, but to protect it with arms against neighboring peasants.

"In the Provinces of Kaluga, Kursk and Voronezh peasant meetings adopted the following resolution:

"'All grown members of the peasant community have to be home in the spring. Whoever will then not return to the village or voluntarily stay away will be forever expelled from the community.

"'These provisions are made for the purpose of having as great a force as possible in the spring when it comes to dividing the land.' ...

"Some villages in the Nieshnov district, in the Province of Mohilev, have supplied themselves with machine guns. The village of Little Nieshnov, for instance, has decided to order fifteen machine guns and has organized a Red Army in order to be able better to defend a piece of land taken away from the landlord and, as they say, that 'the neighboring peasants should not come to cut our hay right in front of our windows, like last year.' When the neighboring peasants heard of the decision they also procured machine guns. They have formed an army and intend to go to Little Nieshnov to cut the hay on the meadows 'under the windows' of the disputed owners....

"Stubborn fights for meadows and forests are always going on. They often result in skirmishes and murder. There are similar happenings in other counties of the Province, for instance, in Petrov, Balashov and Arkhar.

"In the Province of Simbirsk there is war between the community peasants and shopkeepers. The former have decided to do away with 'Stolypin heirs,' as they call the shopkeepers. The latter, however, have organized and are ready for a stubborn resistance. Combats have already taken place. The peasants demolish farms, and farmers set fire to towns, villages, thrashing floors, etc."

Indeed, the results of confiscation and socialization were so bad from the very beginning that no less a personage than Lenine himself, in "A Letter to American Workingmen," published by the Socialist Publication Society of Brooklyn, New York, on pages 12 and 13, says:

"Mistakes are being made by our peasants who, at one stroke, in the night from October 25 to October 26 (Russian Calendar), 1917, did away with all private ownership of land, and are now struggling, from month to month, under the greatest difficulties, to correct their own mistakes, trying to solve in practice the most difficult problems of organizing a new social state, fighting, against profiteers to secure the possession of the land, for the workers instead of for the speculator, to carry on agricultural production under a system of communist farming on a large scale.

"Mistakes are being made by our workmen in their revolutionary activity, who, in a few short months, have placed practically all the large factories and workers under state ownership, and are now learning, from day to day, under the greatest difficulties, to conduct the management of entire industries, to reorganize industries already organized, to overcome the deadly resistance of laziness and middle-class reaction and egotism."

The Socialists of the United States and other radical elements in our country, after the World War, began to laud to the skies the Russian Soviets as the most perfect form of government that the world had ever seen. They were held to far surpass parliaments, congress and other legislative bodies and to be the supreme accomplishments of a democratic form of government. The deputies of the soviets, according to the Bolshevist Constitution, were to be elected by the secret, direct and equal vote of all the working masses. Theoretically the soviets were very attractive, but in reality fall far short of the ideal. "Struggling Russia," a well-known weekly magazine published in New York City by one of the groups of Russian Socialists, has this to say about the Soviets in its issue of April 5, 1919:

"In fact, there never was either a secret election in Soviet Russia, or one based on equal suffrage. Elections are usually conducted at a given factory or foundry at open meetings, by the raising of hands and always under the knowing eye of the chairman. The majority of the workers very frequently do not take part in these elections at all. The rights of a minority are never recognized, as proportional representation has been rejected.

"As regards direct elections, it is again a mere phrase. The Central Executive Committee, which is supposed to embody the supreme administrative organ of the country, was actually being elected through a four-grade system. Local Soviets send their representatives to the Provincial Congress, the Provincial Congress is represented by delegates at the All-Russian Congress, and only this last body elects the Central Executive Committee. Often the delegates are not elected by the regular meetings of the Soviets at all, but are sent by the Executive Committees, cleverly handpicked by the Bolsheviki after the system of proportional representation was rejected....

"The exclusion from the Soviets of all who think differently from the Bolsheviki developed gradually. They 'cleansed' the Soviets in Perm and Ekaterinburg, in January 1918; in Ufa, Saratov, Samara, Kazan and Yaroslavl in December, 1917; in Moscow and Petrograd in February, 1918. They were excluding all Socialists-Revolutionists and the Mensheviki, to say nothing of the People's Socialists and members of the Labor Group. Often, when workers demanded new elections to the Soviet (as happened in Petrograd late in December of 1917, and early in January, 1918), and such elections did take place, the Bolsheviki would not permit the newly elected delegates to enter the building of the Soviet and frequently arrested them. Gradually only Bolsheviki and Socialists-Revolutionists of the Left remained in the Soviets. Soon, however, after the assassination in Moscow of Count Mirbach, the German Ambassador, and the attempt at rebellion in Moscow early in June, 1918, by the Socialists-Revolutionists of the Left, the Bolsheviki began to fill up the prisons with the latter just as they did with the Socialists-Revolutionists of the Right and the Menshiviki.

"So, practically, there remained only Bolsheviki in the Soviets. And as there was no difference of opinion among them, regular meetings were soon abandoned altogether and the ostensible 'rule of the working masses' thus definitely disappeared. A few persons, often appointed from above (the Bolsheviki often had recourse to bayonets to support the fiction of Soviet rule: in Tumen the Executive Committee of a non-existent Soviet was brought from Ekaterinburg under a convoy of 800 Red Guards), would rule and lord it over the people, tired and weary of the war and a sterile revolution.

"Occasional outbursts of popular wrath serve as indications of the depth of dissatisfaction which is engendered by the Soviets and their offshoots, the Military-Revolutionary Committee. Thus, in the Polevsky works, in Ekaterinburg County, a mob of peasants, armed with axes, scythes and sticks, fell upon the Soviets and beast-like tore into fragments fifty Bolsheviki. In the Neviansk works the insurrection of the workers against the Red Army lasted for three days, until reinforcements from Perm finally subdued this 'counter-revolutionary' revolt. In Okhansk County 2,000 peasants were shot down for demanding the abolition of the Soviets and the re-establishment of the rule of the people."

In the April 19, 1919, issue of "Struggling Russia" we are told that "Vlast Naroda," in May, 1918, thus described the uprisings against the Soviets:

"In Kleen, a crowd entered by force the building occupied by the Soviets with the intention of bringing the deputies before their own court of justice. The latter fled. The Financial Commisary committed suicide by shooting himself, in order to escape the infuriated crowd.

"In Oriekhovo-Zooyevo, the deputies work in their offices, guarded by a most vigilant military force. Even on the streets they are accompanied by guards armed with rifles and bayonets.

"In Penza, an attempt has been made on the lives of the Soviet members. One of the presiding officers has been wounded. The Soviet building is now surrounded with cannons and machine-guns.

"In Svicherka, where the Bolsheviki had ordered a Bartholomew night, the deputies are hunted like wild animals....

"In Bielo, all members of the Soviets have been murdered.

"In Soligalich, two of the most prominent members of the Soviets have literally been torn to pieces. Two others have been beaten half-dead.

"In Atkarsk, several members of the Soviets have been killed."

"Struggling Russia," May 31, 1919, informs us that the Petrograd Committee of the Socialists-Revolutionists of the Left, in the middle of March, 1919, issued the following proclamation condemning the Petrograd Soviet:

"Shame to the Bolshevist Violators, Liars and 'Agents Provocateurs!'

"The Petrograd Soviet does not express the will of the Workmen, Sailors and 'Reds.'

"The Soviet was not elected. The elections were either pretenses or held under threats of shooting or starvation. This terrorism completely suffocated freedom of speech, the press and meetings of the laboring classes.

"The Petrograd Soviet consists of self-appointed Bolsheviki. It is a blind tool in the hands of the 'agents-provacateurs,' hangmen and assassins of the Bolshevist regime....

"Where is the dictatorship of the proletariat and working peasantry? It has been supplanted by the dictatorship of the Central Committee of the Bolshevist Party, governing with the assistance of a swarm of extraordinary commissions and punitive detachments of imported soldiers."

Though the Russian Socialists overthrew the government of the Czar in the hope of securing liberty, liberty, under the Bolshevist regime, is farther off than it was before. The British High Commissioner, R. H. Bruce-Lockhart, in a telegram sent to the British Foreign Office, November 10, 1918, among other things said:

"The Bolsheviki have established a rule of force and oppression unequaled in the history of any autocracy.

"Themselves the fiercest upholders of the right of free speech, they have suppressed, since coming into power, every newspaper which does not approve their policy.

"The right of holding public meetings has been abolished. The vote has been taken away from everybody except the workmen in factories and the poorer servants, and even amongst the workmen those who dared to vote against the Bolsheviki are marked down by the Bolshevist police as counter-revolutionaries, and are fortunate if their worst fate is to be thrown into prison, of which in Russia today it may truly be said, 'many go in but few come out.'"

V. M. Zenzinov, a member of the Central Committee of the Socialists-Revolutionists, in an article published in "Struggling Russia," April 12, 1919, speaking of absence of liberty under Bolshevism, says:

"It was during my stay in Petrograd in April, 1918, that a conference of factory and industrial plant employees of Petrograd and vicinity was held, to which 100,000 Petrograd workingmen (out of a total of 132,000) sent delegates. The conference adopted a resolution sharply denouncing the Bolshevist regime. Following this conference an attempt was made, in May, to call together an All-Russian Congress of workmen's deputies in Moscow, but all the delegates were arrested by the Bolsheviki, and to this day I am ignorant of the fate that befell my comrades."

Justice, as well as liberty, is a dead letter in the land of Lenine, and conscription is rigidly enforced by the Russian Socialist Government. R. H. Bruce-Lockhart, to whom reference has been made, in his telegram to the British Foreign Office, November 10, 1918, stated:

"The Bolsheviki have abolished even the most primitive forms of justice. Thousands of men and women have been shot without even the mockery of a trial, and thousands more are left to rot in the prisons under conditions to find a parallel to which one must turn to the darkest annals of Indian or Chinese history....

"The Bolsheviki who destroyed the Russian army, and who have always been the avowed opponents of militarism, have forcibly mobilized officers who do not share their political views, but whose technical knowledge is indispensable, and by the threat of immediate execution have forced them to fight against their fellow-countrymen in a civil war of unparalleled horror."

Concerning religious conditions in Russia, the Rev. Dr. George S. Simons, shortly after his return from that country, testified before the Senatorial Committee, which, in February, 1919, was investigating the nature of Russian Bolshevism:

"The Bolshevik is not only an atheist, but he also seeks to make all religions impossible. They assert that all misery is due to the superstition that there is a God. One of their officials told me:

"'We now propose to enlighten our children, and with this purpose in view, we are issuing a catechism on atheism for use in all the schools.'

"The man who told me this was the Commissionaire of Enlightenment and Education."

On February 7, 1919, an appeal was sent to Pope Benedict XV, by the Orthodox Greek clergy of that part of Russia which had not fallen a prey to the Bolsheviki. It was signed by Sylvester, Archbishop of Omsk, President of the Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church, and by other members of the same administration. This letter implored the Holy Father to deign to take into consideration the conditions existing in Russia. It exposed a list of crimes and outrages, cities sacked, churches profaned and pillaged, more than twenty bishops and more than one hundred priests assassinated, the victims being of every kind. Some of them before they were put to death had their arms and legs cut off, while others were buried alive. Nuns were violated; the socialization of women was proclaimed; rein was given to unbridled passions; everywhere there was nothing but famine, death and misery. The following message is also noteworthy:

"With deep grief, Venerable Father, we expose to you the unhappy conditions in which millions of Russians of true Russia are reduced. Relying on that unity which makes all mankind one, and on the strength of Christian fraternity, we hope, Venerable Father, that we may count on your compassion as representing the Christian Church, and trust that your flock will be informed of what is going on, and that in common with you they will offer fervent prayers to Him, in whose hands are both life and death, for those who in the northeast of Europe are being made, because of their love of Christ, Martyrs of the faith in the twentieth century."

"Dyelo Naroda," an organ of the Socialists-Revolutionists of Russia, in April, 1918, stated that the situation of the church and clergy was horrible. "Everything pertaining to them is being spit upon and profaned. People, with rifles on their shoulders and their hats on, often enter the church and right there question the clergymen and arrest priests, at the same time mocking the religious feelings of the praying crowd. Many churches have been closed as a result of the edict concerning the separation of Church and State."

"The New York Times," April 11, 1919, published the following special cable despatch concerning the religious persecution:

"London, April 10.--The Chronicle publishes an article by R. Courtier Foster, a British Chaplain at Odessa and Russian ports of the Black Sea, describing the religious persecution practised by the Bolsheviki following upon their former capture of Odessa. He says:

"'Committees were held on board the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, among the dockers in the port, in the towns and villages on every hand, which passed resolutions reading:

"'"We abolish God." In Odessa Cathedral, when the Archbishop of Kherson was celebrating the Holy Mysteries, an uproar occurred with cries of "Down with the priests!" "Down with the Church!" At a fête in the town gardens one saw a soldier of the Red Army, amid the guffaws of his fellows, spit on the Russian holy picture of the face of Christ, then tear it into fragments and stamp it into the dust.

"'The Bolshevist conception of religious toleration is considerably more elastic and far-reaching than the ideas of any mediæval inquisition. In this matter the Bolsheviki pride themselves on being far in advance of our effete western thought. They have murdered Vladimir, the Metropolitan of Kiev, twenty bishops, and many hundreds of priests. Before killing them they cut off the limbs of their victims, some of whom they buried alive in the Kremlin. The Cathedrals in Moscow and those in the towns of Yaroslav and Simferopol have been sacked. Many nuns were violated and churches defiled.

"'The ancient and historical sacristies and famous libraries of Moscow and Petrograd were pillaged and countless sanctuaries profaned. In Cronstadt Cathedral the great figure of the Crucified Christ was torn down and removed, and a monstrous and appalling pagan form placed in its stead, symbolizing "Freedom of Mind."

"'It is not against any one particular form of religion that the terrors of the new Freedom are hurled. Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Lutherans alike have been tortured, mutilated, and done to death under the aegis of the Holy Revolution which appeals to the proletariat of the whole world to join its forces.

"'The Revolutionary Government is subjecting the Christian religion to persecutions as great and brutal as anything the world saw during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Moral disintegration and ruin spread their tentacles on every side. Any restraint on sinful impulse or covetous desire is laughed to scorn. The Bolsheviki publicly encourage outrage and looting. The propaganda for freedom of mind is essentially nihilistic. It is based on negation and denial of the existence of God, denial of the authority of any moral law, denial of all rights of conscience, denial of all religious liberty, denial of all freedom of the press, denial of any liberty of speech.

"'One officer remarked despairingly to me: "In Russia now there is no God, no Czar, no law, no property, no money, no food--only freedom." And in that travesty of liberty, which the whole civilized world may well shudder at, all mercy, pity and toleration are alike scorned. And it is this new and wonderful equality of man which by means of torture, outrage and assassinations proclaims the "freedom of mind and body" to the devastated Russian nation.'"

In an Associated Press despatch, from London, that appeared in "The New York Times" on April 19, 1919, we are informed that of the 300 priests in the Perm diocese, 46 have been killed; moreover, that two monasteries were pillaged.

A very interesting and enlightening article on religion in Russia and the attitude of the Bolsheviki towards it appears in "The Proletarian," Detroit, April, 1919. The author is Ernest Greenburg and we shall quote the greater part of his article:

"The resolution adopted by the Socialist Party of Michigan at its recent State Convention that, 'It shall be the duty of all agitators and organizers upon all occasions to avail themselves of the opportunity of explaining religion,' caused a storm of indignation to arise among certain 'Socialists.' Clinging to the old fallacy that religion should be left alone, they point to the Russian Constitution and the works of the Bolshevik leaders who say 'Religion is a private matter.' But they fail to understand that the interpretation of the term 'Religion is a private matter,' has a different meaning here than it has in Russia.

"The slogan, 'Religion is a private matter,' is not of Russian origin. It has been and is one of the battle cries of the Revolutionary working class in all countries in which the Church and the State are combined. Different conditions account for different understandings of the terms 'Private Matter' here and in Russia.

"Probably in no other country have religion and the church played such an important role in the affairs of the state as in Russia up to the very present time. Truly, it was not so much the force of arms as that of ignorance which kept up the Czardom for hundreds of years. The Feudal aristocracy realized the advantages to be derived from keeping the minds of its slaves in darkness and superstition. One of the most powerful weapons in the hands of aristocracy was the Church, whose noble duty it was to sow and to propagate ignorance. The Church was officially a part of the state. People were forced to go to church; school children10 were taught the 'Holy Law of God,' attacks against the church were punished as attacks against the Czar.

"Religious ignorance of the masses was the greatest enemy of the Socialists in their propaganda work; at every step they had to meet and to combat the authority of God, in whose name the church servants consecrated the yoke of the Czar and the landlords. It was necessary to pull this poisonous tooth out of the jaws of the state. Hence came the demand: 'Religion is a private matter,'--private as opposed to state. It meant that the Church should be separated from the state and be deprived from its protection. It was a demand which, put to the Czarist government, if granted would only facilitate the struggle against this very religion.

"Similar demands have been put in the Socialist platforms of Germany, Austria, and other countries which were confronted with conditions like those in Russia. One of the immediate demands of the French revolutionists of the nineteenth century was of this nature.

"The November Revolution put the Russian workers in possession of the machinery of the church. As a weapon of ignorance, it could not be used against the exploiters; nor could it be destroyed by force. Then the Russian workers declared religion a private matter, thereby depriving it of State protection and forcing it under the blows of scientific criticism, which will rapidly do away with the reminders of the decrepit superstitions.

"In America religion always was 'a private matter.' It had never been officially related to the state, but just the same it is now being employed by the ruling class against the workers. If it is not yet as influential here as it was in Russia during the reign of the Czars--it is becoming so. Its destructive work cannot be neglected any longer. It must be fought....

"German Socialists understand that by destroying the holy alliance between the Church and the State their task would not be completed. After that 'We must wage unrelenting war against the Church,' says Bebel, 'because she foments civil war among the workers--because it is the only reactionary force which has any strength and which keeps us in voluntary slavery.'

"By separating the Church from the State and thereby enforcing their demand, 'Religion is a private matter,' the French Socialists were not yet satisfied. They went on fighting religion, and their Belgian comrades worked in accord with them. Says E. Vandervelde, 'We are bound to admit that both in philosophy and in politics there must be war between Socialism and the Church.'

"This attitude of the French and Belgian Socialists was approved by the international Congress at Amsterdam, 1904.

"The position of the Russian Socialists is very clear. They fully understand that 'Religion is a private matter' signifies only the first stage in the war against mental slavery. 'Religion is a private matter,' says N. Boucharin (The Church and the School), 'but it does not mean that we must not fight it by persuasion.' Further on he emphasizes that it is a 'private matter' only as much as forceful protection or forceful destruction is concerned. Beyond the gates of the State's protection, religion is not considered to be a private matter in Russia. It is fought there in schools and educational institutions by 'Propaganda, explanation and education.'

"In this question American Socialists must not be misled by the seeming contradiction in terms."

In the April 19, 1919, number of "Struggling Russia," Dioneo gives some interesting information relative to the destruction of education under the Bolshevist regime:

"The lower and secondary schools are ruined. The villages have their Soviets, their premises for meetings, but no lower schools. As regards secondary schools, the Bolshevist reformers are of the opinion that, in general, such institutions are not wanted and are just as unnecessary as the intermediate stage between nascent capitalism and the extreme form of communism.

"The Bolsheviki have only acknowledged the universities. At first, the reformers made such experiments on the latter as, for instance, the appointment of a porter to the post of inspector of the Technological institute, or of a cook as head-mistress of the Higher Courses for Girls. Then the Bolsheviki decided that no certificates were necessary for matriculation at the university. Any half-educated person might become a student of any faculty. The professors were at a loss to know how to lecture on higher mathematics to students ignorant of the multiplication table, or how to explain spectral analysis to persons hardly able to read. Then the Bolsheviki decided that there was no necessity for the professor to have a diploma either. It was only necessary that he should be a supporter of the Bolshevist platform. That is all! And celebrated Professors were obliged to leave the universities which they had made famous....

"National education--elementary, secondary, and higher--has been completely ruined by the Bolsheviki. Lately, they have apparently decided that Bolshevism ought to give the world a new type of university, quite different from that of the bourgeoisie. And with that in mind, the Municipal Council of Voronezh has thought of a 'Street University.' This is how the 'Izvestia' describes this curious institution of higher education: 'Each of the principal thoroughfares of Voronezh is now a faculty--of law, economics, history, literature, science, etc. The walls of the houses are placarded with posters, containing portraits and brief biographies of men distinguished in one or another branch of knowledge and brief items of information concerning the respective subject.' Thus comments the organ of the Bolshevist Government: 'Every citizen, instead of spending years at a university, can pick up a general knowledge of the principal educational subjects as he goes along.' ...

"Russia's school system is ruined. Education reforms exist only on paper. And at the same time the Bolsheviki, wishing to show that they value knowledge very highly, have announced that a geographical university such as the world has 'never yet seen' is going to be opened in Petrograd. It is interesting to know what professors will lecture in this new university, and who will form their audience?"



Socialists have for many years boasted of the perfect peace and harmony which would prevail when once they had established their state. Bloodshed, civil discord and strife of every kind would cease when the Marxian workers ruled the land, for, as they said, privately owned property, and exploitation of workers are the source of wars and the fundamental cause of the oppression of the people. Bolshevist Russia, however, the first Socialist country, appears to be an exception. Perhaps no nation has ever witnessed such scenes of violence, bloodshed, murder and cruelty, perpetrated by a government, not against a foreign foe, but against its own people, and this not after an existence of a hundred or several hundred years, but constantly from its very birth. So far only a few pages, comparatively speaking, of the history of the terrible outrages are opened to us, but from these we can form some slight idea of the dreadful condition of the land that is truly red, but red principally from the rivers of blood that flow in abundance over every section of the country.

The "Izvestia," an official Bolshevist publication, on October 19, 1918, published the following news item under the heading, "The Conference of the Extraordinary Commission:"

"Comrade Baky threw light on the work of the District Commission of Petrograd after the departure of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Moscow. The total number of people arrested by the Extraordinary Commission amounted to 6,220. Eight hundred people were shot."

The "Northern Commune," another official Bolshevist publication, in its issue of September 10, 1918, stated:

"In the whole of the Jaroslavl Government a strict registration of the bourgeoisie and its partisans has been organized. Manifestly anti-Soviet elements are being shot; suspected persons are being interned in concentration camps; non-working sections of the population are being subjected to compulsory labor."

The same edition of the "Northern Commune" publishes the following despatch:

"Tver, Sept. 9.--The Extraordinary Commission has arrested and sent to concentration camps over 130 hostages from among the bourgeoisie. The prisoners include members of the Cadet Party, Socialists-Revolutionists of the Right, former officers, well known members of the propertied class and policemen."

From the September 18, 1918, edition of the "Northern Commune" we learn that in Perm, in retaliation for the assassination of Uritzky and for the attempt on Lenine, fifty hostages from among the bourgeois classes and the White Guards were shot.

"Struggling Russia," March 22, 1919, supplies us with other details of Bolshevist rifle rule:

"We know a great deal about the terror in Petrograd, and considerably less about Moscow. The reason is plain. We find the curtain dropped on the activities of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission which had its seat in Moscow. In a report of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Moscow Soviet, which took place on October 16, we read:

"'The report of the work of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission was read at a secret session of the Executive Committee. But the report and the discussion of it were held behind closed doors and will not be published.' ['Izvestia,' October 17, 1918.]

"The kind of decisions adopted by the Moscow Bolsheviki behind closed doors and the mass terror practised in Moscow and all over Russia under the direction of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission are well illustrated by Eugene Trupp, a prominent Socialist-Revolutionist and a member of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, who wrote the following in the Socialist-Revolutionary daily, 'Zemlia i Volia' (Land and Freedom) of October 3, 1918:

"'After the murder of Uritzky in Petrograd, 1,500 people were arrested; 512, including 10 Socialists-Revolutionists, were shot. At the same time 800 people were arrested in Moscow. It is unknown, however, how many of these were shot. In Nizhni-Novgorod, 41 were shot; in Yaroslavl, 13; in Astrakhan, 12 Socialists-Revolutionists; in Sarapool, a member of the Central Committee of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists, I. I. Teterkin; in Penza, about 40 officers; in Kooznetzk people are daily shot in masses; all this is only a drop in the ocean. I have no exact information as to the number of people shot in other cities.' ...

"'Despite all these and other outrages, a demonstration of Red Guards took place in Moscow on September 6. Their main demands were "deeds for words" and "relentless red terror in the fight against the bourgeoisie." ...

"'The last days of my stay Moscow and Soviet-Russia in general were filled with red terror. A gray, silent and dejected crowd, with pale, terrified faces and eyes full of excitement, was moving along the streets. "Such or such people have been arrested today." "This or that number has been shot." "Do not sleep at home, they are looking for you." "You are still alive?" "Why do you not go away from here?" were expressions hastily exchanged.

"'No conversations were heard; only silent whispering in corners. All were trembling. All were filled with horror of the wild terror. Spies were all over. At the proper places you could see their familiar figures.

"'These spies sneak about the stations, mingling with the crowds of Red Guards, in the trains, and in all dirty, warm corners always pushing forward. While traveling you feel that if your face or perhaps your attire, or your opinion, carelessly uttered, will not please them, you may be held up at any moment. You feel that every passenger is hiding something in himself. Keep silent; we will talk later when we have passed the spying cordons.'"

In the September 18, 1918, evening issue of the "Northern Commune," there is a report of a meeting of the Soviet of the First District of Petrograd. After a report made by Kharitonoff, who emphasized the necessity of suppressing the bourgeois press, and after speeches by other members, the following resolution was passed:

"The meeting welcomes the fact that mass terror is being used against the White Guards and higher bourgeois classes, and declares that every attempt on the life of our leaders will be answered by the proletariat by the shooting down not only of hundreds, as the case is now, but of thousands of White Guards, bankers, manufacturers, Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) and Socialists-Revolutionists of the Right."

We are indebted to "Struggling Russia," March 29, 1919, for the following information as regards the Red rule of Lenine and the shooting of children:

"The following quotation from a speech of one of the most active Bolshevist leaders, Zinoviev, printed in the 'Northern Commune' of September 19, 1918, fully expresses the spirit of the Bolshevist terrorism:

"'To overcome our enemies we must have our own Socialist Militarism. We must win over to our side 90 millions out of the 100 millions of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated.'

"The program of annihilating ten million of the opponents of Bolshevism in Russia (Mr. Zinoviev has considerably underestimated their number) began to be executed by the Bolsheviki from the first moment of their coming into power. In the beginning of March, 1918, they held mass executions in Rostov-on-the-Don, killing, among others, many youths. The Moscow 'Russkiya Viedomosti' (Russian News) in its issue of March 23, 1918, reported that the president of the Rostov Municipal Council and the Chairman of the Don Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, B. C. Vasiliev, the mayor of the city, P. Petrenko, the former Chairman of the Rostov-Nakhichevan Council of Workingmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, P. Melnikov, and even M. Smirnov, at that time Chairman of the Council, have handed in a petition to the Bolshevist War-Revolutionary Council asking them to shoot them 'instead of the innocent children who are executed without law and justice.' A group of women, horrified by what was going on, also asked that they be shot instead of the children. In their petition they wrote as follows:

"'If, according to you, there is need of sacrifices in blood and life in order to establish a Socialistic state and to create new ways of life, take our lives, kill us, grown mothers and fathers, but let our children live. They have not yet had a chance to live; they are only growing and developing. Do not destroy young lives. Take our lives and our blood as ransom....

"'We, mothers, have served the country by giving our sons, husbands and brothers. Pray, take our last possession, our lives, but spare our children. Call us, one after the other, for execution, when our children are to be shot! Every one of us would gladly die in order to save the life of her children or that of other children.

"'Citizens, members of the War Revolutionary Council, listen to the cries of the mothers. We cannot be kept silent!'"

Charles Dumas, a French Socialist, on his return to France from Russia, wrote a book in which he warns his fellow-comrades on the dangers of Bolshevism, and among other things he says:

"Upon my arrival in Petrograd I wanted, first of all, to meet three of my old Russian friends, but soon learned that my searches were in vain. Two of the poor fellows had lost their minds and the third had cut his own throat with a razor....

"The Sebastopol horrors of March, 1918, when the sailors of the port, inflamed to a high pitch of bestiality by the Bolshevist press decided to kill all the inhabitants of the principal streets, not sparing even children above the age of five, are still so fresh in your minds that I need not remind you of them....

"On March 18, 1918, the peasants of an adjoining village organized, in collusion with the Bolsheviki, a veritable St. Bartholomew night in the city of Kuklovo. About 500 bodies of the victims were found afterwards, most of them 'intellectuals.' All residences and stores were plundered and destroyed, the Jews being among the worst sufferers. Entire families were wiped out, and for three days the Bolsheviki would not permit the burial of the dead.

"In May, 1918, the city of Korocha was the scene of a horrible massacre. Thirty officers, four priests, and 300 citizens were killed. The Peoples' Commissaries and the Soviets have, upon more than one occasion, made admissions that these horrors were part of their program. At the Congress of the Soviets the chairman of the Central Committee of the Soviets, Sverdlov, said: 'We invoke the Soviets not to relent, but to fortify the Terror, no matter how terrible it may be and what dimensions it may assume.'"

An Associated Press despatch, dated Omsk, April 5, 1919, stated that the Bolsheviki had murdered 2,000 at or near Osa:

"Indisputable evidence of the massacre by the Bolsheviki of more than 2,000 civilians in and near the town of Osa has been obtained by Messrs. Simmonds and Emerson and Dr. Rudolph Teusler of the American Red Cross, who have just returned from reoccupied Russian territory. Approximately 500 persons were killed at Osa and 1,500 in the surrounding districts."

The same despatch shows the excessive cruelty of Lenine's gang of blood-thirsty Reds:

"A blacksmith was shot because he could not pay 5,000 rubles. A man was shot because he lived in a brick house. All attorneys and jurists and doctors whose services were not required were killed. A woman was compelled to fetch a lamp and gaze upon her murdered sons for the amusement of the slayers.

"The Soviet called a meeting and prepared lists of those to die. The houses prescribed were visited by squads, the doors were smashed in, the victims dragged to the edge of the town and forced to dig their own graves. A survivor testified that he had seen men thrown into a pit and buried alive. Priests were hunted unmercifully. The evidence showed that men were slain whose only offense was that they worked as sextons or caretakers of churches. In the Perm district everything of value was stolen from the churches, the monastery was looted and several priests were murdered."

According to two more Associated Press despatches, even women and children were not excepted by the Bolsheviki who have been so much extolled by our American Socialists and recognized as their brethren:

"Stockholm, April 17, 1919.--The Bolsheviki are carrying out a rapid and systematic annihilation of all the bourgeois elements in Riga, according to reports from Libau to 'Svenska Dagblast.' The victims of the Bolsheviki terror are taken to the Island of Hasen, in the Dvina river, and are said to number 70,000, including women and children. No one is permitted to take food or money to the island."

"London, April 17, 1919.--Eighteen hundred persons, including 400 women, were murdered by the Bolsheviki at Ufa, according to a dispatch from Omsk, received in official quarters here."

The "Northern Commune" published the following report in which the horrors of the Bolsheviki prisons were described by the Bolsheviki themselves:

"The presiding officers of the Soviet of the Viborg district decided to send a delegation to the prisons of that district when they heard that terrible scenes were occurring there. The prisoners were starving. Many of them who had been held eight months had not yet been tried, for the Commission entrusted with the investigation of their cases had not yet been in session.

"The delegation consisted of Dr. Petropavlovsky, the Military Commissionary, Vasilyevsky, and the President of the Soviet, Frilisser. The latter handed in the following report: 'Comrades, what we saw and heard in visiting the prisons of the Viborg district cannot be described....

"'The cells are repulsively dirty. There is neither clean linen nor pillows. The prisoners are being punished for the least offence.

"'But what is most terrible is the scene we witnessed in the prison hospital.

"'Comrades! We found there no people! We found there living ghosts who had no strength to talk, for they were starving.

"'When somebody dies, the corpse remains for several hours with its living neighbors, who say: "That is nothing. We shall all soon die of hunger."'"

"Dyelo Naroda," in its issue of April 26, 1918, thus describes the cruelties of the barbarous Bolshevists:

"In Kirensk County the people's tribunal ordered a woman found guilty of extracting brandy, to be enclosed in a bag and repeatedly knocked against the ground until dead.

"In the Province of Tver the people's tribunal had sentenced a young fellow to freeze to death for theft. In a rigid frost he was led out, clad only in a shirt, and water was poured on him until he turned into a piece of ice. Out of pity somebody cut his tortures short by shooting him."

The British High Commissioner, R. H. Bruce-Lockhart, in his telegram to the British Foreign Office, November 10, 1918, thus describes one of the methods of torture and the taking of hostages as practiced by the followers of the "gentle" Lenine:

"The Bolsheviki have restored the barbarous methods of torture. The examination of prisoners frequently takes place with a revolver at the unfortunate prisoner's head.

"The Bolsheviki have established the odious practice of taking hostages. Still worse, they have struck at their political opponents through their woman folk. When recently a long list of hostages was published in Petrograd, the Bolsheviki seized the wives of those men whom they could not find and threw them into prison until their husbands should give themselves up."

When the Bolsheviki were forced to evacuate Riga, in May, 1919, they left behind them in the [**] prisons 1,600 hostages who were found to be in a state of unspeakable misery and starvation.

An Associated Press despatch of March 22, 1919, states that "a Russian girl of 19 years, who, in December, 1918, had been charged with espionage, was tortured by being pierced thirteen times in the same wound with a bayonet. She lived, however, and made an affidavit to these details."

The same dispatch states that "an examination of dead bodies of persons alleged to have been killed by the Bolsheviki in the Perm district, shows a preponderance of bayonet wounds in the back, but in other instances mouths were slit, fingers and hands cut off, and the heads of the victims smashed."

"Struggling Russia," in its issue of April 5, 1919, informs us that "officers have come out of Petrograd prisons with their nails torn off, and that prisoners after having been fed on herrings were given nothing to drink for two or three days."

A dispatch from Warsaw, dated April 10, 1919, stated that fugitives from Russia were pouring into that city, each of them bringing fresh tales of Bolsheviki horrors. The people in Russia, it was said, were being shot on the least provocation. For instance, men who remained in bed during the cold weather to keep warm because they had no fuel were accused of "discontent" and dragged into the streets and shot. Dead bodies, it was claimed, were left lying in the streets in heaps.

In order to maintain their popularity with the workingmen and with their hired mercenaries, the Bolsheviki paid their supporters enormous wages by means of an unchecked paper issue. In fact they have turned out so many tons of paper money, without financial guarantees of any sort, that today in Russia money has lost practically all its value.

"Struggling Russia," March 22, 1919, publishes an appeal issued in Petrograd and signed by the following organizations: Committee for the Defence of Freedom of the Press; Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; Central Committee of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists; Central Committee of the Councils of Peasant Deputies and the Union of Workmen-Printers. Among other things the appeal says:

"Civil war has inflamed the whole country. Cities are being destroyed. The war of brother against brother is consuming the strength of our revolutionary democracy. The cannons, secured to guard the conquests of our revolution, shatter monuments, homes, and shrines of art. The cities of Russia fall at the hands of her own citizens....

"The nation is being driven towards ruin. The people are deprived of all liberties won by the revolution."

The April 26, 1919, issue of "Struggling Russia," under the caption, "City of the Dead," describes the deplorable condition of Petrograd as follows:

"Vladimir Bourtzev published in his paper, 'Obscherye Dyelo,' (The Common Cause), appearing in Paris, an interview with a well known pedagogist and journalist, C. L. Avaliani, who recently arrived from Petrograd. Mr. Avaliani lived in Petrograd during the bright, early days of the revolution and has also witnessed the tragic period of the Bolshevist rule:

"'That Petrograd that used to draw to itself the leading social and scientific forces is no more. That living spring that sent upward a spray of rainbow hues and colors has gradually died out and is now finally extinct.

"'There is no scientific activity, no research work, no literary or artistic life. All is leveled down and compressed under one Bolshevist lid. The only burning question is the problem of food. The only blessed object of Bolshevist providence is the remaining bourgeois element, the only axis around which all their creative experiments revolve. On the one hand, those who toil,--and on the other the "parasites," and to the latter class all the members of the liberal professions, all the literateurs, the lawyers and the clergy were assigned. The sympathizers and upholders of the "rule of the Soviets" get a food ticket; all the others are sentenced to starvation.

"'It is a rule that rests solely on bayonets! There is no popular confidence, no social support. It is all regarded as superfluous and a "burgeois" prejudice. The sole means of enlightenment and conviction are the bayonet and machine gun....

"'A real Kingdom of the Dead! Petrograd is empty. Many have been summarily shot, but still more have died from exhaustion and disease, and some have fled. From a population of three million only 976,000 remain.'"

"Struggling Russia," on April 5, 1919, published a detailed list of 76 places or districts in which there were uprisings against the Bolsheviki in the year 1918. In the year 1919 the revolutionary outbreaks seem to have become far more numerous.

Evidence as to the criminal nature of Russian Bolshevism was supplied by the Rev. Dr. George S. Simons, who, in February, 1919, testified before the Senatorial Committee as to his personal knowledge of the matter:

"There is a large criminal element in the Bolshevist regime. The fact that the criminal has a big part in the movement is proven by the destruction in a public bonfire of court records, the destruction of prisons and the liberation of all criminals who are sympathetic with the cause. We know it to be a fact that some of the worst criminal characters in all Russia hold positions under the Bolshevist Government, while others are helping as agitators."

A press dispatch dated Warsaw, April 10, 1919, states that it has been decided by the Bolsheviki regime that control of desire of impulse, even when self-imposed, is against the freedom of man, that as a consequence unbelievable orgies and indecencies take place, and that all restraint is at an end. The despatch states, futhermore11, that the aristocrats remaining in Russia have lost all will and energy. They accept degradation or death with complete fatalism and do not even try to save their wives and daughters.

The deplorable condition of that part of Russia under Bolshevist rule was described in the Declaration adopted by the Socialist groups in Omsk on February 23, 1919. The Declaration says in part:

"The main prop of an agricultural country such as Russia principally is, the peasant population, is pauperized, starving and is being driven under the banners of the Red Armies by lash and rifle. The numerically small class of intellectuals is being shot down and exterminated. The cities have been handed over to the pillage and rule of Red Army troops. The prisons are overcrowded. The enemies of the people have carried out their destructive program to the very end, and given the people, in place of bread, peace and freedom--a new inter-Russian war, the complete exhaustion of all the productive forces of the land, economic, industrial and railroad desolation, unemployment, a terrorizing reign of disorder and a lapse into barbarity."

The Council of the All-Siberian Co-operative Assemblies, in a Declaration brought to this country by C. A. Kovalsky, a prominent Russian writer and a member of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists, says:

"The All-Siberian Co-operative Movement--as the expression of the unity of the creative democratic elements--strives for the rehabilitation of the destroyed statehood of Russia....

"The immediate aims of our political activities must be--the support of the existing Omsk Government, which has proclaimed itself a democratic rule; the steering of its political course into democratic channels; the struggle with anti-democratic influences from the Right as well as with the destructive forces from the left; the strengthening of the ties between the rear and the fighting front, and the support of the army as the cultural force which is reconquering the violated rights of the people to the formation of a democratic state."

The Russian Co-operative Unions, having a membership of over 20,000,000, and representing the strongest economic organization in Russia, reaching every little town and village, announced through its representatives in New York, on May 20, 1919, its opposition to the Lenine regime and its support of the Provisional Russian Government at Omsk, Siberia, headed by Admiral Kolchak:

"When Russia fell under the Bolshevist Soviet rule, the representatives of the Co-operative Organizations, at the All-Russian Co-operative Congress in Moscow, April 18 to 24, 1918, rejected the principles and the methods of the Bolsheviki and declared the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, concluded by the Soviet authorities with the Austro-German, dishonorable and ruinous for Russia. In these terrible and trying times of bloody rule that our suffering and worn-out country is passing through, the Co-operative Organizations of Siberia and North Russia serve as a unifying link for all the honest, healthy and State-preserving elements of the Russian democracy.

"The All-Siberian United Co-operatives are fully cognizant of the abnormal conditions in which the territories liberated from the Bolsheviki--the Ural, Siberia and the North Russian Provinces--find themselves, where in pain and anguish a new Russian Statehood is arising. Nevertheless, considering the unusual difficulties connected with the work of rebuilding and re-establishing legality and order in a land overburdened financially and economically, ravaged by civil war and hunger, and with a popular psychology corrupted by Bolshevism, the United Co-operatives recognize and support, until the formation of a new, ultimate government through the Constituent Assembly, the Provisional Russian Government formed on Siberian territory and headed by Admiral Kolchak....

"We have, on our side, State wisdom, equity and justice. Our adversaries oppose us with terror, violence and complete social and economic ruin."

In the early part of the year 1919, the report reached America that the Bolshevist authorities were nationalizing women. The Socialists of our own country, who are far from being noted for their reliability and truthfulness, have, of course, denied the charge, in order that the Lenine regime, which they support and wish to see extended to our own land, might not have its already terribly sullied name dishonored still more. The Bolshevists are far from being saints, and a "few" of their "shortcomings" have been pointed out in this chapter.

Certainly the Lenine Government is absolutely lax in matters appertaining to sex relations. It has fully legalized free love, as we learn from the No. 2 issue of the radical Los Angeles magazine, "More Truth About Russia." This magazine, of course, defends the Bolshevists, and on page 6 of the above-mentioned issue quotes several of the decrees of the Lenine Government on the matter of marriage and divorce. Among the decrees we read:

"Marriage is annulled by the petition of both parties or even one of them." All that is necessary to annul a marriage is the expressed desire of either party. The party is, of course, then free to marry again and remain married till another partner is desired. Hence free love is legalized. A government that legalizes free love may be expected to nationalize those women who do not wish to marry or who are unable to secure partners by the time they have reached a certain age.

"The Call," New York, April 2, 1919, on its editorial page reprinted an apology of the English publication, "New Europe," which in a previous issue had given as the authority for its charge of the nationalization of women in Russia an article in the Soviet paper "Izvestija:"

"I have made particular inquiries among friends recently arrived from Russia," says Dr. Harold Williams, "New Europe's" collaborator, "as to the alleged nationalization of women, and they have all assured me positively that they have never heard or read of such a decree."

Those "friends," whoever they were, were possibly Bolsheviki themselves, and are not said to have denied that the women were nationalized, but merely that they had never heard or read of the "decree." Lots of things are enforced by authorities without decrees. The Bolshevist authorities may have had no decrees for the murder of the many thousands of innocent citizens whom they tortured and put to death.

Dr. Harold Williams states, moreover, that it is certain that "the Central Bolshevist Government has issued no order of the kind" (i.e., of nationalization), but he does not deny that in different places the local Bolshevist authorities may have nationalized women.

Further on it is admitted that not the official national Soviet organ, but the local Vladimir Soviet organ, "Izvestija," was the Bolshevist paper which stated that the Bolshevists of Vladimir had nationalized women.

The article in "New Europe," republished in "The Call," concludes with these words:

"As this puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and as the Central Moscow Government cannot be held responsible for the lucubrations of every local committee, we desire to withdraw unreservedly the imputation and to express our regret for the mistake."

This article in the March 13, 1919, issue of "New Europe," which thus apologizes for the "mistake" that it claims it made in a previous issue, has been quoted far and wide by American Socialists and other radicals of our country. Yet witnesses who were questioned at the Senatorial investigation at Washington, in February, 1919, attested to the nationalization by the Bolshevists.

On February 7, 1919, the Orthodox Greek Archbishop of Omsk and other clergy of the Russian Church sent a letter to Pope Benedict XV, mentioning, with other crimes and abuses of the Bolshevists, the socialization of women.

A press despatch dated Warsaw, April 10, 1919, stated the following concerning the condition of women in Russia:

"The nationalization of women is becoming quite general. The Bolsheviki have declared war on family life and consideration for one another's mother or sister is forbidden. All must be treated alike. The most terrible thing is that the women themselves have accepted this nationalization and very little protest is made. This applies to every class. In certain cases, however, a hitch has occurred. Even Bolshevism cannot master human nature, and it has been found that a masculine jealousy occasionally stands in a way. Certain men have refused to nationalize a particular woman and as a result Bolshevik has fought Bolshevik with considerable force."

An Associated Press despatch from London, April 15, 1919, gives lengthy details regarding the nationalization of women, and even the opposition offered to it:

"The law providing for the nationalization of women in Northeast Russia has been suspended in one province as a result of popular outcry, according to information reaching London today, from Stockholm.

"The Commissary of Vladimir has, by decree, appointed a committee of women, who are to inquire into operations of the law and make a report with the least possible delay. His action has been approved by the local Soviet.

"'The Krasnaya Gazeta' publishes an account of the results of nationalization. The system provides that every girl on reaching the age of eighteen must register her name in the Bureau of Free Love, after which she is compelled to select a partner from among men between the ages of 19 and 50 years old. The law led to lamentable confusion, says the 'Gazeta,' in judicial notions as to personal inviolability.

"A few days after the Soviet's decree, which women very generally ignored, two men known to nobody, arrived in the town and seized the two daughters of a well-known non-bourgeois comrade, declaring they had chosen them as wives and that the girls without further ceremony must submit, as they had not observed the registration rule.

"Comrades Yablonovski and Guriakin, who sat as judges on the claim, decided that the men were right, and the girls were carried off. They have not been heard of since by the village folk.

"This, says the Gazeta, was done in the name of the nationalization of women.

"Many other instances of the fantastic operation of the law, not to speak of its inhumanities, are cited by the Gazeta. Enthusiasts for nationalization, naturally all males, raid whole villages, seize young girls, and demand proof that they are not over 18. As this proof is difficult to give, many of the girls are carried off, and there have been suicides and murders as a result.

"In the town of Kovrov, a campaign without parallel since the Trojan war was waged between the vengeful relatives of an abducted nationalized girl and her persecutors.

"In this town the 'register of nationalized women' was opened on December 1, but up to February 1 last only two women, both over 40, and neither of whom had ever been married, registered themselves as willing to accept the first husband the state sent along.

"On the committee which is now to revise the nationalization decree or to recommend its complete abrogation sits Mme. Vera Arkadieff, a Bolshevist enthusiast, who commanded a detachment of women soldiers during the recent operations against Admiral Kolchak's army at Perm. She has been twice wounded."

"The Krasnaya Gazeta," translated, means the Red Gazette. It is a Bolshevist newspaper published in Petrograd. The following "Special Cable" to "The New York Times," dated Milan, April 24, 1919, published April 26, 1919, gives a Bolshevist's explanation of the Russian sex legislation:

"A Bolshevist statesman, from whom the 'Journal Epoca' obtained a special interview respecting the Leninist legislation on the sex problem, complains that a vast amount of grotesque misrepresentation has appeared on the subject in the hostile or unsympathetic press.

"'Abolition of celibacy has been adopted,' he stated, 'simply as a means toward class equality. Every woman, on attaining her eighteenth and every man on his twentieth year, is bound to inscribe his or her name in a special register kept at the Commissariat of Unions, and must then contract a union within the period of six months. Should they fail to do so, they are served with three warning notices at successive intervals of two months, before any step is taken in the way of coercive measures. Every bachelor and every spinster is bound to furnish a written explanation of their irregular condition, and the only reasons admitted as valid are serious ill-health or organic defects.

"'When two lovers wish to marry they present themselves to the People's Commissary, who witnesses their marriage. The same course is followed as regards separating, only that the Commissary, after freeing the unhappy pair, inscribes the man afresh on the celibate list and the woman on the register of marriageable persons, notifying each of the obligation to find another partner within six months. In case children have been born from their union, they are either delivered to the custody of the particular parent desiring them or else divided between them. The Commissariat of Unions aids the youth of either sex in their quest of a mate by promoting all healthy forms of social intercourse and facilitating introductions among families of every type.'"

The above despatch was published in the April 26, 1919, issue of "The New York Times."

On April 28, 1919, the following very apt comment was made on it and appeared on the editorial page of the "New York Times":

"As explained by somebody whom a Milan paper calls a 'Bolshevist statesman,' marriage as regulated by the great and good Lenine is not at all the dreadful thing described recently by the mendacious enemies of his Socialistic paradise. As pictured by his friends, nothing worse has been done than to exert a gentle pressure on the marriageable unmarried to the end that they may do their duty to the Bolshevist State and provide it as soon as may be with new sons and daughters to take the place of those recently 'removed' by a benevolent terrorism.

"Bachelorhood and spinsterhood are to be regarded as 'irregular'--conditions that must be explained in writing to the proper authorities. For the well disposed a simple civil marriage ceremony is provided; also a simple divorce ceremony in case the union proves wearisome. And that is all there is to the Bolshevist marriage system, the statesman says.

"But one notices that he does not disclose what is done to those who fail to find pleasing mates in the six months allowed after notification for the making of a choice. Apparently it is then that the so-called nationalization of women comes in, and the statesman forgot to say a word about the only peculiarity of the system that has evolved any serious criticism."

Commenting on Bolshevism, Mr. Eber Cole Byam, in the April 26, 1919, issue of "America," very aptly says:

"As the Roman world was reduced to barbarism by the barbarians so now the modern world is threatened with reduction to Bolshevism by the Bolsheviki. Whatever the word Bolshevism may have meant originally it has come to mean fiendish treatment of women, the savage murder and mutilation of men and the wanton destruction of the accumulated labors of generations. The Bolshevik is a Socialist, not the armchair theorist dreaming fantastic fancies. The Bolshevik is the real Socialist, the Socialist of practice."

The following encomium on Bolshevism appeared in "The Call," New York, April 26, 1919, and shows what strange inclinations the Socialists have towards barbarism:

"For the first time in Russia's history law has been established based on the direct will of the population, established through the most democratic franchise in the world. Under Czarism, law was merely the promulgation of autocratic tyranny....

"For the first time in Russia's history, perfect freedom of religion is guaranteed to Christian, Moslem and Jew alike. After the American pattern, no church may control the state....

"For the first time, millions of Russian workers and peasants find themselves with decent homes. For the first time, women have equal social rights with men. For the first time, a real educational system has been inaugurated for the children....

"The recent official American investigators sent to Russia found a great change in the life of the cities from of old. They described the life as puritanical. Russians explained the change to them by the fact that vice and debauchery had been confined mostly to the idle ruling class, the old aristocracy, and these things had passed with the passing of that class."

Listen now to the words of the Russian Socialist author, Leonoid Andréiev, who has seen quite enough of the "blessings" of Bolshevism. They appear in the April 26, 1919, issue of "Struggling Russia," under the caption, "S. O. S., An Appeal to Humanity":

"One must, indeed, be insane not to understand the palpable and simple acts of Bolshevism! One must be sightless, stark-blind or have eyes that see not, to fail to observe on the face of the great mutilated Russia murder without end, ruins, miles of cemeteries, dungeons and insane asylums; not to perceive what hunger and terror have done to Petrograd, and, alas, to many other cities!

"One must be earless, stone-deaf, or have ears that hear not, to remain callous to the sobs, the sighs and the wailing of women, the heart-rending cries of the children, the death-rattle of strangled men, the cracking of the assassins' rifles, the only music that has filled the air of Russia for the last eighteen months!...

"As the wireless operator on a sinking vessel, in the thick blackness of the night, sends out his last appeal, 'Help, quick, we are sinking, save us!' so I, moved by my faith in the goodness of man, am sending out into distance and darkness my prayer for my people who are sinking.

"If you only knew how dark is the night around us, if my words could only convey its density and depth! Whom am I calling? I know not. Does the wireless operator know who may intercept his call? For thousands of miles around the ocean may be deserted and not a living soul may overhear his appeal.

"The night is dark. The sea is frightful. But the operator has not lost his faith, and he calls persistently, to the very last minute, until the last light is gone and his apparatus is silenced forever.

"What does he trust in? He trusts in humanity, and so do I. He trusts in the law of human love and life. It is impossible that one human being will deny help to another in his hour of perdition. It is impossible that one human being will abandon another to perish without attempting to help. It is impossible that such an appeal for help will not receive any response!...

"Friend! I do not even attempt to tell you how frightful life is in Russia at present, in our tormented Petrograd. Others have told enough, and new words cannot be coined by the human tongue.

"It is frightful when children starve and perish, and assassins are well-fed and Trotzky is pouring down his throat the last bottle of milk. It is frightful when the cemeteries of Petrograd have no more room for the dead, and the murderers have a free road not only to the Princess Islands, but to all the ends of the world, and the wealth they have stolen will enable them to live in balmy lands and in the most attractive corners of our mercenary globe."

Catherine Breshkovsky, the Socialist "Grandmother of the Russian Revolution," though now an aged woman, lived long enough to bewail the fate of her country. Speaking of her native land, now reaping the harvest from the Marxian seed first sown many years ago, she says in her "Message to the American People":

"Flooded with tears and blood, Russia moans and cries out to the world. She is a living body, and her tortures cannot be looked upon cold-bloodedly as an extraordinary, never-before-witnessed experiments in social evolution. She is alive and every pore of her body is shedding blood."

Let the "scientific" American Socialists continue to take their information from "The Call." They are far too learned to be deceived by Russians such as Andréiev or the "Grandmother of the Russian Revolution." "The capitalist press is lying about the conditions in Russia." "The Call" alone speaks the truth, for it is a proletarian sheet.

Not satisfied with ruining his own country, Lenine would have Bolshevism spread to all other nations. He longs for their workingmen to rise in revolt against their present systems of government. Listen to his words in his "Letter to American Workingmen," published by the Socialist Publication Society, 431 Pulaski street, Brooklyn, New York:

"We know that it may take a long time before help can come from you, Comrades, American Workingmen, for the development of the revolution in the different countries proceeds along various paths, with various rapidity (how could it be otherwise!) We know full well that the outbreak of the European proletarian revolution may take many weeks to come, quickly as it is ripening in these days. We are counting on the inevitability of the international revolution. But that does not mean that we count on its coming at some definite date. We have experienced two great revolutions in our own country, that of 1905 and that of 1917, and we know that revolutions cannot come either at word of command nor according to prearranged plans. We know that circumstances alone have pushed us, the proletariat of Russia, forward, that we have reached this new stage in the social life of the world not because of our superiority but because of the peculiarly reactionary character of Russia. But until the outbreak of the international revolution, revolutions in individual countries may still meet with a number of setbacks and serious overthrows....

"We are in a beleaguered fortress, so long as no other international Socialist revolution comes to our assistance with its armies. But these armies exist, they are stronger than ours, they grow, they strive, they become more invincible the longer imperialism, with its brutalities, continues. Workingmen the world over are breaking with their betrayers, with their Gompers and their Scheidemanns. Inevitably labor is approaching communistic Bolshevistic tactics, is preparing for the proletarian revolution that alone is capable of preserving culture and humanity from destruction. We are invincible, for invincible is the Proletarian Revolution."

The above words of the dictator Lenine may throw some light on the Socialists' demand for "justice" to Russia, and their campaign in behalf of the recognition of the Soviet Government of that country.

The Socialist Publication Society of Brooklyn at the end of the World War issued a large pamphlet entitled, "One Year of Revolution," celebrating the first anniversary of the founding of the Russian Soviet Republic. On the cover page, under the caption, "The Spirit of Revolutionary Russia," and the subtitle, "To the Oppressed of All Countries," we read the summons to a Socialist world-wide revolution:

"And this life and death struggle with our own oppressors gives us the right to appeal to you, proletarians of all countries, with a strong voice, with the voice of those who look into the eyes of death in the revolt against the exploiters.

"Break the chains, you who are oppressed! Rise in revolt!

"We have nothing to lose but our chains!

"We believe in the victory of the revolution, we are full of this belief.

"We know that our Comrades in the Revolution will fulfill their duty on the barricades to the bitter end.

"We know that decisive moments are coming.

"A gigantic struggle will set the world afire. On the horizon the fires of the revolt of all oppressed peoples are already glowing and taking definite shape.

"At the moment that the waters of the Baltic will become red with the blood of our Comrades, will close forever over their bodies, at this moment we call upon you.

"Already in the clutch of death, we send our warm greetings and appeal to you.

"Proletarians of the world, all, unite!

"Rise in revolt, you who are oppressed.

"All hail, the International Revolution!

"Long live Socialism!"

In the spring of 1919 reports reached the United States that the Bolsheviki had been inciting our troops in the Archangel District of Russia to disloyalty against our government. An Associated Press dispatch, dated Vienna, April 24, 1919, shows how the Bolshevists carried on their campaign in the Ukraine:

"The Bolsheviki penetrated the country in four sections. First came agitators and next marauding bands to strike terror. These were followed by larger bodies of troops, made up of foreign elements. Last came Soviet troops, headed by Bolshevist commissioners. Iron discipline was maintained by Chinese assassins, who executed all soldiers who revolted against orders."

On May 26, 1919, the "New York Times" announced that a Bolshevist weekly paper would be issued in that city:

"Nicholai Lenine, the Premier, and Leon Trotzky, the Minister of War, together with other officials of the Russian Bolshevist Government, will begin next Monday the publication in this city of a sixteen page weekly newspaper, the purpose of which will be to spread propaganda favorable to the Bolsheviki. This announcement is made in today's issue of the propaganda sheet issued weekly from the headquarters of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens, the unrecognized 'Bolshevist Ambassador' to the United States. The paper is to be known as 'Soviet Russia.'"

"'Every friend of Russia, as well as every person interested in international affairs,' says the announcement, 'will subscribe to this weekly.' 'Soviet Russia' will contain news items, editorials, original articles, and unpublished documents."

The American Socialist Party acknowledges the Bolshevist regime of murder and starvation to be a Socialist regime and states that it upholds the lofty, international proletarian ideals. Debs and the American Socialist press, at the present writing, acknowledge the Bolsheviki to be real Socialists, not reactionaries or Socialists merely in name, like the Ebert-Scheidemann group in Germany. They want Bolshevism in America. They welcome it, laud it, love it. At least this is the case just now. Will they presently be offering arguments to prove that the Bolshevists were not Socialists at all, but traitors to the whole Marxian movement? Meantime the American Socialists spread all kinds of lies about the "wonders" of the Soviet Government while claiming that "the press" is lying about the Lenine system to save the capitalists from the demands of the laboring class.

Let us sincerely hope that no more Bolshevists from Russia will land on our shores. We have enough rebellious, hypocritical Reds here already, and need no more of them to teach us how to run our government. Congress should pass strict laws allowing no immigrants to land here who are Bolshevists.

It is to be hoped, too, that the leaders of the Illinois Labor Party who secured the adoption in their platform of a pro-Soviet plank in the spring of 1919 will take a few hours off and learn something about the Russian system before trying to "work it off" on our country.

There has been a great deal of "pussy-footing" talk in the American press about Bolshevism and Socialism, implying that there is no connection between the two. Yet Bolshevism is nothing but a form of Socialism. It is Socialism applied, though not yet as completely applied as the teachings of Karl Marx require. If an incomplete application of the principles of Socialism reduces a country to such an awful condition as Russia reveals, what may be expected from the full dose of Socialism?

At the last moment, with this book in type, a cry from the Bolshevik dictatorship comes out of Russia through interviews given by Lenine and Trotzky to the "New York World's" European correspondent, Lincoln Eyre. "I had an hour's talk with Lenine in the Kremlin at Moscow," Eyre writes in a dispatch headed, "Riga (by courier to Berlin), Feb. 20, 1920," and printed in the "World" of February 21, 1920. Lenine turned the interview into an argument for the lifting of the Allied blockade of Russia, and gave more than a hint that Russia's economic condition is desperate. According to Mr. Eyre's cable to the "New York World" of February 21, 1920, Lenine said, speaking in English:

"Russia's present economic distress is simply a part of the world's economic distress. Until the economic problem is faced from a world standpoint and not merely from the standpoint of certain nations or groups of nations, a solution is impossible.... Not only Russia but all Europe is going to pieces, and the [Allied] Supreme Council still indulges in tergiversation. Russia can be saved from utter ruin and Europe, too, but it must be done soon and quickly."

By insinuating that "all Europe is going to pieces" with Russia, and faces the same "utter ruin," Lenine covers his plea for Russia under an appeal to the self-interest of other nations. Yet his confession that Russia is "going to pieces" and trembles on the brink of "utter ruin" is plain enough, making his whole argument a cry to the "capitalistic" nations to help Socialistic Russia. Indeed, in other parts of the same interview, as reported by Mr. Eyre in the "World" of February 21, 1920, Lenine appeals to "foreign capital" and the "capitalistic countries" in the baldest terms, as follows:

"We have reiterated and reiterated our desire for peace, our need for peace and our readiness to give foreign capital the most generous concessions and guarantees.... I know of no reason why a Socialistic commonwealth like ours cannot do business indefinitely with capitalistic countries. We don't mind taking their capitalistic locomotives and farming machinery, so why should they mind taking our Socialistic wheat, flax and platinum?"

Having waded through blood and violence to exterminate "capitalism" and cancel all "concessions" and "guarantees" in Russia, has "the dictatorship of the proletariat" emerged out of its nightmare of destruction simply to coax "foreign capital" back into Socialistic Russia by bribing offers of "the most generous concessions and guarantees?" After two years of a reign of terror to make an earthly paradise by destroying "capitalism" and the whole machinery of "capitalistic countries," this hungry reaching out by Lenine after "capital" and "capitalistic" things is almost too ludicrous for belief!

Eyre's interview with Trotzky, sent from "Riga (by courier to Berlin, Feb. 23)" and printed in the "New York World" of February 25, 1920, simply reenforces Lenine's appeal to "foreign capital" and the wicked "capitalistic countries." According to Eyre in the "World" of February 25, Trotzky spoke of "Russia, bankrupt, bleeding and starved," and said in part:

"Our military successes have not blinded us to our need of peace. We require peace for the re-establishment of economic stabilization.... We have had to sacrifice the welfare of our people and the health of future generations to the desperate needs of the hour."

And for what? Apparently only to substitute the autocracy of a new proletarian aristocracy for the autocracy of the old regime, and the czardom of Lenine and Trotzky for that of the Romanoffs. And the new tyranny not only re-establishes the old partnership between "capital" and labor, but puts the burden of militarism on labor more exclusively than before. This seems to be the program of Trotzky, "the People's Commissary for Military Affairs," according to Eyre's report of Trotzky's words in the "New York World" of February 25, 1920. His words are as follows:

"We recognize our need for outside aid in setting this country on its feet industrially and economically. It is a tremendous enterprise, one that will take two, five, perhaps ten years to carry out, but through the indomitable spirit of our proletariat it will be accomplished with a speed and competency that will amaze our foemen.... And once again I say that the people who help us gain peace will share in the profits, the very considerable profits, resultant from the aid they will have extended to us....

"Foreign capitalists who invest their money in Russian enterprises or who supply us with merchandise we require will receive material guarantees of amply adequate character. They need have no fears on that score.... It is obvious that we must look to the victorious nations, to Great Britain or, still better, to America for machinery, agricultural tools and other imports which Russia's economic renaissance demands."

Thus the old partnership of capital and labor is to be resumed. But what of the Russian workers? Having fought and toiled to put Lenine and Trotzky on the proletarian throne they must keep up military training to keep them there, and must toil hard to produce "the very considerable profits" which Lenine and Trotzky are going to share with the "foreign capitalists" who help them. But let Trotzky explain the destiny of the Russian workers in his own words, as reported by Eyre in the "World" of February 25, 1920:

"The workers and peasants will insist, once the revolution is no longer in peril, on returning to their factories and farms and making Russia a fit land to live in. Frontier guards will be maintained, of course. The framework of our (military) organization must also be preserved in order that with the experience they have received in the past eighteen months our proletarian fighting men can be remodelled in two or three months if the need arises. There will also be some form of military training for the working class, that it may always be ready to defend itself against the bourgeoisie."

Will not this be "militarism?" Of course not; for, in Trotzky's words in the same interview, "Militarism, striking as it does at the very roots of Communism, cannot possibly exist in Soviet Russia, the only truly pacific country in the world!" Thus facts disappear behind words. Conscription was militaristic under the Czar, but it cannot be under a Trotzky, for he has labeled his system a Soviet Republic and since Soviets are never military their military arrangements, though apparently more severe than the other kind, are really only a form of pacifism! Thus the happy Russian workers must serve as "frontier guards," keep up the framework of their military organization, and submit to "some form of military training," but may whistle as they groan, knowing that the yoke they bear "cannot exist."

Other contradictions in these interviews will be discussed later in this book. For example, we shall find, in Chapter XVI, that the Soviet Republic at Moscow can make peace with "capitalistic countries" and form partnerships with "foreign capital" while at the same time the Third International at Moscow carries on a world-wide conspiracy to destroy "capitalism" and overthrow the governments and institutions of "capitalistic countries."



In Berlin, shortly after the Revolution against the Imperial Government, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and their group of Socialists of the extreme Left were raising a merry riot almost every day in the hope of overcoming the ultra-conservative Socialist government and introducing the radical Bolshevist program. The constant disorder occasioned by these Spartacans or Spartacides of the Left provoked the opposition parties very much, annoying them to such an extent that many Germans wished to remove the capital of the country from Berlin to some more orderly city.

The name "Spartacides" or "Spartacans" came from the fact that early in the World War Karl Liebknecht, their leader, issued a number of anti-war pamphlets bearing the pseudonym, "Spartacus."

The Spartacides are the reddest of the Reds, the real Socialists of Germany. They differ very much from the Ebert-Scheidemann group, for the Spartacans want the principles of Socialism applied immediately, whereas Ebert and other members of his government warned their followers that though they held Socialist theories, the application of Socialism must be postponed to the distant future. The Ebert-Scheidemann Majority Socialists are regarded by the others as Socialists only in name, being really social reformers, or, at the most, weak-kneed Socialists who sought power, but fully realized that the application of the Marxian principles would be doomed to absolute failure. The Spartacans, however, still have confidence in Socialism; they agree heart and soul with the Russian Bolsheviki; they are the rowdies and ruffians of Germany, always looking for trouble. Strikes, riots and civil discord are their weapons, and the American Socialists are among their particular friends. Indeed, the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs has no use whatever for the Ebert-Scheidemann group, who are looked upon as reactionaries, hypocrites, murderers and traitors to Socialism.

In the latter part of 1918, the Berlin correspondent of the "Kölnische Zeitung" drew a graphic picture of the terrorism exercised in Berlin by the Spartacan gangs:

"Dr. Liebknecht himself, whose imprisonment has obviously clouded his formerly keen intelligence and probably turned his brain, spends his time in visiting barracks in Berlin, Spandau and elsewhere, and inciting the men to refuse to allow any distinctions even of non-commissioned rank or to accept anything resembling orders from officers or to admit them to the local councils. His chief of staff, Dr. Levy, who before the war was his business partner in his law office, is preaching fanaticism in Berlin to all and sundry.

"The word Spartacus goes through the city like a bogy. Civilians, soldiers, employees, capitalists, all feel themselves equally threatened. A sitting of the Prussian Lower House had to be adjourned because it was feared that the Spartacus gang was going to seize the building.

"'The Lokal Anzeiger' has several times failed to appear, as the result of repeated efforts of the Spartacus gang to seize it. Careful burghers chain up the house doors, and it would be well if the steadier elements of our workmen and soldiers would chain up the door of their hearts against the murderous and suicidal ideas of the Spartacus gang."

The Spartacides made a practice of terrorizing German newspapers into supporting them. In the early part of 1919, they tried to prevent the Constituent Assembly from coming together, and later on engineered many a revolt in the various cities of Germany. Since their leaders, the fiery Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, were assassinated, the orderly elements of the German people have succeeded more and more in weakening the power and influence of the Spartacans.

Kurt Eisner, of Bavaria, after the overthrow of the German Imperial Government, sought to establish a federation of German republics under the head of Bavaria. It was not very long before the first step was taken, Bavaria declaring itself a republic independent of the Berlin Government. After the assassination of Eisner, Bavaria, and especially its capital, Munich, came more and more under the control of the extreme radical group of Socialists known as the Communists. About the end of March, 1919, Bela Kun, the Foreign Minister of the newly established Communist Government of Hungary and one of the most active propagandists of Russian Bolshevism, arrived at Munich to confer with the leaders of the Bavarian Government. Shortly afterwards, in the early part of April, a Soviet Republic was proclaimed at Munich.

The socialization of industry began. That part of the press that favored the new regime was upheld by the Government, which suppressed unfriendly organs. Members of the Christian Textile Workers' Association were forced, on pain of being deprived of work, to join the Social-Democratic Union. Various other measures of "freedom, equality, and justice" were also bestowed upon the people, and the hope was expressed by the Red Socialists of Munich that the proclamation of a Bavarian Soviet would have its effect throughout Germany and result in a world revolution.

Towards the middle of April, 1919, press dispatches stated that the Munich Communists had elected a council, consisting of five workmen and five soldiers, with Herr Klatz, a bricklayer, as president; that the police was disarmed; that eleven hostages were taken from the ranks of the trade-union leaders; that revolutionary tribunals were established at Munich, where twenty-eight judges continued, in relays of seven, to pass sentences day and night, and, finally, that a decree was issued by the Communist government confiscating all dwellings.

Shortly after these reports reached America, the peasants of Bavaria rose up against the revolutionary government in Munich and declared an effective ban on the shipment of food to that city. No attacks were made upon Munich by the troops of the moderate Hoffman government of Bavaria which had been ousted by the Communists, for it was feared that the whole country might thus be plunged into civil war. The only strategic movement of these troops was to cut off the supplies of food.

Discord soon sprang up among the Soviet leaders themselves, who engaged in open street fights against each other. Before the end of April, 1919, the Central Council had been dissolved and the Communist mob had turned to plundering. Food ration cards were taken away from the bourgeoisie, and barricades were erected around the city to defend it from Noske's army, sent to attack it by the Ebert-Scheidemann moderate Socialist Government of Berlin. In the early part of May, 1919, the Communist rabble of the Bavarian capital was finally overcome by the artillery fire of Noske's troops, and Hoffman was once more put in control.

The American Socialists look upon the ousted Communists of Bavaria as the upholders of the Marxian doctrine, and consider them, along with the Russian Bolsheviki and the Hungarian Communists, as Socialist brethren worthy of their respect and imitation.

In Hungary the "100 per cent" Socialists, the Communists, under the leadership of Bela Kun, came into power in the early part of the year 1919. Press despatches, at the end of March, stated that all villas, industries and building had been declared the property of the state; that each factory was controlled by a Council of Laborers; that free-love was legalized as in Russia; that all clergymen and nuns were removed from the hospitals, excepting those who acted in the capacity of nurses, and the religious, tuition schools were abolished.

A press dispatch dated Buda-Pest, April 4, 1919, said that "in Transylvania, following the practice in Moscow, the churches have been converted into music halls, the best seats being reserved for the proletariat. The government officials do not pay house rent and have priority on foodstuffs and clothing."

The American Socialists boasted about the absence of bloodshed in Hungary during the early part of Bela Kun's regime. Whether or not he had been cautioned by Lenine not to wear out too many rifles in the beginning, lest there be a dearth later on, we do not know. At any rate, by the latter part of May, 1919, the Hungarian Communists also began to manifest their true color. They were not satisfied with "painting everything red" in Buda-Pest, but also wanted to see red blood flowing in the gutters. In confirmation of this we have the following Associated Press report, dated Vienna, May 20, but not appearing in the "New York Times" till May 23:

"Many persons accused of being counter-revolutionists are being executed by the Hungarian Communists, according to despatches received here. The victims are usually shot in front of the Hungarian Parliament House in the daytime or in the school-yard in the Markostrasse at night.

"Among those who are said to have been executed are Herr Holan, manager of the Kaschau-Oderberg Railway; Bishop Balthasar, a hostage from Debreczen, and Colonel Dormany of the General Staff, who was taken from a hospital. Several girls, who were accused of making tri-color rosettes for the counter-revolutionists, also were executed. The presiding Judge of the Revolutionary tribunal, which orders the executions, it is said, is a former locksmith, 22 years of age.

"Many bodies of men and women and girls of the better classes have been found on the shores of islands in the Danube below the city. It is reported that they were arrested in the residential quarter of Buda and thrown into the Danube by guards who were taking them to prisons in Pest."

In the summer of 1919 the Hungarian Communists lost control of the country. Not only had internal dissensions broken out at home, but they had been attacked for a long time by the Rumanians, who had caused them endless trouble. If they had succeeded in remaining in power long enough, they would, no doubt, in time have shown themselves proficient in murdering their fellow-countrymen and as skilled in the use of the rifle as the Bolsheviki in Russia, the Spartacides in Germany and the Communists in Bavaria. These four groups of European Socialists of the extreme Left--ruffians, brutes, murderous thugs, half barbarous savages, slayers even of their own Socialist brethren--have long been in a "position" to teach the "gentle art" of plunder and murder to their admiring comrades on this side of the Atlantic, that "poor," "persecuted," "workingman," Eugene V. Debs, and his crowd of "honest," "scientific," "evolutionists."

With these European thugs Berger and Hillquit deliberately "lined up" the Socialist Party of America in the words of their Chicago manifesto of September 4, 1919:

"The Socialist Party of the United States at its first national convention after the war, squarely takes its position with the uncompromising section of the international Socialist Movement. We unreservedly reject the policy of those Socialists who supported their belligerent capitalist governments on the plea of 'national defense,'" etc.

There is no breath of patriotism in these dogs.

The above "line up" was confirmed by the rank and file of the Socialist Party of America in their referendum vote identifying their party with the Revolutionary Third (Moscow) International. (See Chapters V and XVI.)



To accuse American Socialists of conspiring against our fair land may at first startle the reader. Brand as traitors to the common welfare men who boast so loudly of being the only friends of the oppressed laborer! Call the followers of Karl Marx the enemies of our country after they have lavished so much precious time on exposures of those who defraud American workingmen of an honest wage! Yet, as our investigation moves along, telling evidence uncovers the existence of an alarmingly widespread conspiracy.

Our Chapters VIII and IX have clearly revealed the I. W. W. as a purely revolutionary organization, enrolling under its red flag discontented workingmen, even negroes and Chinese, pledged to overthrow our Government, while meanwhile, with anarchistic contempt for law and morality, they do what damage they can through strikes and sabotage.

The same chapters proved that the Socialists are co-operating heart and soul with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Chapters X, XI and XII gave the reader evidence of some of the terrible results of Bolshevism in Russia, Communism in Hungary and Bavaria, and Spartacism in Germany. Yet far from being dismayed by these horrors, the Socialists of the United States proclaim themselves of the same breed as the Bolshevists, Communists and Spartacans abroad, whose torch of incendiarism they would apply to the United States.

The Socialist Party of Buffalo, New York, published a pink booklet entitled, "The Truth About Russia," in which reference is made to the Russian call to a world-wide Socialist revolution. On page 41, at the conclusion of the articles of the Bolshevik Constitution concerning rights and duties, we read:

"In proclaiming these rights and duties the Russian Socialist Republic of the Soviets calls upon the working classes of the entire world to accomplish their task to the very end, and in the faith that the Socialist ideal will soon be achieved to write upon their flags the old battle cry of the working people:

"'Proletarians of all lands, unite!

"'Long live the Socialistic world revolution!'"

The plan is for Socialists in countries outside of Russia to be helped in their revolts against their governments by their Bolshevist comrades. In the "Labor Scrap Book," published by Chas. H. Kerr and Co., there is a long article by Nicholas Lenine, the Russian dictator. Several quotations are here given:

"Russia's revolution is not a domestic revolution, but essentially a world revolution....

"The Bolsheviki follow a consistent policy. They realized long ago that the revolution, though primarily political, must become economic and socialist. They know that economy and socialism have nothing to do with racial or political boundaries and that the future of our revolution must, therefore, be international. The revolution must pass over all political and racial frontiers and crush opposing economic ideas. They know that a state organized on Socialist and pacifist lines cannot exist if hemmed in by capitalistic and militarist states. Russia's revolution must follow the law of all healthy organisms. It must increase. If it does not increase it will decline....

"Russia will continue to propagandize unshrinkingly in all countries.

"We may be left temporarily in peace to enjoy our revolutionary social and economic system while the rest of Europe continues to groan under a capitalism and monarchism which, perhaps, for the time being, will be purged of a too dangerous imperialism.

"What will Russia do if this be so?

"Short-sighted men reply: 'Cherish your own revolution; thank Heaven that you are better off than the rest of the world; and let the rest of the world do what it likes.'

"But we Bolsheviki are against such a policy. Short of armed pressure against any European country, we shall not shrink from measures necessary for spreading our revolution in the world.

"The motives why every Bolshevik must approve of this policy are overwhelming. The first is that a peace between the ideas of revolutionary Russia and the ideas of non-revolutionary Europe could at best be a truce....

"Each side would foster its ideas and prepare for a future struggle, and since non-revolutionary Europe will always be better armed than pacifist Russia, the European despots (as soon as they have recovered from their present bitter lesson of the meaning of war) undoubtedly would hurl themselves upon Russia in order to wipe away the one revolutionary plague-spot.

"For that reason our revolution cannot rest until it has established full revolution in all neighbor lands.

"The second reason why Russia must incite Europe to revolt is that by its very nature, the revolution cannot live in isolation. Europe must be organized, either on a capitalistic basis or a proletarian, anti-capitalistic basis. The dual system is inconceivable. It is impossible for Russia to exist without capitalistic banks and industries, if she has to trade with countries which have capitalistic banks and industries....

"In its own defense the revolution must propagandize and convert. It must incite and urge on the masses against their present rulers in all countries, and it must do this unshrinkingly, without fear of consequences, or consideration for the feelings and interests of the foreign affected parties."

The question may now be asked, What means is the Russian Bolshevist government using to incite revolution in America? We have not, of course, much definite information as yet; but we know that Lenine's government has lots of money which it can use for foreign revolutionary propaganda, and that a certain Ludwig C. A. K. Martens has been in our country for some time claiming to represent the Soviet government and boasting that he is able to deposit in our banks for commercial purposes hundreds of millions of Russian gold. He is very active, has been assisted by Morris Hillquit of "The Call," the Socialist daily of New York City, goes about visiting different Socialist organizations, and in return is entertained by them. During the months of April and May, 1919, many notices of such receptions were published in "The Call." One example will suffice. Under the caption, "Official Socialist News," in the issue of March 31, 1919, we read:

"The central committee of Local New York, Socialist Party, greets Comrade L. C. A. K. Martens, recently appointed the representative of the Russian Soviet government in the United States and in his name the victorious Russian proletariat.

"We sincerely hope that his work in behalf of the Socialist government of Russia will be crowned with success. We pledge him our aid, and promise that we shall not rest until the government of the United States has ceased to be a party to the economic and political isolation of Russia and the military occupation of territory of the Soviet republic."

In the latter part of March, 1919, Martens shared offices with Santeri Nuorteva, also a great friend of the American Socialists. Nuorteva was head of the Bolshevist propaganda in this country and from his office mailed the "Weekly Bulletin of the Bureau of Information on Soviet Russia." Nuorteva denied that these large sheets, which are about the same size as the propaganda sheets issued in the first months of the war by the German Information Service, constitute propaganda. Like the German Information Service sheets, each contains from six to ten articles. All paint conditions in Russia under Trotzky and Lenine as steadily improving and show those men and their aids as gentle, kind-hearted individuals whose only sin is the betterment of mankind.

Among labor unions Bolshevism has made great headway. The New Labor Party of Illinois in 1919 not only supported Soviet Russia but favored the Soviet system in our own country. Sensible workingmen in the American Federation of Labor and conservative members of the new Labor Party had good reason for being alarmed and for suspecting that American propagators of Bolshevism received Russian gold from some one, possibly from Martens.

The Socialist papers of the United States approve of Bolshevism, Spartacism and Communism, and would gladly welcome it to our country. "The Call," New York, March 31, 1919, on its editorial page says: "The red in the East is the dawning of a new day." On April 1, 1919, the same paper contained a long article on the first page, entitled, "Forces of Darkness Open Their Campaign to End Bolshevism." On April 11, 1919, in an editorial on the impending capture of Odessa by the Bolsheviki, it says:

"The evacuation of the Black Sea port of Odessa by foreign troops that have been holding it for many months is news of great significance....

"Like the German forces hurled against Soviet Russia by the mailed fist of the Kaiser, the French, Greek and Rumanian soldiers go out in a different mind and temper than they had going in. Wherever they go, they will spread the ideas of human liberty and co-operative development that they were sent to crush."

On April 13, 1919, "The Call" printed a poem on the assassinated Spartacan leader, Karl Liebknecht:

/P "Liebknecht

"Liebknecht, your lonely, bitter course is run! While we, with cautious feet, pursue the goal-- 'Tis not in pity's name that we make moan-- Nay! 'tis in envy of your martyrdom! The mirror of your flaming soul Has caught our poverty and gloom, In that fierce light our virtues shown Petty, distorted, wan! Then, hail! O martyr, in our day of doom! Hail, fiery heart, receive the victor's crown! Our heart a charnel house has grown For our vast dead! Yet we make room For freedom's slain. Shall not the tomb Yield heavy harvest where such seed is sown?" P/

"The Call," April 15, 1919, published the following endorsement of Hungarian Communism by the New York State Committee of the Socialist Party:

"Whereas, the working class of Hungary have seized political power and are using the same for the purpose of socializing industry and as an instrument for the complete emancipation of labor, therefore be it

"Resolved, that we, the State Committee of the Socialist Party of the State of New York, in meeting assembled congratulate the Socialist movement and the working class of Hungary on the success of the revolution and on the position that the Hungarian Socialist Republic has taken in defiance of the capitalist imperialists of all lands."

In the April 24, 1919, edition of "The Call" we read:

"A new period in the evolution of the social and economic structure of the world is at hand. A new day for those who toil. A new day which will mean economic and political liberty based on justice for those who toil. Some call it revolution. Well, if that be the word, so be it. And woe be to those who in their blind folly throw themselves in the way to stop its onward sweep throughout the civilized world, for they shall be as grass before the sickle! Hail, all hail, the new day!"

Again, in its issue of April 30, 1919, "The Call" favors the Hungarian Communist regime of Bela Kun:

"'There is reason to believe,' says a dispatch from Budapest, 'that the present Hungarian government has been unofficially approached by the Entente with the suggestion that military invasion might be arrested if the extremist members were replaced by more moderate Socialists.' Making all allowance for the unreliability of the dispatch, it is hard to say which cuts the more contemptible figure, the Entente or the 'Moderate Socialists.'"

In its 1919 May Day edition, "The Call," under the caption, "All Attacks on Russian Revolution Have Recoiled," shows its sympathy for Bolshevism and Spartacism:

"Every attack of world reaction upon Soviet Russia, the center of the world revolution, has remained fruitless. The internal strength and the external power of the Russian Workers' and Peasants' Republic is growing daily into a power that will successfully withstand the onslaughts of capitalism. The possibilities of subduing the Russian revolution by force from without decrease constantly as the governments of the different countries are ever more forcibly threatened by the fermentation among their own peoples which they must combat.

"At present the second, the Socialist revolution, has come upon the scene in Germany, which, driven to the edge of starvation, bleeding and drained to the marrow by Kaiserism and militarism, is now being held in the grip of Entente capitalism. There at this moment the courageous and steadfast Socialists stand under the flag of Spartacus, first on the barricades under the sign of the general strike and street battles....

"The German Socialists of the Right have soiled the name of Socialism by being inimical to the Russian revolution; by failing to communicate with the radical English elements in the English strike movements, which are also spontaneous expressions of proletarian unrest; by acting as the lackeys of Kaiserism and capitalism in opposing the November revolution to the last hour before its outbreak; and, finally, by their unspeakable mass murders of starving, demonstrating and striking proletarians.

"In this struggle between the revolution and the social-patriotic bourgeois reaction which now enters into a decisive phase, two of the noblest pioneers of the international, Dr. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, were murdered by the hate-filled bourgeois mob and the degenerate Scheidemann-Noske henchmen. Another victim of the treacherous reaction was Kurt Eisner, Socialist premier of Bavaria. One need but be an honest, fearless Socialist to be in danger of one's life under the hypocritical, false, brutal and murderous regime of Ebert-Scheidemann-Noske. This regime revives the worst methods of Kaiserism and holds its protecting hand over the bourgeois and capitalists of Germany. But this blood and the blood of our martyrs will only urge the masses to continuous unconquerable struggle, till the criminal Ebert-Scheidemann-Noske reaction, together with the criminals and conspirators of the old empire, yield to the power of the revolutionary justice of the masses."

In the May 1, 1919, issue of "The Call," the May Day Manifesto is made public by Morris Hillquit, International Secretary of the Socialist Party of the United States. Only part of it is hereby quoted:

"We send fraternal greetings and vows of whole-hearted sympathy to the Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia, which is so valiantly upholding the lofty international proletarian ideals in the face of the combining military economic and political attacks of reactionary powers, and in spite of the systematic campaign of libelous misrepresentation on the part of the lying capitalist press of the world. We send congratulations and fraternal good wishes to the workers of Hungary on the establishment of a free Communistic Workers' Republic, upon the ruins of the predatory monarchy of their exploiting and land-monopolizing rulers. We extend the hand of comradeship and solidarity to the revolutionary Socialists of Germany and Russia, now engaged in a life-and-death struggle to secure for the working masses of their countries the full fruit of their victorious revolutions; to the workers of England in their efforts to wrest the control of the industries from the parasites in their country, and to the Socialists of France, Italy and all other countries of Europe in their fights against their revolutionary governments."

"The New Age," the Socialist paper of Buffalo, April 10, 1919, published a "Greeting to the Soviet Republic of Hungary":

"The proletariat of Hungary has taken all power in its own hands. Like a bolt from the blue the workers, soldiers and peasants of 'conquered' Hungary proclaim their intervention in the arena of world politics--and the diplomats of capitalism are thrown into a flurry of mingled rage and fear.

"While the wires were still hot with the news of the resignation of Count Karolyi, president of the provisional government of Hungary, as a protest against the peace terms of the Paris Conference, came word of the complete triumph of revolutionary Socialism and the establishment of the second Soviet Republic in the world.

"With little or no resistance, with no intervening period of Socialist compromise, the Hungarian Soviet Republic rises to power and in its initial proclamation ushers in the dictatorship of the proletariat, decrees the socialization of the large estates, mines, big industries, banks and lines of transportation, declares its oneness of purpose with the revolutionary proletariat of Russia and its readiness to form an armed alliance with the federated Soviet Republic. All over the country Workmen's, Soldiers' and Peasants' Councils are in action and take over the functions of government."

"The Revolutionary Age," then a Socialist paper of Boston, on March 29, 1919, showed its complete sympathy for the Bolshevists, Communists and Spartacans:

"So the Hungarian workers set about their task and the eastern sky is brightening.

"Already the two Soviet governments have issued an appeal to the workers of all countries to sweep away the old system. The bourgeois press tells of the spread of Bolshevism throughout central Europe and the diplomats of Capitalism are turning this way and that to avert fresh outbreaks. But they are powerless. Every new move brings new complications, every award of territory here brings discontent and adds to the 'menace' there.


"The fear that weighs upon the world of Capitalism and the diplomats in Paris is: Who next? The proclamation of a Soviet Republic in Hungary is to them not a fact, but a symbol--a symbol of the onward sweep of the proletarian revolution, which may break loose in other nations.

"Through this symbol looms Soviet Russia--gigantic, mysterious and implacable. Despised by the world of Capitalism, intrigued against and vilified, isolated in the spaces of its own territory, attacked by the soldiers of the Allies--Soviet Russia, through the flaming energy of its proletariat and Socialism has conquered in spite of all. The Allies, their Capitalism and Imperialism, are no longer a menace to Soviet Russia; it is now Soviet Russia that menaces the Allies through its own gigantic strength and the threat of the international proletarian revolution....

"And this revolutionary army of Soviet Russia, massed at the frontier, is prepared to march into Hungary or Poland or Germany to co-operate with the revolutionary masses in any war that may be necessary against international Imperialism and for the proletarian revolution.

"The situation in Germany is critical and crucial. The conquest of power by the revolutionary proletariat in Germany will assure the world revolution. The recent butchery of the Spartacans by the Government of 'Socialist' assassins has not crushed the revolutionary masses; on the contrary, the masses have been aroused, the Ebert-Scheidemann government depending more and more upon the worst elements of the old regime; it is being isolated, and the workers are rallying to the Soviets."

"The Ohio Socialist," published in Cleveland, and claiming to be the "Official Organ of the Socialist Parties of Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia and New Mexico," in the spring of 1919 gave its unlimited support to Bolshevism. "The Proletarian," then a Socialist paper of Detroit, was in thorough accord with Bolshevists, Spartacists and Communists, of Russia, Germany and Hungary respectively. The following quotations are taken from the April, 1919, edition:

"In order to be a good American, according to the view of the powers that be, it is necessary to repeat and believe the stories written in the capitalist press about the Bolsheviki. But we, who know what is going on, and do not believe them, maintain that a person can be truthful, and still be an American. That he can be a good, pure, unadulterated American, and still lend his sympathies to the Bolsheviki.

"In revolutionary Germany the struggle between the defenders of capitalism and the champions of working class emanicipation--the Spartacides and their adherents--continues almost unceasingly. The 'democratic' government has taken desperate steps to crush the revolution; there have been wholesale executions and other repressive acts....

"The final conflict is now on. 'Ruthless slaughter' is the governmental decree with Gustav Noske, 'minister of defense,' in charge of the butchering. And what is it that Noske and his 'Socialist' colleagues are defending? The interests of the German capitalists. Sacred private property rights are in danger; the stronghold of capitalism is being assailed. The expropriation of the capitalists is the aim of the proletarian revolutionists....

"All the old friends of Kaiserism--Hoffman, Hindenberg and the rest--are lined up against the Spartacans. Although these elements of reaction have gained temporary victory, the workers are undismayed."

"The Proletarian," in this same issue, referring to the Bela Kun dictatorship of Hungary, says:

"On Sunday, March 23d, the news was flashed across America that Hungary had swung into the ranks of the revolutionary proletarian dictatorships....

"A note from the Paris Conference seems to have been the last straw that 'broke the camel's back' of the middle course government, causing President, Cabinet and all, to resign. This allowed the political power to fall into the hands of those who are alone capable of handling the situation--the revolutionary proletariat."

"The Chicago Socialist" is also pro-Bolshevist. In the April 1, 1919, edition each of the three following lines extends across the top of the front page of the paper:

"How Many Bolshevists in Chicago?

"The Vote Today Will Tell.

"Vote The Socialist Ticket."

At the bottom of the first page of this April election day issue of "The Chicago Socialist," the following notice is given to voters:

"Vote for the great change, TODAY, by casting a Socialist ballot. Stand up and be counted for a Soviet Republic, not only in Russia, or in Hungary, not only in the United States or in some other land; but stand up and be counted for the Soviet Republic of the world."

The Socialist paper of Duluth, like the other Marxian papers of the United States, also favored Spartacism and Bolshevism, for in the March 7, 1919, issue of "The Truth" we read:

"We can honestly say that the position in Germany is very promising. The Spartacides are now coming into their own and ere long we shall see Bolshevism firmly established in Germany."

The pink booklet published by the Socialist Party, Buffalo, New York, entitled, "The Truth About Russia," contains the text of the Bolshevik Constitution, and on page 2 appears the following introduction:

"This little booklet is published by Local Buffalo, Socialist Party, Erie County, with the object in view of giving information to those who desire to grasp the true situation and understand the struggle now going on in Eastern Europe between the reactionary elements allied with German imperialism and other imperialists against the Workers' Republic of Russia in their struggle for true democracy."

On the back cover sheet of "The Crisis in the German Social Democracy," written by Karl Leibknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and Franz Mehring, and published by the Socialist Publication Society of Brooklyn, New York, there is an advertisement of "The Class Struggle," "a bi-monthly magazine devoted to International Socialism." This bi-monthly "does not exploit the ephemeral, but gives serious studies of the international movement from the pens of comrades in all parts of the world. Among the recent contributors are: Lenine, Trotzky, Lunacharsky, Franz Mehring, Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Friedrich Adler, Santeri Nuorteva" So the advertisement reads.

"The Bulletin," issued March 24, 1919, by the National Office, Socialist Party, page 11, volunteers information which shows one phase of Bolshevist propaganda carried on by that Party in the United States:

"The striking effective leaflet, 'The Great and Growing Fear--No Work,' is accomplishing a double purpose and is being snapped up eagerly and distributed by the hundreds of thousands by state and local organizations and by individual hustlers. Two hundred thousand copies have been sold and it will shortly go to its third printing. Orders indicate a million edition of this powerful leaflet. The Russian Constitution, an article and thought-compelling cartoons on unemployment, that this leaflet carries, make it the Socialist literature triumph of the month. Send for sample copy and order early.

"From the hustling 'Red' town of Hamilton, Ohio, comes an order for 8,000 'Great Fear' leaflets to put the truth about the Russian Soviet Constitution in the homes of the workers of that community."

"The Eye Opener," the official national organ of the Socialist Party of America, in its issue of January, 1919, shows its sympathy for the Spartacans by the following article:

"'You Did Not Die In Vain!'

"American Socialist Party to

"Liebknecht and Luxembourg.

"The Socialist Party executive committee has adopted a resolution on the death of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg, Germany's two most uncompromising foes of Kaiserism and imperialism. It is as follows:

"'The National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of the United States of America, has learned of the deaths of our beloved comrades, Dr. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg, who are reported assassinated by the agents of the reactionary forces of Germany, who are now conspiring to deprive the workers of that country of the opportunity to establish a free government there.

"'These comrades, always true to the principles of revolutionary Socialism, in the face of unqualified opposition before, during and after the great war, commanded the love and admiration of all the lovers of international liberty, and have, by their incomparable devotion to this great cause, made their names immortal in the history of working class liberation.'"

From the "New York Times," November 18, 1918, we learn that the Chicago Socialists endorsed Bolshevism.

A despatch by the International News Service from Cleveland, Ohio, March 31, 1919, informs us that C.E. Ruthenberg, leading Socialist of that city, after a meeting of the Cleveland Socialists on March 30, announced that the members of the party had just voted in favor of the adoption of the Bolshevik doctrine of Lenine and Trotzky for the further direction of the Cleveland party and that the action of the members was practically unanimous.

"The Call," New York, April 3, 1919, gave notice of a pro-Bolshevist meeting to be held by the Socialists on the following Saturday afternoon at Park Circle, New York City:

"This is the first of a series that the Socialist Party of Harlem proposes to hold, inspired by the success of the Debs meeting two weeks ago at the same place, when 15,000 people attended.

"The assemblage on Saturday, besides demanding that the United States recognize Soviet Russia, will also give a welcome to the Soviet Republic of Hungary."

In its issue of April 10, 1919, "The Call" recorded the approval by the Queen's County, New York, Socialists of the Bolsheviki and Spartacans:

"We desire to clearly place ourselves on record for, and openly and actively sign ourselves with the revolutionary proletariat the world over, as at present expressed by the policies and tactics of the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviki), the Communist Labor Party in Germany (Spartacans) and other parties in harmony with them."

On May 31, 1919, "The Call" published the declaration of the National Executive Committee of the party in favor of Bolshevism, Communism and Spartacism: The Socialist Party of the United States "supports whole-heartedly the Soviet Republic of Russia and the Communist government of Hungary.... In Germany, Austria and countries similarly situated, its sympathies are with the more advanced Socialist groups."

In "The Call," May 17, 1919, Martens, the representative in the United States of the Russian Soviet Government, is quoted as saying:

"Russian workers, whom I represent, acknowledge with gratitude the sympathy toward the struggles of Soviet Russia evinced by the Socialist Party of America, as well as by the Socialist Labor Party, the I. W. W. and other organizations of the working class, and they return the sympathy without discrimination."

"The Call," March 30, 1919, informs its readers that Cleveland Socialists were organizing a Workers' and Soldiers' Soviet, and again, on April 1, 1919, that soviets had been established in Seattle, Portland and San Francisco. Eugene V. Debs, in an article written by him in "The Class Struggle," said:

"From the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am Bolshevik and proud of it."

"The Call," April 14, 1919, published Debs' "Last Minute Message to All New York Socialists":

"As I am about to enter the prison doors, I wish to send to the Socialists of New York who have loyally stood by me since my first arrest, this little message of love and cheer. These are pregnant and promising days. We are all on the threshold of tremendous changes. The workers of the world are awakening and bestirring themselves as never before. All the forces that are playing upon the modern world are making for the overthrow of despotism in all its forms and for the emancipation of the masses of mankind. I shall be in prison in the days to come, but my revolutionary spirit will be abroad, and I shall not be inactive. Let us all, in the supreme hour, measure up to our full stature and work together as one for the great cause that means emancipation for us all. Love to all my Comrades, and all hail to the Revolution.--Eugene Victor Debs."

From the same issue of "The Call" we learn that Debs, on leaving Wheeling, West Virginia, for the Moundsville prison, gave the following statement to David Karsner, staff correspondent: "I enter the prison doors a flaming revolutionist--my head erect, my spirit untamed, and my soul unconquered."

A press despatch from Toledo, Ohio, March 31, 1919, describes the serious socialist riot which took place that afternoon as a protest against the then impending imprisonment of Debs, the self-styled "flaming revolutionist":

"Toledo, Ohio, March 31.--When they were refused admission by city officials to Memorial Hall, a city building where Eugene V. Debs was scheduled to speak, 5,000 persons stormed the place, broke windows and doors, and then paraded the streets crying, 'To hell with the mayor.' ...

"Announcement that Debs would not be permitted to speak was made late Saturday night, after the Socialists here had prepared to handle an overflow crowd. The announcement appeared in the morning papers, and was the first notice the Socialists had that their meeting could not be held.

"When the hour for Debs to speak arrived there were at least 6,000 men and women congregated about the William McKinley monument in Courthouse Park, across the street from Memorial hall.

"A man mounted the base of the monument. 'We'll use Memorial Hall this afternoon if we have to wade through blood to do it!' he shouted. A policeman grabbed him and he was thrown unceremoniously into a patrol wagon. The man who essayed to speak next also was arrested.

"As the crowd sensed what was occurring the radicals began to hoot and boo the officers. Clubs were drawn and the crowd was made to move. Then came the parade through the streets and cries of 'Down with the mayor!' 'Hang him!' 'To hell with the police!' and others of a similar nature.

"It was after five o'clock before the police were able to disperse the crowd. Fist fights by the dozens occurred on corners. Hotel lobbies were invaded by the malcontents. Street cars were held up and threats of serious outbreaks were to be heard on every hand....

"More than seventy-five men were arrested, including Thomas Devine, Socialist member of the city council."



Every year on May Day the Socialists are in the habit of publishing articles and making speeches of a more than usual revolutionary character. They are also fond of parading on that day to incite riot, and of holding meetings to stir up discontent and to foment rebellion among the laboring classes. May Day, 1919, was an especially serious one in several cities of the United States and will long be remembered, because the Socialist riots occurred while the whole country was excited over the unsuccessful mailing of bombs to a score or so of eminent citizens. The most serious Marxian riots took place in Cleveland, Ohio, and were described in part in the "Chicago Tribune" as follows:

"Cleveland, Ohio, May 1.--An unidentified man was killed by a detective's bullet, eleven policemen were shot or badly beaten, and about 100 persons wounded, many seriously, in general rioting which brought a dramatic finale this afternoon to a Socialist May Day demonstration here.

"About thirty persons, seriously injured, are in hospitals to-night, while scores of others, including women, were trampled by rioters or clubbed by police.

"Socialist headquarters was totally wrecked by angry civilians bent on putting an end to the demonstration....

"A mob of several hundred threatened police headquarters when C. E. Ruthenberg, Socialist leader and former Socialist candidate for mayor, was arrested and for more than an hour the entire downtown section of the city was a warring mass of Socialists, police, civilians and soldiers, the latter riding down the rioters in army trucks and tanks.

"Dozens of shots were fired in Public square, where more than 20,000 Socialists and sympathizers assembled for a May Day rally and to protest against the convictions of Eugene V. Debs and Thomas J. Mooney.

"The trouble started in Superior Avenue, near East Ninth Street, when the head of one of the five Socialist parades, scheduled to meet in a mass meeting at Public square, was stopped, and Liberty Loan workers and an army lieutenant tore a red flag from a man at the head of the marchers, practically every one of whom were carrying red flags.

"In less than ten minutes riots had developed at several other points, mounted and foot policemen being switched from one location to another to quell the fighting.

"The trouble in the public square started when Lieut. H. S. Bergen, who served with the 80th Division overseas, demanded that several soldiers among the Socialists on the platform remove their uniforms or the red flags they wore on their breasts.

"The soldiers refused, and C. E. Ruthenberg, scheduled as the principal Socialist speaker, interceded for the Socialists.

"Lieut. Bergen, followed by Lieut. John Hardy of Detroit, thereupon mounted the platform and tore the red insignia from the khaki uniforms. The act was the signal for a grand rush by thousands of Socialist sympathizers."

On Sunday, May 4, 1919, serious trouble with the Socialist-Bolshevist element of Gary, Indiana, was narrowly averted. The account, as published in the "Chicago Tribune" on the next day, reads in part as follows:

"There was no 'Red' parade in Gary yesterday....

"Fifty policemen, wearing revolvers on their belts and reinforced by a special shotgun squad of sixteen, a company of state militia, thirty deputy sheriffs, a group of secret service men from Chicago and hundreds of citizen volunteers, prevented the parade after the Russian Socialists flouted an order of Mayor W.H. Hodges prohibiting the march and declared they would proceed despite the authorities....

"Yesterday's demonstration was the result of a carefully planned plot matured for nearly a month by the foreign radical element of Lake County, Indiana. Its stated purpose was to protest against the conviction of Eugene V. Debs and Kate Richards O'Hare. An undercurrent of rumor among the radicals gave it a more significant meaning, however.

"On Thursday secret service men obtained copies of pamphlets printed in Russian, containing a formula for the manufacture of explosives. More literature calling for the overthrow of the government was circulated. A third series of pamphlets contained the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Republic.

"Friday Morris Lieberman, head of the Socialists, called on Mayor Hodges for a permit to parade. It was refused with the explanation that riots such as caused two deaths in Cleveland were feared....

"Early yesterday morning radicals began to arrive in Gary. Cars from Indiana Harbor, Whiting, Hammond, Crown Point, and trains from Chicago brought them by the dozens.

"By noon several thousand had gathered in and near the Socialist headquarters, a mile south of the business district of Gary. Under portraits of Trotzky and Lenine they sang Russian songs and gathered about in knots waiting for 'zero hour'--one o'clock.

"Lieberman, fearing bloodshed, decided to counsel his followers against a parade. They howled him down, however, and hotter heads took charge of the meeting. A dozen girls, with rolls of red ribbon, pinned a scarlet strip on the lapel of each man's coat as he entered the meeting hall. Red neckties were abundant. Red hat bands made their appearance. Many wore scarlet carnations."

Judge Haas of the Municipal Court of Gary thus commented on those arrested in the demonstration:

"All except Capolitto have failed to become citizens. All except him and one other tried to evade war service in our army, endeavoring to sneak out on the ground of not being citizens of this country. All they seem to want is to come over here and make trouble--out of twenty-one gun-toters who have been brought before me, nineteen have been foreigners and not even citizens."

The leaders of the Marxian movement, both in the United States and abroad, testify that to be a Socialist is to be a plotter against all existing forms of government. Marx and Engels, for instance, confess the truth of this in their celebrated "Communist Manifesto," which they addressed to their followers over half a century ago, and which is looked upon even today by the rank and file of the party as embodying the fundamental principles of International Socialism. "The Communists," we are told, "everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things" and "disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution."

We are indebted to the late August Bebel, the leader of the Socialists of Germany, for the confession that "along with the state die out its representatives--cabinet ministers, parliaments, standing armies, police and constables, courts, attorneys, prison officials, tariff and tax collectors, in short the whole political apparatus. Barracks and other such military structures, palaces of law and of administration, prisons--all will now await better use. Ten thousand laws, decrees and regulations become so much rubbish; they have only historic value." ["Women Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 319, of the 1904 edition in English.]

"The People," New York, May 13, 1900, in speaking of the relation of Socialism to existing forms of government, including our own, affirms that "while there is a very general idea that Socialism means an extension of the powers and functions of government, still this is a very natural and dangerous misconception, and one that ought to be guarded against." "Socialism," it adds, "does not mean the extension of government, but on the contrary it means the end, the elimination of government."

The "International Socialist Review," Chicago, February, 1912, together with many other magazines and papers current at the time, called attention to the fact that William D. Haywood, who for a long time had been before the eyes of the public on account of his revolutionary utterances and writings, declared in a speech at Cooper Union, in New York City, that the Socialists were conspirators against the United States Government.

"The Call," April 1, 1919, in an editorial note says that "the whole system of government in the United States, Federal, State and Municipal, seems to be out of date."

Though the men who march behind the red flag, singing the Marseillaise of the French Revolution, usually deny to the general public, for reasons of political expediency, that the Socialist movement is a violent and revolutionary one, it is evident to those who have read their books, magazines, and papers, that the use of the ballot and education are not the means on which they rely finally for the establishment of their visionary commonwealth. Violence is advocated and habitually practised by the Socialists who constitute the Industrial Workers of the World, whose banner with the inscription, "No God, No Master," has brought them into disrepute all over the country. Jack London, a Socialist widely known in the United States and England as a novelist, furnishes us with excellent reasons for believing that the International Socialist Party approves of violence and assassination, and thereby reaffirms its allegiance to the base principles of the French Commune. Writing in the "International Socialist Review" of August, 1909, Jack London made the following comment on the progress of Socialism in Russia:

"Our comrades in Russia have formed what they call 'THE FIGHTING ORGANIZATION.' This FIGHTING ORGANIZATION accused, tried, found guilty and condemned to death one Sipiaguin, Minister of the Interior. On April 2, he was shot and killed in the Maryinsky Palace. Two years later the FIGHTING ORGANIZATION condemned to death and executed another Minister of the Interior, Von Plehve. Having done so it issued a document, dated July 29, 1904, setting forth the counts of its indictment of Von Plehve and its responsibility for the assassination. Now, and to the point, this document was sent out to the Socialists of the world, and by them was published everywhere in the magazines and newspapers. The point is, not that the Socialists of the world were unafraid to do it, but that they did it as a matter of routine, giving publication to what might be called an official document of International Revolutionary Movement."

August Bebel in "Unsere Ziele," page 44, expresses his sentiments on the subject of violence quite as frankly as Jack London. "We must not shudder," he tells us, "at the thought of the possible employment of violence; we must not raise an alarm cry at the suppression of existing rights, at violent expropriation, etc. History teaches that at all times new ideas, as a rule, were realized by a violent conflict with the defenders of the past, and that the combatants for new ideas struck blows as deadly as possible at the defenders of antiquity. Not without reason does Karl Marx, in his work on 'Capital' exclaim: 'Violence is the obstetrician that waits on every ancient society which is about to give birth to a new one; violence is in itself a social factor.'"

As reference has just been made to Karl Marx, it will be well to call attention to the fact that the Father of modern Socialism, in "The Civil War in France," page 78, claims that "the workingmen's Paris, with its Commune, will forever be celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society." The Commune, then, whose anniversary is celebrated on the 18th of March, every year, by the Socialists all over the world, has been, and still is considered the precursor of their contemplated state. The reign of terror and rebellion in which tens of thousands of Frenchmen met their death, while public buildings and priceless works of art were being burned or destroyed and many beautiful churches pillaged, is the boast of the Socialistic champions of universal peace. The Parisian mob of criminals and revolutionists, which was finally subdued by 150,000 French troops, after men and women had run about the streets with petroleum cans, firing public buildings and private houses and seizing many victims whom they hurried off to death, is, therefore, considered by the Socialists as one of the most illustrious gatherings of persons recorded in history, and one worthy of special memory, honor and respect.

Victor Berger of Wisconsin, speaking in the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party in favor of an amendment to the party constitution, proposed by Delegate Hazlett, to the effect that any person opposing political action should be expelled from the party, shows how little difference there is between the advocates of "political action," who are supposed to favor the use of the ballot, and the "direct actionists," who admit their preference for violence.

"I have heard it pleaded," said Berger, "many a time right in our own meetings by speakers that come to our meetings, that the only salvation for the proletariat of America is direct action, that the ballot box is simply a humbug. Now I don't know how this question is going to be solved. I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there. We always make good.... In order to be able to shoot even some day we must have the powers of political government in our hands, at least to a great extent. I want that understood. So everybody who is talking to you about direct action and so on, and about political action being a humbug, is your enemy today, because he keeps you from getting the powers of political government." ["Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 241.]

On July 31, 1909, we find Victor Berger, who posed as the special exponent of "political action," against the "anarchistic" element in his party, writing as follows in the "Social Democratic Herald" of Milwaukee:

"No one will claim that I am given to the reciting of revolutionary phrases. On the contrary I am known to be a constructive Socialist. However, in view of the plutocratic law making of the present day, it is easy to predict that the safety and hope of this country will finally lie in one direction only, that of a violent and bloody revolution. Therefore, I say, each of the 500,000 Socialist voters and of the 2,000,000 workingmen who instinctively incline our way, should, besides doing much reading and still more thinking, also have a good rifle and the necessary rounds of ammunition in his home, and be prepared to back up his ballot with his bullets if necessary. This may look like a startling statement. Yet I can see nothing else for the American masses today."

In the "Social Democratic Herald," August 14, 1909, Victor Berger drops a few more words on the same subject in an article entitled: "IF THIS BE TREASON, MAKE THE BEST OF IT." "There are two ways," says he, "of effecting great social changes in a republic--the ballot and the bullet. If our people are not wise--if they are otherwise--then we may have use for both of them."

Now, if Berger is a specimen of the extreme "political actionist," a conservative, the enemy of "direct action," who can imagine the treasonable intentions and bloody thoughts of the immense number of "direct actionists" who throng the ranks of these national conspirators?

It is not flattering to the State of Wisconsin to realize that Berger has several times been chosen to represent one of its Congressional districts in the United States House of Representatives. Yet Berger has apt pupils. On January 12, 1919, Mayor Hoan of Milwaukee presided at a Milwaukee meeting of 8,000 "Reds" to protest against the conviction, under the Espionage Law, of Victor L. Berger and four co-conspirators, and prolonged cheering and waving of "Red" insignia answered the following words spoken by William Bross Lloyd (Testimony, Socialist Trial, Albany, page 1623):

"What we want is revolutionary preparedness. We want to organize.... We want a mobilization plan and an organization for the revolution. We want to get rifles, machine guns, field artillery, and the ammunition for it. You want to get dynamite. You want to tell off the men for the revolution when it starts here. You want to tell off the men who are to take the dynamite to the armory doors and blow them in and capture the guns and ammunition there so that the capitalists won't have any. You want to tell off the men to dynamite the doors of the banks to get the money to finance the revolution."

William D. Haywood and Frank Bohn are the joint authors of a pamphlet entitled, "Industrial Socialism," the revolutionary tenor of which may be gathered from the following lines:

"When the worker, either through experience or a study of Socialism, comes to know this truth [i.e., economic determinism], he acts accordingly. He retains absolutely no respect for the property rights of the profit takers. He will use any weapon which will win his fight. He knows that the present laws of property are made by and for the capitalists. Therefore he does not hesitate to break them."

Since Haywood and Bohn evidently had no intention of using paper-cap pistols and pop-guns as their weapons, and since they certainly did not mean to shoot at stone walls and forest trees, it seems strange that the Socialist Party, if it does not advocate such doctrines of violence, should sell these pamphlets at $6 per 100, according to a price list of its national office in Chicago.

To make matters still worse for the apologists of the Socialist Party of America, no less a personage than Eugene V. Debs commented as follows, in the "International Socialist Review," February, 1912, on the doctrines of Haywood and Bohn just referred to:

"We have here a matter of tactics upon which a number of comrades of ability and prominence have sharply disagreed. For my part, I believe the paragraph to be entirely sound. Certainly all Socialists knowing how and to what end capitalist property rights are established, must hold such rights in contempt.... As a revolutionist I can have no respect for capitalist property laws, nor the least scruple about violating them. I hold all such laws to have been enacted through chicanery, fraud and corruption, with the sole end in view of dispossessing, robbing and enslaving the working class. But this does not imply that I propose making an individual law breaker of myself, and butting my head against the stone wall of existing property laws. That might be called force, but it would not be that. It would be mere weakness and folly. If I had the force to overthrow these despotic laws, I would use it without an instant's hesitation or delay, but I haven't got it, so I am law abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

In the "Appeal to Reason," Girard, Kansas, September 2, 1911, there is an excellent specimen of one of Debs' revolutionary articles, which reads in part as follows:

"Let us arouse the working class and invoke their power to smite the conspirators and set our brothers [the McNamaras] free. They can be saved in no other way. The lawyers will plead for them to deaf ears; organized labor will protest against their taking off in vain. We are confronted by a heartless, soulless plutocracy. Let us buckle on our armor and fight!... Let us marshal our forces and develop our power for the revolt! Let us develop without delay all the power we have, and prepare to strike in every way we know how. With a general strike we can paralyze the plutocracy from coast to coast. Hundreds of thousands will join eagerly and serve loyally in the fight. We can stop the wheels, cut off the food supply, and compel the plutocrats in sheer terror to sue for peace.... A few men may be needed who are not afraid to die. Be ye also ready.... Let us swear that we will fight to the last ditch, that we will strike blow for blow, that we will use every weapon at our command, and that we will never surrender! Roll up a united Socialist vote in California that will shake the Pacific Coast like an earthquake, and back it up with a general strike that will paralyze the continent.... Let the sturdy toilers of the Pacific Coast raise the Red standard of revolt."

It was no other than this same Eugene V. Debs, the advocate of violence and revolution, who on May 17, 1912, was nominated as the presidential standard bearer of the Socialist Party. If ever elected, what a fine president he would make, this "poor," "persecuted," self-styled "flaming-revolutionist," now in jail! What an honorable party it must be that nominated such a man for the fourth successive time to fill the office of the presidency of our country! Indeed it was on the very same day that the followers of Karl Marx chose Debs as their candidate to rule the United States that they also declared, in the constitution of their party, that any member who should advocate crime, sabotage or other methods of violence, as a weapon of the working class to aid it in its emancipation, should be expelled from membership in the party!

Never can political Socialists convince the American people of their sincerity and honesty while they nominate for office men like Debs, send to Congress representatives like Victor Berger, and choose as members of their national executive committee persons of the stamp of William D. Haywood. There was no better way for Socialists to convict themselves of hypocrisy than by retaining in their constitution the clause against sabotage, referred to above, while at the same time selling at their National Office books like "Industrial Socialism" and publishing in their papers and magazines articles advocating and approving "direct action." By their deeds we judge them, and not by their hypocritical words.

"The Call," on April 28, 1919, introduces with the following headlines the long comment that it makes on the Hart-Nearing debate of April 27th in New York City: "Revolution Is Only Solution of World-Wide Unrest, Says Nearing." In the course of the article Scott Nearing's suggestion of revolt is mentioned: "As against Professor Hart's proposal of a League of Nations, I suggest revolution." The "New York Times," April 28, 1919, commented in part on the debate as follows:

"'Who wants war?' asked Professor Hart. 'Scott Nearing wants war and the people who think as he does, want war. Revolution is nothing but civil war and we see its result in the Russian revolution. Russia passed through three revolutions and is that the kind of result we want in order to overthrow what he calls this robber nation?'

"A whirlwind of applause marked this and through the applause was heard a chorus of voices shouting 'yes.' The meeting cheered Nearing's frequent references to 'revolution,' to the Russian Soviet Republic and applauded his radical utterances, although he had requested that he be permitted to speak without interruption. The theatre contained about 3,000 persons who filled all the seats, the stage and stood in the aisles, after paying from 25 cents to $1.50 admission.

"Judging from the manifestations of approval of Nearing's remarks, the large audience appeared to be overwhelmingly composed of revolutionary Socialists, and when the speaker declared he believed in a League of Socialist Nations the crowd vigorously applauded in a way that left no doubt of its sentiment."

"The Call" in its May Day issue, 1919, published an article on present-day revolutionary tactics of the Socialists:

"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future, has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the masses and the shining example of the martyrs. Its spread is irrepressible. The bridges are burnt behind the old capitalist society and its path is forever cut off. Capitalist society is bankrupt and the only salvation of humanity lies in the uprising of the masses, in the victory of the Socialist revolution, in the renovating forces of Socialism.

"The world war which is now about to be officially closed has slid into a condition neither war nor peace. However, the war of the nations has been followed by the war of the classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the great cities for life or death."



Though it is evident that there can be no patriotism in men who are doing their utmost to overthrow our government by stirring up class-hatred and inciting rebellion, still most of the citizens of our country have never realized the extent to which Socialists ridicule and despise patriotism and abhor its very name.

"The Call," September 25, 1912, in answering the charge that Socialism undermines patriotism, says: "So it does, and is proud of it, if by patriotism is meant that mawkish sentiment which causes a man, for the sum of $15 a month, to go out and get himself killed in defense of a country of which he owns not a single foot and can never hope to own any. If a wage slave is paid only enough to live on, anyhow, what difference to him does it make whether his boss is a Britisher or a Chinaman?"

The Socialists often succeed in stirring up violence during strikes to develop the spirit of revolt; then, when it becomes necessary for the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, the lovers of rebellion and disorder do their utmost to incite hatred and contempt against the soldiers who are sent to preserve order.

On February 10, 1912, there appeared in "The Call" an article which reads as follows:

"The capitalist class, alarmed at the amazingly rapid growth of anti-militarism in this country, is endeavoring, through church and government, to combat this just sentiment, and by law and precept to create an artificial respect and love for the soldiers' uniform and the American flag.

"'Respect the uniform, honor the flag,' is their cry, and they are foolish enough to believe that if they raise their voices loud enough, we, the workers, will become infected by their fictitious enthusiasm, and shout with them.

"'Honor the uniform!' Oh, surely! Honor the trappings and gold lace with which they are dressing up their weak-minded scabs! Honor the uniform which has the power to transform a decent but ignorant boy of the working class into an unthinking savage, who would, if ordered to do so by a superior in rank, shoot down his aged father or kill his sister's unborn child with a bayonet thrust, should they happen to be on strike and crying aloud for a little more bread, warmer clothing and better shelter. Honor the uniform? No, spit on it! Make it a shame and a reproach until a worker who wears it will not dare to show his face among decent working people. Honor the uniform! Honor that which gives a free license to kill, if the victim happens to be a worker? Honor that which stands for oppression, for the loafer against the worker, for the master against the slave? Honor that which causes a worker to become a traitor to his class, to forget his ties of blood, and for pay to deliver himself over body and soul to his natural enemy, the capitalist class? Honor the Judases, the Benedict Arnolds of the working class? Our masters insult us by even asking such a thing.

"Shall we honor the Massachusetts militiamen who, without the slightest provocation, murdered a young worker? Is that what you want us to do, you capitalists, you cardinals and presidents? You ask too late, for we already despise and loathe your decorated hirelings, and are, as time passes, making it more difficult for you to recruit our decent boys and transform them into loathsome parasites."

On May 6, 1919, millions of New Yorkers enthusiastically welcomed the 77th Division of our soldier boys on their return home from the battle-fields of Europe. Glowing descriptions of the celebration appeared in nearly all the papers of the Metropolis. A contemptible account, however, was published the next day in "The Call," showing the scornful spirit of the Socialists toward the millions of American troops who made so many sacrifices for their country in the late war. The article in "The Call" runs as follows:

"Rows and Rows and Rows and Rows and Rows of 'Em March

"Folks Cheered 77th Division which Finally Changed From Toys Into Folks, Too.

"A row of mounted police rode up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A man carrying a banner on which were the words and figures, '77th Division,' marched up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A band played all the way up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A line of soldiers walked up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A second line of soldiers walked up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A third line of soldiers walked up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A fourth line of soldiers walked up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"A soldier carrying a service flag walked up Fifth avenue yesterday.

"One soldier wore khaki and carried a steel helmet on his shoulder.

"A second soldier wore khaki and carried a steel helmet on his shoulder.

"A third soldier wore khaki and carried a steel helmet on his shoulder.

"A fourth soldier wore khaki and carried a steel helmet on his shoulder.

"They marched precisely.

"They marched steadily.

"They marched firmly.

"They marched in silence.

"The crowds cheered.

"The crowds waved flags.

"The crowds did not fill the stands.

"The crowds applauded.

"The police kept the waves of humanity back.

"The police did not have much trouble.

"The police permitted the crowd to cheer.

"The police permitted the crowds to wave flags.

"Soldiers of the 77th Division marched up Fifth avenue yesterday, and when they had done marching they broke ranks and greeted their friends and relatives who had not seen them since they went to war.

"A mother greeted her son with kisses and tears.

"A mother greeted her son with kisses and tears.

"A mother greeted her son with kisses and tears.

"Change the word 'mother' to sweetheart, brother, sister, and keep on repeating until 'father' is reached and then change 'kisses and tears' to 'smiles and cheers.'"

The hypocritical Socialists at one moment plead for universal peace, the desire of nations, and at the next for class hatred. They are trying to ruin our domestic peace and to expose us to the ravages of lawlessness and crime. By fostering contempt for soldiers and other guardians of the peace, they not only make it harder for them to fulfil their duties, but prevent many from joining the army and navy for the defense of our country against foreign and domestic foes.

Our country at present is well able to defend itself against foreign attacks, but if our domestic enemies continue to sow the seeds of discord and class hatred among our fellow citizens, it will surely fall, for no nation that is divided against itself can stand.

From the very fact that "The Call" of February 10, 1912, dared to publish the following article, showing the intense hatred of its author for the Stars and Stripes, our national emblem, the reader can judge for himself whether the thousands of unoffended subscribers have the faintest spark of patriotism in their hearts:

"'At least honor the flag!' they cry in desperation. 'Honor the flag which stands for freedom, equality and fraternity!'

"What flag? The American flag? The Stars and Stripes? The flag which floats over every hellhole of mine and mill and prison? The flag which floats over station house and barracks whence issue police and soldiers to batter down and murder workers exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and free assemblage? Honor the flag which you, our masters, have changed from a flag of liberty into a symbol of the cruelest exploitation and vilest oppression of the new civilization?

"If I had been Samuel Gompers when he was reproached by the capitalists for placing his foot on the American flag, I should have answered: 'Yes, I trampled on it, and, more than that, I spit upon your flag, not mine; I loathe the Stars and Stripes, once the symbol of liberty for all, but now the stripes represent the bloody stripes left by your lash on the back of the worker, and the stars, the bullet and bayonet wounds in his breast. To hell with your flag!...

"Down with the Stars and Stripes! Run up the red flag of humanity."

Not alone do the members of the rank and file of the Socialist Party attack the Star Spangled Banner, but even its foremost leaders are guilty of the same offense. "The Comrade," July, 1904, furnishes us with an attack made upon our country's flag by no less a personage than Eugene V. Debs:

"Have you a drop of blood in your veins? Has your manhood rotted into cowardice? Wake up and take your place in the class struggle. For the desecration of the flag your leader is in jail. What flag? The flag of the capitalist class--the flag that floats over the bull pens of Colorado. The wholesome truths he stamped upon its stripes are your shame and your masters' crime. Rally to the red flag of international Socialism, the symbol of the proletarian revolt."



This chapter is the center of our book, the hub where all the spokes of evidence focus and unite, clearly revealing the unity, power and purpose of the Wheel of Revolution which now is rolling through the minds and wills of American radicals. To make this complex plot simple, it has been analyzed into its parts in the other chapters of "The Red Conspiracy," so that each element may be weighed by itself. In the present chapter the results of this analysis are gathered up again, to show how all the parts fit into one mechanism; and, with the whole thus seen as one contrivance, the working of each part being understood, the plan and purpose of the entire invention stands out as clear as day.

But if this chapter is the center of our explanation of "The Red Conspiracy," the center of the thing itself lies elsewhere. The Great Red Wheel of Proletarian Revolution is an International Wheel, and both the hub which unites it and the turning power which moves it are centered in the old Russian town of Moscow.

Frequently in preceding chapters the reader has been impressed by the fact that the "Reds" are guilty of conspiracy against all governments, including that of the United States of America. In the present chapter we shall discuss this matter of conspiracy much more in detail and assemble the proofs in such order and strength that no reasonable man can deny the existence of the widespread plot now fast undermining the pillars of our country.

The "Reds" under one name or another have in the long run proven to be far more than evolutionists in the various countries of Europe. Actual rebellions have shown them to be revolutionists by violence in the strictest sense of the word in Russia, Germany, Bavaria, Hungary and even on one of the islands of far distant Japan. Their activities in England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Bulgaria and many another foreign land bid fair to give us still further proofs in the near future that the "Reds" do not intend to wait for success by the ballot, but that, as soon as they consider themselves a sufficiently strong and united minority, they will throw off their masks, use rifles in place of hypocritical words, and work behind barricades instead of behind closed meeting doors. The Italian Socialists were about to begin their rebellion when, quite recently, the word came from the Moscow headquarters of the International conspirators to wait for a more opportune moment.

It seems quite incredible that the "Reds" of our own country, whether they be I. W. W.'s, Communists, members of the Communist Labor Party, or Socialists, should be merely evolutionists, harmless parliamentarians, when their brethren abroad, with whom they so much sympathize, and upon whom they look as the saviors of the world and the highest types of advanced civilization, are either avowedly attempting to overthrow their governments or else have already done so, and in not a single instance by means of the ballot. There is an old saying to the effect that we are known by the company we keep. Since the American "Reds" keep company with foreign rebels, it is not to be presumed that the latter are demons and the former saints.

Few specific proofs need be given in this chapter to show that the I. W. W.'s are guilty of conspiracy against the United States Government, for a great part of them, especially those most active, belong either to the Communist, Communist Labor or the Socialist Party, and an abundance of proofs will be given that these latter organizations are far from being harmless and innocent political parties.

Moreover, the I. W. W.'s, in their revolutionary "Preamble" and by the many utterances of their leaders, are openly committed to a conspiracy of violence against our Government. Relative to the I. W. W. and its underhand activities, the reader will remember the words of Arturo Giovannitti, quoted in a previous chapter, from the Socialist Labor Party paper, "Weekly People," New York, February 10, 1912. That writer, with all his experience as a leader of the "Wobblies," certainly knew their plans, and makes this astounding admission relative to the part that the I. W. W. is expected to take in bringing about the Marxian rebellion:

"The future of Socialism lies only in the general strike, not merely a quiet political strike, but one that once started should go fatally to its end, i.e., armed insurrection, and the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.... The task of revolution is not to construct the new society, but to demolish the old one, therefore, its first aim should be at the complete destruction of the existing state, so as to render it absolutely powerless to react and re-establish itself.... The I. W. W. must develop itself as the new legislature and the new executive body of the land, undermine the existing one, and gradually absorb the functions of the state until it can entirely substantiate it through the only means it has, the revolution."

During the year 1919 a very excellent example of how the One Big Union tried to develop a strike into a rebellion was given in Winnipeg, Canada. Some time previously we had in our own country an example in the great strike at Seattle, Washington.

Cases of sabotage, murder and arson are but minor activities of the I. W. W., and mere circumstances to aid in bringing about the contemplated rebellion.

Government raids in recent years, and the seizure of hundreds of tons of inflammatory literature, from which extensive quotations were made in the daily press, have furnished us with ample proofs that the I. W. W.'s are national conspirators.

The reader will remember the vivid picture of the contemplated rebellion in the mind of the "Wobbly" who wrote in "The Rebel Worker," April 15, 1919:

"The United States is in the grip of a bloody revolution! Thousands of workers are slaughtered by machine guns in New York City! Washington is on fire! Industry is at a standstill and thousands of workers are starving! The government is using the most brutal and repressive measures to put down the revolution! Disorganization, crime, chaos, rape, murder and arson are the order of the day--the inevitable results of social revolution!"

The I. W. W.'s are certainly conspirators, and seek the overthrow of our Government by industrial violence, and we were told by "The Evolution of Industrial Democracy," page 40, that "Government, as now understood, will disappear--there being no servile class to be held in subjection--but in its place will be an administration of affairs."

The spirit of armed rebellion against our Government was foremost in the minds of the Left Wing members of the Socialist Party who afterwards formed the Communist and the Communist Labor Parties. We shall recall some of the words of Louis C. Fraina during the great struggle between the Rights and Lefts:

"All propaganda, all electoral and parliamentary activity are insufficient for the overthrow of Capitalism, impotent when the ultimate test of the class struggle turns into a test of power. The power for the social revolution issues out of the actual struggles of the proletariat, out of its strikes, its industrial unions and mass action."--"The Revolutionary Age," July 12, 1919.

"Socialism will come not through the peaceful, democratic parliamentary conquest of the state, but through the determined and revolutionary mass action of a proletarian minority."--"The Revolutionary Age," July 12, 1919.

"Revolutionary Socialists hold, with the founders of Scientific Socialism, that there are two dominant classes in society--the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; that between these two classes a struggle must go on until the working class, through the seizure of the instruments of production and distribution, the abolition of the capitalist state, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, creates a Socialistic system. Revolutionary Socialists do not believe that they can be voted into power. They struggle for the conquest of power by the revolutionary proletariat."--"The Revolutionary Age," March 22, 1919.

"The Communist," of Chicago, April 1, 1919, it will be remembered, in speaking of November 7, 1919, the day on which the armistice was signed, said:

"On that day the seething proletariat ruled Chicago by sheer force of numbers. One thing alone was needed to give this mass expression identity with the proletarian uprisings in Europe--one thing, the revolutionary idea."

After the formation of the Communist and Communist Labor parties, in September, 1919, both made great progress in winning recruits to the cause of armed rebellion. On January 2, 1920, government agents all over the country suddenly descended upon the conspirators and took thousands of them prisoners. Bombs, rifles and other weapons were captured by the department agents. In Newark 25 rifles and a large number of bombs were taken, many tons of violent literature were seized and innumerable quotations from it appeared in the daily press, showing beyond the shadow of a doubt the evil intentions of these "Reds" against the land that we love.

The Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party have the same purposes and aims as the Communist Party of Russia. They are joined with the latter in advocating and supporting the manifesto of the Third International, which openly urges an armed revolution to bring about the overthrow of the Government of the United States.

Both parties have conducted effective propaganda work through newspapers, books, pamphlets and other means. The Communist Party alone had twenty-five newspapers printed in several languages, actively supporting its cause. This number was being increased weekly, papers which were formerly Socialist Party organs going over to its support. The alien editors of most of these papers were taken by the Department of Justice agents in the raids.

The Department of Justice naturally was most vitally interested in the promises of violence against the United States Government contained in the manifesto of the Communists of the Third International, which was held at Moscow, March 2 to 6, 1919. Among the passages in the Moscow manifesto which most interested the Department of Justice were the following:

"Socialist criticism has sufficiently stigmatized the bourgeois world order. The task of the International Communist Party is now to overthrow this order and to erect in its place the structure of the Socialist world order. We urge the workingmen and women of all countries to unite under the Communist banner, the emblem under which the first victories have already been won.

"Proletarians of all lands! In the war against imperialistic barbarity, against monarchy, against the privileged classes, against the bourgeois state and bourgeois property, against all forms and varieties of social and national oppression--unite!

"Under the standard of the Workingmen's Councils under the banner of the Third International, in the revolutionary struggle for power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarians of all countries--unite!"

The manifesto is signed by Lenine, Trotzky and other revolutionaries. Several references are made to the United States, indicating this country as one of the objectives of the revolutionaries. Describing the methods to be used, the manifesto says:

"Civil war is forced upon the laboring classes by their arch enemies. The working class must answer blow for blow, if it will not renounce its own object and its own future, which is at the same time the future of all humanity.

"The Communist parties, far from conjuring up civil war, artificially, rather strive to shorten its duration as much as possible--in case it has become an iron necessity--to minimize the number of its victims, and above all to secure victory for the proletariat."

Under the caption, "The Way to Victory," the manifesto says:

"The revolutionary era compels the proletariat to make use of the means of battle which will concentrate its entire energies, namely, mass action, with its logical resultant, direct conflict with the governmental machinery in open combat. All other methods, such as revolutionary use of bourgeoisie parliamentarism, will be of only secondary significance."

The principles of the American Communist Party set forth in their seized records and made public by the Department of Justice, are:

"The Communist Party of America is the party of the working class. The Communists of America propose to end capitalism and organize a workers' industrial republic. The workers must control industry and dispose of the products of industry.

"The Communist Party is a party realizing the limitations of all existing workers' organizations and purposes to develop the revolutionary movement necessary to free the workers from the oppression of capitalism. The Communist Party insists that the problems of the American worker are identical with the problems of the workers of the world.

"The Communist Party is the conscious expression of the class struggle of the workers against capitalism. Its aim is to direct this struggle to the conquest of political power, the overthrow of capitalism and the destruction of the bourgeois state.

"The Communist Party prepares itself for the revolution in the measure that it develops a program of immediate action expressing the mass struggles of the proletariat. These struggles must be inspired with revolutionary spirit and purposes.

"The Communist Party is fundamentally a party of action. It brings to the workers a consciousness of their oppression, of the impossibility of improving their condition under capitalism. The Communist Party directs the workers' struggle against capitalism, developing fuller forms and purposes in this struggle, culminating in the mass action of the revolution.

"The negro problem is a political and economic problem. The racial oppression of the negro is simply the expression of his economic bondage and oppression, each intensifying the other. This complicates the negro problem, but does not alter its proletarian character. The Communist Party will carry on agitation among the negro workers to unite them with all class conscious workers."

Little need be added concerning the Communist Labor Party. As its manifesto and program are practically identical with those of the Communist Party of America, while all its members are likewise affiliated with the Third or Moscow International, the foregoing characterization of the Communist Party applies without essential modification to the Communist Labor Party. The identical character of these two parties was asserted by A. Mitchell Palmer, Attorney-General of the United States, in a statement given out January 23, 1920, and printed in the "New York Times" of the next day, as follows:

"These two organizations are identical in aim and tactics, the cause for their separate existence being due to the desire of certain individuals connected with the so-called Left Wing elements of the Socialist Party to be leaders. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to members of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party as 'Communists.'"

Attorney-General Palmer then quotes from the manifesto of the Third International, adopted March 6, 1919, at Moscow, to show, as he says, "that their sole and intimate aim was to accomplish not only the conquest but the destruction of the idea of the 'State,' as understood by loyal American citizens," and that "this destruction was not to be accomplished by parliamentary action, for it is specifically stated that it is to be by armed conflict with governmental authority." The Attorney-General's statement then continues:

"It is this manifesto which was adopted by the Communist parties in the United States as their program of action....

"In the program of the Communists in the United States we find such statements as the following:

"'Communism rejects the conception of the State; it rejects the idea of class reconstruction and the parliamentary conquest of capitalism....

"'The objective is the conquest by the proletariat of the power of the State. Communism does not propose to capture the bourgeois parliament of any State, but to conquer and destroy it.'

"We thus find stated in very clear and plain language the fact that the aim of the Communists of America is for the destruction of the government. This shows clearly that the organizations of Communists in this country aim, not at the change of government of the United States by parliamentary or political methods, but in the overthrow and the destruction of the same by mass and direct action, by force and violence.

"Another point of particular significance to which I feel I should call your attention, is the fact that the organizations of Communists in the United States are pledged to destroy the great and loyal labor organization of America, namely, the American Federation of Labor, which, according to the Communist Party of America is considered to be reactionary and a bulwark of capitalism. Another particularly significant pledge of the Communists of America is to carry on agitation of the negro workers of America."

The I. W. W.'s and the members of the Communist and Communist Labor parties are all openly confessed conspirators against the United States Government. The members of the Socialist Party are just as bad, and worse, for they are hypocrites, besides being conspirators.

The Socialists, as we have seen in a former chapter, have for many years given unlimited support to the I. W. W., knowing full well that it was an organization pledged to revolution by violence.

The Socialists, moreover, are heart and soul in favor of the Bolsheviki of Russia, who have issued the manifesto of their International expressly to stir up revolutions by violence in all countries, including our own. The Socialists of the United States call themselves Bolsheviki, are spreading the doctrines of the Bolshevists of Russia and openly admit that Bolshevism and Socialism are identical.

Until very recently the Socialist Party nursed within its bosom about 70,000 dues-paying members, out of 109,586, who went over to the Communist and Communist Labor parties. Hence, at least till lately, nearly two-thirds of its membership consisted of avowed rebels. Has it changed since the break with the Communists? No, not at all. It is just as bad as ever, only more hypocritical, more prudent and biding its time so as not to start a premature revolt. After the wholesale arrests of the members of the Communist and the Communist Labor parties on January 2, 1920, the Publicity Department of the Socialist Party, 220 South Ashland Boulevard, Chicago, said: "The Socialist Party herewith raises its voice in emphatic and solemn protest against these activities on the part of the hot-headed and overzealous guardians of the safety of the United States."

Now listen once more to the words of Morris Hillquit, who poses before the public as in a different class from the American Communists and Communist Laborites. In "The Call," May 21, 1919, in a long article in large type covering half the editorial page, Morris Hillquit said of the "Left Wing" movement: "I am one of the last men in the party to ignore or misunderstand the sound revolutionary impulse which animates the rank and file of this new movement, but the specific form and direction which it has assumed, its program and tactics, spell disaster to our movement. I am opposed to it, not because it is too radical, but because it is essentially reactionary and non-Socialistic; not because it would lead us too far, but because it would lead us nowhere. To prate about the dictatorship of the proletariat and of workers' Soviets in the United States at this time is to deflect the Socialistic propaganda from its realistic basis, and to advocate the abolition of all social reform planks in the party platform means to abandon the concrete class struggle as it presents itself from day to day." (Italics mine.)

The wisdom of this crafty, go-slow policy is now apparent, with the "Left Wing" leaders in jail, and Hillquit's chameleons now posing as angels of light, the saviors of "representative government" in America. The fact that the Socialist Party of America "goes into politics" does not make it less dangerous than the other revolutionary bodies, but more dangerous, for it thus expects to have men in political positions to seize the reins of government when the hour of blood and violence arrives. That this is its definite policy, the meaning of its political activity, was apparent as far back as its National Convention of 1908, when, in opposing those who would dismiss the use of the ballot in favor of "direct action"--violence--exclusively, Victor L. Berger said:

"I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there.... In order to be able to shoot even some day we must have the powers of political government in our hands, at least to a great extent. I want that understood. So everybody who is talking to you about direct action and so on, and about political action being a humbug, is your enemy today, because he keeps you from getting the powers of political government." ("Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 241.)

In the "Social Democratic Herald" of Milwaukee, July 31, 1909, Berger wrote: "It is easy to predict that the safety and hope of this country will finally lie in one direction only, that of a violent and bloody revolution. Therefore, I say, each of the 500,000 Socialist voters and of the 2,000,000 workingmen who instinctively incline our way, should, besides doing much reading and still more thinking, also have a good rifle and the necessary rounds of ammunition in his home, and be prepared to back up his ballot with his bullets if necessary. This may look like a startling statement. Yet I can see nothing else for the American masses today." In the same paper, August 14, 1909, he wrote: "We should be grateful if the social revolution, if the freeing of 75,000,000 whites, would not cost more blood than the freeing of 4,000,000 negroes in 1861."

Thus the Socialist Party of America, under the tutelage and control of far-seeing and deep-witted leaders like Hillquit and Berger, is by far the most dangerous band of conspirators in the United States. No "revolutionary impulse" is too extreme for Hillquit, no movement is "too radical;" but its "program and tactics" must be deep-laid, deceptive, seizing every present political advantage so that the central power can be grasped by astute leadership in one lurch when the hour of "shooting" arrives.

The dramatic violence of Lenine and Trotzky passed through all the radical bodies in America like an electric shock, and the enthusiasts wished to start a ruction right away. But Morris Hillquit was not carried off his feet. If the boys were so senseless as to try to seize the reins of party government, Hillquit would dismiss them with a friendly wave, as in his article, quoted above, in which he also says: "There is, as far as I can see, but one remedy. It would be futile to preach reconciliation and union where antagonism runs so high. Let the Comrades on both sides do the next best thing. Let them separate, honestly, freely, and without rancor. Let each side organize and work in its own way, and make such contribution to the Socialist movement in America as it can." If the "contribution" of the boys should really turn out to be a successful general strike and overturn, who would be better able to grasp the power than an astute leader like Hillquit?

This book was written before the Judiciary Committee of the New York Assembly began its inquiry, in January, 1920, into the fitness of five Socialist Assemblymen to act as law-makers, and since then has only received the addition of some important facts and testimony. It is remarkable, therefore, that all the evidence independently sifted in that investigation overwhelmingly points to the same conclusions arrived at in this volume.

On January 21, 1920, at the second day's hearing at Albany, as reported in the "New York Times" of January 22, John B. Stanchfield and Martin W. Littleton, of counsel for the Judiciary Committee, stated the fundamental nature of the charges brought against the five suspended Socialists--charges based, as is well known, on the results of raids and investigations of radicalism by the New York State Legislative Committee, Senator Lusk, Chairman. Said Mr. Stanchfield:

"When the Chairman read from the statement yesterday that the charge against these men was disloyalty, and that they had affiliated themselves with a party whose platform and program call for an overthrow of this Government by violence, he added that we will prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt.

"We are not upon this investigation engaged in a discussion of the philosophy of Socialism or its economics. We are engaged in an investigation of its tactics, its methods, its practical program, and these tactics, these methods, and that program called for the overturn of the power of this State and its annihilation, its utter and complete annihilation."

Mr. Littleton said:

"The representation with reference to what these five men did and what they profess and what they engaged to do stands out as plainly as any thing can stand out--that they gave their allegiance wholly and solely to an alien and invisible empire known as the Internationale. It stands out that they are the citizens, not in reality of the country which sustains and maintains them, but they are citizens of this invisible empire which projects itself as a revolutionary force into every country, menacing its institutions and threatening its overthrow. Their allegiance before they ever entered upon the threshold of this chamber was given to this empire, which masquerades at one time with the softness of parliamentary reform and which declares itself in favor of revolution with force, according to the place and time where it may so declare.

"It is that alien state, people of alien races--pledged to the destruction of this Government and its institutions--that the charges say that these men belong to and act with....

"Perhaps at a later day in this proceeding we will ascertain the specific program to which they pledged themselves, the program of Mr. Lenine and Mr. Trotzky, not to reform Russia--that is a misconception and a misdirection; it is not that Lenine and Trotzky are trying to reform Russia or change Russia, it is that Lenine and Trotzky, acting through these agencies, are proposing the installation of the same kind of government in constitutional America that they have inaugurated in Russia, and these are the agents and the instructors, according to the charge, to carry out that program.

"It is quite a different thing from expressing your sympathy in a convention for downtrodden Russia. It is a little different program, Mr. Chairman, and the evidence in this case will disclose that these members, in conjunction with that party, have tied themselves irrevocably to the program.

"So that charge involves, I should say, a grave question as to whether these men, pledged to an alien empire to carry out an alien policy and to do it masquerading as a political party, shall be members of that Assembly and can take the oath of office.

"Our ideals are the embodiment of the Constitution which these men ought to have been able to take the oath to and support. No alien, invisible empire, having one corner of it resting in the heart of Soviet Russia, another corner of it resting upon the shoulders of the Spartacides in Germany, and another resting somewhere else, you swore allegiance to, but to this country and this standard and no other country or standard--that is the ideal which we take the oath for and undertake to support.

"Now, with that situation, here is an Assembly organized under the ideals of that country and under its Constitution, and the question here is, Can that Assembly inquire into whether or not five of its members are disloyal to the country have foresworn themselves and given their allegiance to an alien and an invisible empire, and placed themselves in the hands of a master who can withdraw them from this Assembly when he chooses? Can such a deliberative body as this make that inquiry, and, finding the fact out, can it expel that agency from this body before the poison has contaminated the system?"

Mr. Littleton here took up the charge that the five Socialist Assemblymen, before taking office, had placed their resignations in the hands of their party leaders, or their local organizations, to be used to withdraw them from office should they fail to carry out their party's behest. He continued:

"What is the charge here? That these men, belonging to the invisible empire of the Internationale, whose agents may be violent or peaceable, according as the law allows, and according as they may escape, are here acting as agents of Lenine and Trotzky, not to establish a Soviet Republic under the rotten ruins of an infamous democracy, but to establish a Soviet Republic on the ruins of a Constitution to which every man is pledged by every ounce of his blood and by that solemn vow which he registered in heaven when he entered on the duties of his office.

"Mr. Chairman, before this investigation is over and before the waves which have been stirred, the waves of public opinion, have subsided, I make no threat, but I make a prediction, that this country will understand that this so-called political party, masquerading as a political party, is the agent and the co-conspirator with the dark forces of this invisible empire whose object is the forcible destruction of constitutional government in America.

"I say this question, before it is over, will arouse this country. It will not be a tempest in the teapot. It will be a question as to whether they can hypocritically masquerade as a political party, and strike hands with every agency of force and revolution, and still make simple American people understand they are not sworn enemies of their country and ready to overthrow it."

The power of the "invisible empire" established by Lenine and Trotzky can be traced in the quotations in this book as a great dramatic energy which has seized and dragged into its vortex one after another of the radical organizations in the United States until none are now left out, and some even of the comparatively conservative trades union bodies appear to be trembling on the verge of peril. The evil fascination of the blood-reign of Lenine and Trotzky has been most remarkably evident in the Socialist Party of America, and precisely so because an element in this organization developed a strong power of resistance--only to succumb at last.

The story of this struggle is told in Chapters III to V of this work, where we see the Moscow Magnet dragging one section so much more rapidly than the rest moved that the Socialist Party at first stretched out into two wings, the Left and the Right, and then exploded into three parts, the Communist Labor Party, the Communist Party of America and that which still calls itself the Socialist Party of America.

We cannot forget the significant statement by Morris Hillquit in the "New York Call" after the Chicago Emergency Convention of September, 1919. This was put in evidence against the Socialist Party of America during the trial before the New York Assembly's Judiciary Committee and appeared in the "New York Herald" of January 29, 1920. Hillquit's letter in the "Call" raised the question, "What shall be the attitude of the Socialist Party toward the newly formed Communist organization?" In answering this question Hillquit used the following remarkable expressions:

"The division was not brought about by differences on vital questions of principles. It arose over disputes on methods and policy. The separation of the Socialist Party into three organizations need not necessarily mean a weakening of the Socialists.... Our quarrel is a family quarrel, and has no room in the columns of the capitalistic papers.... We have had our split.... Now we are through with it. Legitimate constructive work of the Socialist movement is before us. Let us give it all of our time, energies and resources. Let us center our whole fight upon capitalism, and let us hope our Communist brethren will go and do likewise." (Italics mine.)

The difference, then, is not at all one of "principles," but only one of "methods and policy," that is, of cunning in putting on disguises; and in this we concede that the Socialist Party of America is greatly superior to its "Communist brethren."

Another evidence of this cunning, brought out at the trial of the Socialist Assemblymen in January, 1920, bears directly upon the conspiratory character of the Socialist Party's policy of "political action." According to the "New York Evening Sun," January 22, 1920, the following from the Socialist Party's New York State Constitution was put in evidence:

"All candidates or appointees to public office selected by the dues-paying membership of the Socialist Party of the State of New York, or any of its subdivisions, shall sign the final resignation blank before nomination is made official or appointment is made final."

The form of resignation, also put in evidence, is here reproduced from the same issue of the "Evening Sun":

"To the end that my official acts may at all times be under the direction and control of the party membership, I hereby sign and place in the hands of Local (........) my resignation to any office to which I may be elected (or appointed), such resignation to become effective whenever a majority of the local shall so vote. I sign this resignation voluntarily as a condition of receiving said nomination, and pledge my honor as a man and Socialist to abide by it."

One of the by-laws of the New York County organization put in evidence also reads:

"On accepting a nomination of the party for public office, the candidate shall at once give to the executive committee a signed resignation of the office for which he is nominated, and shall assent in writing to its being filed with the proper authority, if, in case of election, he proves disloyal to the party."

A protest had been made to the New York Assembly claiming that "the fundamental principles of representative government" would be violated in refusing to seat the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen. But it is plain that men controlled in office by such a secret device would not really represent their districts, nor those who voted for them, but only the members of the dues-paying locals or the executive committee holding their resignations; and in cases of some of the suspended Socialists it was said that of the votes they received not one in ten nor even one in twenty had been cast by a dues-paying Socialist. At the trial Morris Hillquit, of counsel for the defense, tried to break the force of this damaging evidence by getting in testimony "that this provision of the State Constitution has been a dead letter since its inception." (New York "Evening Sun," January 22, 1920.) But this hypocrisy was thoroughly exposed by the testimony given on January 28, 1920, by George R. Lunn, Democratic Mayor of Schenectady, who had been a candidate for that office three times as a Socialist. The following summary of his testimony is from the "New York Sun" of January 29, 1920:

"The outstanding features of Mayor's Lunn's testimony were his statements that on the night before election in 1911, when he was running for Mayor on the Socialist ticket, two members of the party went to his home and presented a blank resignation for his signature. This, he said, he signed in order to 'avoid a squabble,' although he considered it 'child's play and illegal.' He refused, he said, in 1913 to sign the required resignation before the election. This time he was defeated. In 1915, he testified, he was again nominated and elected, after repudiating that part of the Socialist Constitution which bound him to follow the dictates of his party leaders. The result, he said, was that the State organization revoked the charter of the entire Schenectady local in order to discipline him."

In a ninety-page brief, submitted to members of the New York Assembly on February 12, 1920, by counsel of the Judiciary Committee, after five weeks of investigating the qualifications of the suspended Socialist Assemblymen, Attorney-General Charles D. Newton and the other signers said that the five Socialists by "their promise ... to place their resignations in the hands of the dues-paying members ... abdicated their functions as Assemblymen and disqualified themselves from taking the oath of office and rendered their oath false." ("New York Times," February 13, 1920.)

The same brief, according to the "Times" of above date, says:

"A decent regard for the Assembly as the popular representative house of the State requires that these five Assemblymen be excluded from their seats. They have taken a false oath to secure seats which they cannot occupy as gentlemen, patriots, loyal citizens or Assemblymen. They come here under the false pretense of being loyal to their Government, when in fact they are really citizens of the Internationale, and desire above all things the destruction of this Government."

The Socialist Party of America is also denounced by the same brief on three other counts, which the "New York Times" of February 13, 1920, thus summarizes:

"The Socialist Party is a revolutionary party, having the single purpose of destroying our institutions and Government, which they abhor, and substituting the Russian Soviet Government or the proletariat Government instead to be controlled by themselves. This appears from their platforms and propaganda.

"The Socialist Party is not a national party, like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, whose aim is to conserve and preserve the nation. The Socialist Party is an anti-national party whose allegiance is given to the Internationale and not to the United States, whose Government and institutions it would destroy.

"'Mass action' and the 'general strike' are advocated and urged by the Socialist Party as a part of the plan to bring about conditions favorable to revolution, and as instruments of revolution, and not to remedy industrial evils. The revolutionary purpose and non-political character of such acts make them treasonable, and, whether criminal or not in the absence of such purpose, treasonable with it."

This last point, the attitude of the Socialist Party of America toward "mass action" and the "general strike," is of the utmost importance as evidence that the Socialist Party stands for seizure of the Government of the United States by revolutionary violence; for the reader will recall abundant proof in this book that it is precisely by means of "mass action" and the "general strike" that both of the Communist parties in this country expect to destroy our existing Government, these "instruments of revolution" being also the very ones recommended by the Communist manifesto of the Third (Moscow) International, and the ones employed by the I. W. W. in its industrial battles.

The Moscow Manifesto, as cited from the copy of it in the "New York Call" of July 24, 1919, gives the Third International's plan of action for world revolution in a nutshell:

"The revolutionary epoch demands that the proletariat should employ such fighting methods as will concentrate its entire energy, viz., the method of mass action, and lead to its logical consequence--the direct collision with the capitalist state machine in an open combat. All other methods, e.g., revolutionary use of bourgeois parliamentarism will in the revolution have only a subordinate value."

It is very significant, therefore, that the Socialist Party of America definitely committed itself to these tactics in the manifesto it adopted at the Chicago Emergency Convention on September 4, 1919. As given in the "Call" of September 5, 1919, the manifesto of the Socialist Party of the United States says on this point:

"The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to wrest the industries and the control of the Government of the United States from the capitalists and their retainers. It is our purpose to place industry and government in the control of the workers with hand and brain, to be administered for the benefit of the whole community.

"To insure the triumph of Socialism in the United States the bulk of the American workers must be strongly organized politically as Socialists, in constant, clear-cut and aggressive opposition to all parties of the possessing class. They must be strongly organized in the economic field on broad industrial lines, as one powerful and harmonious class organization, co-operating with the Socialist Party, and ready in cases of emergency to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action.

"To win the American workers from their ineffective and demoralizing leadership, to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class interests, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation, that is the supreme task confronting the Socialist Party in America.

"To this great task, without deviation or compromise, we pledge all our energies and resources. For its accomplishment we call for the support and co-operation of the workers of America and of all other persons desirous of ending the insane rule of capitalism before it has had the opportunity to precipitate humanity into another cataclysm of blood and ruin.

"Long live the International Socialist Revolution, the only hope of the suffering world!"

So culminates and ends this 1919 national convention manifesto of the Socialist Party of America. This dedication of that party to the "supreme task" of "strongly organizing" the "bulk of the American workers" into "one powerful and harmonious class organization" in order that "industrial action" may "reinforce the political demands of the working class," adds greatly to the significance of some testimony by leading Socialists in the inquiry of the New York Assembly's Judiciary Committee at Albany. On January 30, 1920, Algernon Lee, educational director of the Rand School and secretary of the New York County Committee of the Socialist Party, was sworn and testified as follows, according to the "New York Herald" of January 31, 1920:

"Mr. Lee ... described at length what Socialists mean by direct mass action and the general strike. He said the general strike had been used with some degree of success in Russia and Belgium.... 'The general strike is often used to back up political action,' the witness said. He justified combining economic strikes as a political weapon....

"'Let us assume for the moment,' said Mr. Conboy, 'that these five gentlemen whose seats are in question ... should present a political program here in the shape of proposed legislation, and they were reinforced by the combination in industrial action, including within its weapons the general strike. It would be possible for them, would it not, in the event that the Legislature of this State refused to adopt the movement which they presented for adoption by the Legislature, to cripple the industries of the State and to starve the people thereof?'

"'I think you are assuming, I may almost say, an impossible condition,' replied Mr. Lee, 'that the people should elect an overwhelming majority upon one side and then be so overwhelmingly organized as to be able to use industrial action on the other side.'"

But here Mr. Lee simply concealed the truth behind hypocritical camouflage by using the term, "the people," ambiguously. For our people might go on as now, conducting constitutional government by representatives in all their legislatures elected by "an overwhelming majority upon one side," while at the same time the underground work might go on of "strongly organizing" "the bulk of the American workers" into "one powerful and harmonious class organization" ready for "industrial action." In that case, a "general strike" would absolutely paralyze the whole country, and "the people" and all their legislatures alike would have to surrender absolutely to any demands made upon them, or would have to engage instantly in such a civil war as the world has not yet seen, carried on under conditions of indescribable chaos.

Moreover the underground work of revolutionary "industrial organization" need be only partial, need, in fact, be carried on only a little beyond conditions already actually existing, in order to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat," or else terrible civil war, in many of our American cities by the simple process of calling general strikes. The reader who questions this should learn the facts about the Winnipeg general strike of May 1-June 15, 1919, "the culmination of the development of the One Big Union movement in Canada" (page 333 of "The American Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, edited by Alexander Trachtenberg, Director, Department of Labor Research, Rand School of Social Science"), which held a city of 200,000 terrorized for six weeks under the absolute dictatorship of a Strike Committee elected by the strikers, while "many cities, including Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto, meanwhile joined the general strike in sympathy with Winnipeg." (Ibid., page 334.)

The strikers included the employees of the fire, water supply, health, street cleaning, light and power, transportation, telegraph, telephone and postal departments of the city, together with the janitors of buildings, elevator men, wholesale and retail clerks and the carters and deliverers of the stores, railways and express companies, thus cutting off the city from the rest of the world and even from the supplies and facilities within its own bounds except only as the Strike Committee made concessions. "I could have a glass of milk or lunch if I had a ticket from the Strike Committee. Otherwise I couldn't." This was the testimony of Mr. Robert McKay, of Winnipeg, February 10, 1920, and printed in the Albany "Knickerbocker Press" of February 11, 1920, from which we take the facts. Even the Winnipeg newspapers failed to appear after the first three days of the strike, while the city police also voted to strike, but continued on duty under command of the Strike Committee.

At length a Citizens' Committee was organized, 100 men at first, which grew to 1,000, and even 10,000, Mr. McKay says. "The regular police was replaced by 1,500 special police, assisted by mounted police and militia," and "during the last two weeks there were two riots, in which two persons were shot by the mounted police." (Account in Trachtenberg's "Year Book," above quoted, page 334.) In other words, Winnipeg was only delivered by means of rescue from outside and by incipient civil war, the ringleaders of the dictatorship being arrested and indicted for trial.

Yet are there some Americans still so blinded by foolish optimism as to think we are in no danger--even at a time when all the "Reds" of America, inflamed by the Third International, are uniting in feverish haste to carry "industrial organization" to a sufficient state to make it an instrument for holding up the whole American people? If the false prophets of optimism pooh-pooh the peril and label intelligent warnings as "hysteria," will it be the first time in history that this was done by men of weight and influence in the very shadow of a great, impending rebellion and down to the very hour of its outbreak?

Mr. Lee's testimony on January 30, 1920, as quoted above, was voluntarily supplemented by a statement by Seymour Stedman, of counsel for the five Socialist Assemblymen and a prominent Socialist himself, one of the National Executive Committeemen who fought the Left Wing to keep the control of the party in 1919. We quote from the report of the trial in the "New York Times" of January 31, 1920:

"Mr. Lee was next asked to explain what was meant by the pledge of the Socialist anti-war faction to support 'mass action' against conscription. He answered that the general strike was included in the term 'mass action,' but that the word contemplated other methods as well.

"'Is it part of the Socialist Party plans to use the general strike to back up political action?'

"'If the circumstances should exist which made that necessary, I take it that it would be construed so,' said the witness.

"Mr. Conboy was unable to pin the witness down to a definition of what circumstances would make the Socialists resort to direct action. Mr. Stedman interrupted:

"'There was a bill to nationalize the railroads,' he said. 'The men went on strike to reinforce their demands. I can see the miners and the whole working class going on a strike protesting against the Government paralyzing them rather than taking the mine owners by the collar. That will be general. If the working class made such a demand to reinforce a general political demand for the relaxation of such an injunction, the Socialists would stand side by side with them everywhere. Personally, I think the mining situation was an instance where there should have been a general strike.'"

It is important to emphasize the proofs that the Socialist Party of America has openly committed itself to the sanction and advocacy of "industrial" violence in furtherance of its avowed intention "to wrest industry and the control of the government of the United States" from the whole American people and place them in the hands of a special class. For since the wholesale arrests of "Reds" by the Department of Justice were made, followed by the institution of the inquiry into the qualifications of the five Socialist Assemblymen at Albany, a new, general movement became discernible among the radicals, a movement to disguise their real principles, camouflage their plan of action and carry their propaganda "under ground."

Hillquit, Victor L. Berger and the other shrewd leaders of the Socialist Party realized early in 1919 that the programs of violence against this country, flaunted openly by the Left Wing leaders, would bring down the hand of the Government upon the conspirators. As early as April 19, 1919, Julius Gerber, Executive Secretary of the New York Local of the Socialist Party, in a private letter which we quote from the Left Wing "New York Communist." May 1, 1919, stated that "the control of the party by these irresponsible people will make the party an outlaw organization, and break up the organization."

Yet the call for the Third (Moscow) International had cunningly classified the Socialists of the world into three groups, a Right, a Center and "the Revolutionary Left Wing." This last group included the friends of Moscow, the elements of the Third International; and those credited to it in America, who received invitations to the Moscow Conference of March 2-6, were the Socialist Labor Party, the I. W. W., the Workers' International Industrial Union and "the elements of the Left Wings of American Socialist Propaganda (tendency represented by E. V. Debs and the Socialist Propaganda League)." The group of the Right, the other extreme, was completely condemned by the Moscow call as "avowed social-patriots who, during the entire duration of the imperialistic war between the years 1914 and 1918 have supported their own bourgeoisie."

But the "Center" was described as "represented by leaders of the type of Karl Kautsky, and who constitute a group composed of ever-hesitating elements, unable to settle on any determined direction and who up to date have always acted as traitors." "In regard to the 'Center,'" the call continues, "the tactics consist in separating from it the revolutionary elements, in criticizing pitilessly its leaders and in dividing systematically among them the number of their followers." The Left Wing leaders in America, however, ignoring the recognition of a "Center" in this country, lumped together and designated as the "Right" all their Socialist opponents, the special followers of Hillquit, Victor L. Berger and the other "bosses" of the Socialist Party; but they certainly followed the tactics of "criticizing pitilessly its leaders." (See the Moscow call in Chapter III and the details of the Left Wing fight in Chapters III, IV and V.)

These facts explain the course pursued by Hillquit and his fellow-leaders. In the first place they had to get rid of the Left Wing leaders whose "control of the party" would make it "an outlaw organization and break up the organization." This they accomplished by wholesale expulsions and suspensions, as we have seen in earlier chapters. But in the second place they had to prepare a sufficiently strong public declaration of the real revolutionary principles of their party and a sufficiently explicit identification of the party with the Moscow International to satisfy both the rank and file of their followers and Lenine and Trotzky in Russia, while yet not going far enough to incriminate themselves with the awakening suspicions of our National and State Governments. As a result we have the utterances of the Emergency Convention of August-September, 1919, where every compromising word was still only a hint of the principles and plan of action carefully concealed behind it.

Even so, the leaders soon realized that they had revealed too much of the truth for their safety; while the wholesale arrests, indictments and deportations of radicals evidently convinced these cunning plotters that the old-time disguises and hypocrisies of Hillquit, Victor Berger and the other foxes of the party were the only safe tactics for revolutionists in America. Thus Ludwig C. A. K. Martens, the Bolshevist "ambassador," himself led the retreat in his smooth lies to the United States Senate Foreign Sub-Committee, to the effect that the dictatorship in Russia no longer regarded it as necessary to urge those affiliated with it in other countries to overthrow the existing governments. Undoubtedly he had made the American situation perfectly clear to Lenine and Trotzky.

The reappearance of Morris Hillquit in the Assembly case at Albany, on February 17, 1920, and his appearance on the witness-stand as "an expert on Socialism," was a similar attempt to repair the breaches with camouflage. It was his part with an amused smile to show that "industrial organization," "industrial action," "mass action" and "general strikes" really mean nothing in the Socialist Party's manifestoes, platforms and programs, and that his party's affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International was a mere meaningless, friendly gesture. But these party utterances and acts meant all and even more than they said to the party's rank and file and confederates.

It was brought out in the testimony at Albany on February 10, 1920, that the minority report of the Emergency Convention, decreeing affiliation with the Moscow International, had been adopted by a referendum vote of the party's rank and file, 3,495 votes for to 1,449 against. The wording of this report, here given in part from Trachtenberg's 1919-20 Labor Year Book, page 411, is another of those brilliant attempts at camouflage for which the "Yellow" Socialists are famous:

"Any International, to be effective in this crisis, must contain only those elements who take their stand unreservedly upon the basis of the class struggle, and their adherence to this principle is not mere lip loyalty....

"The Socialist Party of the United States, in principle and in its past history, has always stood with those elements of other countries that remained true to their principles. The manifestoes adopted in national convention at St. Louis (1917) and Chicago (1919), as well as Referendum 'D,' 1919, unequivocally affirm this stand.K These parties, the majority parties of Russia, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Bulgaria and Greece, and growing minorities in every land, are uniting on the basis of the preliminary convocation, at Moscow, of the Third International. As in the past, so in this extreme crisis, we must take our stand with them.

"The Socialist Party of the United States, therefore, declares itself in support of the Third (Moscow) International, not so much because it supports the 'Moscow' programs and methods, but because:

"(a) 'Moscow' is doing something which is already challenging world imperialism.

"(b) 'Moscow' is threatened by the combined capitalist forces of the world simply because it is proletarian.

"(c) Under these circumstances, whatever we may have to say to 'Moscow' afterwards, it is the duty of Socialists to stand by it now because its fall will mean the fall of Socialist republics in Europe, and also the disappearance of Socialist hopes for many years to come."

If Moscow's "programs and methods" are only the minor reason for supporting Moscow, what is the major reason for this "support?" What is the Third (Moscow) International "doing" which "is really challenging" the "world," arraying the "forces of the world" against it and thus making its own "fall" a serious possibility? We examine (see Chapters III and IV and the present chapter) the Third (Moscow) International's call to the March, 1919, Conference and the manifesto sent out from it, and we see what it has done in challenge of the rest of the world. It has declared war against the rest of the world and its existing governments, the "Entente Powers," "The White Terror of the bourgeoisie," as it calls them in the "Manifesto of the Moscow International" published in the "New York Call" of July 24, 1919, from which we here quote; and against these "Entente Powers," "The White Terror," the manifesto continues, "Against this the proletariat must defend itself--defend itself at all costs! The Communist International calls the whole world-proletariat to this, the final struggle! Down with the imperialist conspiracy of capital! Long live the International Republic of Proletarian Soviet!" (Ibid.)

Thus complete identification with this proletarian declaration of war against the "Entente Powers" was the major aim of the Socialist Party of the United States in voting for affiliation with Moscow. This is the principal ground on which it "declares itself in support of the Third (Moscow) International" and proclaims it to be "the duty of Socialists to stand by it now." Just as Hillquit differed from the Left Wingers, now his "communist brethren," not "on vital questions of principles," but only "on methods and policy," opposing their "movement" "not because" it was "too radical" or "would lead us too far," but simply because its "specific form and direction, ... its program and tactics," would "spell disaster," so Hillquit's Party supported the Third (Moscow) International "not so much because" of its "programs and methods" as because what it was "doing," its war-declaration and marshaling of the world's proletarian forces against the "Entente Powers," was "really challenging world imperialism."

Is not one mind, one aim, one intent, one purpose and hatred consistently evident in all these utterances? And thus we understand the vehemence of the Chicago Manifesto of September 4, 1919, "largely based upon one suggested by Morris Hillquit," as the "Call," New York, of September 5, 1919, says. The following quotation from the Chicago Manifesto, as printed in the "New York Call" of September 5, 1919, and also in Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, pages 413-14, shows that the Socialist Party of America completely repudiates the so-called "Moderate" Socialists, and supports the Bolshevist and Communist violent revolutionists:

"The Socialist Party of the United States at its first national convention after the war, squarely takes its position with the uncompromising section of the international Socialist movement. We unreservedly reject the policy of those Socialists who supported their belligerent capitalist governments on the plea of 'national defense,' and who entered into demoralizing compacts for so-called civil peace with the exploiters of labor during the war and continued a political alliance with them after the war. We, the organized Socialists of America, pledge our support to the revolutionary workers of Russia in the maintenance of their Soviet Government, to the radical Socialists of Germany, Austria and Hungary in their efforts to establish working-class rule in their countries, and to those Socialist organizations in England, Italy and other countries who during the war, as after the war, have remained true to the principles of uncompromising international Socialism."

Just as the Moscow Manifesto cries out, "Long live the International Republic of Proletarian Soviet!" so does Hillquit's manifesto, adopted September 4, 1919, by the Socialist Party, "hold out to the world the ideal of a federation of free and equal Socialist nations." A common zeal for the violent overthrow of the world's existing non-Socialist governments, in order to set up a world-empire of Socialism, is the major feature of the Socialist Party's unity with the Moscow plotters and incendiaries.

But while Moscow's "programs and methods" are "not so much" the concern of the American Socialist Party as the "federation of ... Socialist nations," yet these Moscow "programs and methods" are themselves also distinctly adopted and enthusiastically followed by the American Socialists.

The Moscow Manifesto ("New York Call," July 24, 1919) lays down two great principles of action, one of method, the other of means. Here is the method: "The revolutionary epoch demands that the proletariat should employ such fighting methods as will concentrate its entire energy, viz., the method of mass action, and lead to its logical consequence--the direct collision with the capitalist state machine in an open combat. All other methods, e.g., revolutionary use of bourgeois parliamentarism, will in the revolution have only a subordinate value."

Here is the means: "A coalition is necessary with those elements of the revolutionary workers' movement who, though they did not previously belong to the Socialist Party, now, on the whole, take up the standpoint of the proletarian dictatorship in the form of the power of Soviets, e.g., some of the sections among the Syndicalists." (Ibid.)

The American "Syndicalists" are the I. W. W.'s, and their methods are those of "industrial action" by means of industrial unionism. In other words, they are seeking to organize "One Big Union" in order, as the "Preamble" to their Constitution asserts, to "take possession of the earth and the machinery of production." These are the methods and means recommended by the Moscow International to the rabid Socialists affiliated with it all over the world.

These methods and means, urged by the Moscow Manifesto, were evidently adopted in Hillquit's manifesto, which led, by the party's adoption of it, to the American Socialist Party's strong commitment of itself at Chicago to "strongly organize" on "industrial lines" the "bulk of the American workers" into "one powerful and harmonious class organization" ready for "industrial action." The preamble to the Constitution, also adopted at the Emergency Convention of 1919, according to Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 410, stresses the same thing:

"The Socialist Party seeks to organize the working-class for independent action on the political field, not merely for the betterment of their conditions, but also and above all with the revolutionary aim of putting an end to exploitation and class rule." And it adds: "To accomplish this aim, it is necessary that the working-class be powerfully and solidly organized also on the economic field to struggle for the same revolutionary goal."

Trachtenberg's 1919-1920 Year Book, page 409, tells us, too, that the party at its Emergency Convention "adopted a series of resolutions," including two described as follows:

"Co-operatives.--Favoring the establishment of co-operatives and recommending that literature be distributed on the subject."

"Economic Organization.--Favoring industrial unionism and establishing a labor department in the party for the preparation of literature and more active work among the labor unions."

We know what the last-mentioned resolution means; and the meaning of the propaganda for "co-operatives" becomes plain when we read in Trachtenberg's same Year Book, page 393, that this co-operative movement has been defined as "The state within a state."

Indeed, these two resolutions, favoring propaganda for "co-operatives" and "industrial unionism," seem to be explained in the "Preamble to the Constitution of the Socialist Party," adopted at Chicago on September 6, 1919. A single sentence in this Preamble, which we quote from Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 410, tells us what the Socialist Party wants and the means by which it hopes to get it. Here is the sentence: "The workers must wrest the control of the government from the hands of the masters and use its powers in this upbuilding of the new social order, the Co-operative Commonwealth."

Naturally "co-operatives" are favored as a step toward the "Co-operative Commonwealth," which is what the Socialist dreamers want. But in order to set up this new state, the Socialists want "the workers" to do a big job for them, namely, to "wrest the control of" the present Government of the United States and get it out of the way. Thus "the workers" are the means, the tool, which the hair-brained Socialists hope to use, while the proposed method of using these "workers" is to make Socialists of them and line them up in one big "industrial union" ready for "industrial action" when the Socialists crack the whip. We do not think America's "workers" intend to burn their fingers in pulling Hillquit's chestnuts out of the fire; but the lazy drones, the Socialist "intellectuals," as the Hillquitites love to style themselves, certainly hope to ride into power on the back of American labor just as the Bolshevist "dictators," Lenine and Trotzky, rode into power and are still riding on the galled back of the labor slaves of Russia.

It appears, then, that the Socialist Party of America is not merely affiliated with Moscow's "programs and methods" by a referendum vote, but has adopted a similar program and method for its own "supreme task." The only difference is that the Bolsheviks have made their revolution, while the American Socialists are forging the weapon for theirs. Debs' motto is their motto: "I am law abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

Perceiving the peril of his party, Hillquit, on the witness stand in the Judiciary Committee's inquiry at Albany, sought in every way to belittle the significance of his and his party's Chicago Manifesto, the Moscow Manifesto, and the evident connection between the two, belittling, also, his party's affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International. How unscrupulous and hypocritical his testimony seems in the light of all the facts!

In his testimony at Albany on February 19, 1920, Hillquit acknowledged the Chicago Manifesto, adopted September 4, 1919, as his own child. "At least ninety per cent of it is my authorship," he proudly said. Having himself imprudently led his party to make open confession, by manifesto, of its plot "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of their present keeping and so completely into the hands of the Socialist Party that it would be able "to place" them "in the control of" a special class, did Hillquit feel that he would be justified on the witness stand in using any extreme of craft which might help to bury the plot out of sight again?

In spite of the fact that the Party Manifesto Hillquit wrote sounds astonishingly like the echo of the Moscow Manifesto, Hillquit, on February 19, 1920, swore that he had never read the Moscow Manifesto when he wrote his ninety per cent or more of the Chicago Manifesto. To this he held even when reminded by Mr. Conboy that all of the Moscow Manifesto but the preamble had appeared in the "New York Call" of July 24, 1919. And he still sought to convey the notion that the Moscow Manifesto had not made any particular impression upon the members of his party prior to the Emergency Convention of September, 1919, in spite of the letter read to him by Mr. Conboy, of which the following is an extract:

"SOCIALIST PARTY "National Office "Executive Secretary: Adolph Germer "803 West Madison Street "Chicago, Ill., 5/12/1919.

"Local Rochester, C. M. O'Brien,

"580 St. Paul St., Rochester, N. Y.:

"Dear Comrade.--I am pleased to announce the publication of two vital documents in pamphlet form, namely, 'The Manifesto Communist International,' issued 1919 by the Soviets of Russia at Moscow to the toiling masses of the world. This is undoubtedly the greatest declaration ever issued from any working class tribunal since the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels ... the second is 'The Constitution World's First Socialist Republic....

[Signed] "Edwin Firth,

"Literature Dept."

But Hillquit, the great "expert on Socialism," missed reading this "vital" manifesto all the summer of 1919, when the Socialist papers were full of it; and yet, by some wild chance, himself composed a close echo of it!

The cowardly "Reds," as we have seen, want a violent revolution and constantly preach it to the discontented as boldly and openly as they dare. But they want America's workingmen to take all the risk and do all the work, and they go on with their frantic agitation in the hope that American labor will some day organize a great "general strike" and try to turn it into a revolution to overthrow the United States Government. Naturally, therefore, the Socialists get excited whenever any great labor strike is on, and they stand as tempters whispering the word "revolution" into the ears of the strikers. Sometimes they get their suggestion that the strike be turned into a revolution before the strikers' minds by a hypocritical pretense that they are afraid that what they so much long for is likely to happen. Debs, the Socialist Party's presidential standard-bearer, is a past master in this art of suggestion through a pretense of feeling concern, and during the steel strike of 1919 he even tried to "start something" of this kind from behind the bars of his jail. Thus in the form of an interview, sent as a "special to the 'New York Times,'" which published it September 24, 1919, he got off the following hypocritically inflammatory comment on the steel strike from his place in the Atlanta Federal Prison:

"'I fear that much violence will result from the strike. Then we have the potentiality of other unions to consider, for many of them, including the miners, who have a crisis coming within a short time themselves, as well as the railroad men of the country, who have already made demands--these workers and others may be drawn into the great steel struggle before it is over, and while I do not believe that a prearranged general strike will be called, yet I fear the results of great excitement over possible killings like those we read about in the papers of today, and it is possible that in the heat of passion men may lay down their work and be swept into a revolution with cyclonic fury.

"'Anything is possible as an outcome of the present situation,' continued the prisoner, 'and should a general strike or revolution occur it would be the outcome of too great pressure being brought to bear upon the men who, in a state of unrest and industrial uncertainty, have reached a highly inflammable condition that might burst out spontaneously.'"

"Honest" Bill Haywood, one of the foremost Socialists of the time, admitted as far back as the early part of 1912, in a speech at Cooper Union, New York City, that the Socialists were conspirators against the United States Government.

The Socialist Party of America, ever since its birth, has been reviling and attacking the Government of the United States with a view to overthrowing and destroying it. Is it possible that such an organization is not engaged in a conspiracy against our country?

The American Socialists have been thoroughly unpatriotic. "To hell with the American flag!" "Down with the Stars and Stripes!" "I would spit upon your flag!" These are a few of their expressions of contempt. The United States uniform and the soldiers alike are scorned and ridiculed. The article in "The Call," "Rows and Rows and Rows of 'em march," which has been quoted in a previous chapter, shows the reader the real spirit and intention of Debs' gang, who have been so zealous in stirring up strikes with a view to the final ruin of our present form of government.

Debs, four times the standard-bearer of the Socialists in presidential campaigns, has revealed himself, as we have shown, in such utterances as these:

"As a revolutionist, I have no respect for capitalist property laws, nor the least scruple about violating them.... I am law abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

"Let the sturdy toilers of the Pacific Coast raise the Red standard of revolt."

"All hail to the revolution."

"I enter the prison doors a flaming revolutionist, my head erect, my spirit untamed, and my soul unconquered."

"In Russia and Germany our valiant comrades are leading the proletarian revolution.... They are setting the heroic example for world-wide emulation. Let us, like them, scorn and repudiate the cowardly compromisers within our ranks, challenge and defy the robber-class power, and fight it out on that line to victory or death."

This favorite leader of the radicals of America was convicted by jury of violation of the Espionage Law on September 12, 1918, and two days later sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The case was appealed on the ground that the Espionage Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of free speech. The decision of the United States Supreme Court was handed down on March 10, 1919. In the words of a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 102, "The Court held that the law was not contrary to the Constitution and affirmed the sentence imposed upon Debs by the lower court. The decision was unanimous that the nature and intended effect of his speech was to obstruct recruiting and enlistment in the army."

Yet this same Year Book, in its account of "The Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party" at Chicago in August-September, 1919, says, page 409: "The Convention went on record offering the presidential nomination of the party to Eugene V. Debs, the nomination to be ratified at the 1920 Convention."

On March 5, 1920, at Albany, in the final argument for the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen, according to the "New York Times" of March 6, 1920, Seymour Stedman said of Debs: "He represents in a sense the Socialist movement. Perhaps he represents it more completely than any other man in this country."

In order that the reader may understand the extreme way in which lawbreakers like Debs and Victor L. Berger were justified by those defending the five suspended Socialists at Albany, we give an extract from the testimony of Morris Hillquit on February 19, 1920, as reported in the "New York Times" of the next day:

"The testimony leading up to Mr. Hillquit's admissions was given after Martin Conboy of counsel for the Judiciary Committee had read into the record a speech and a signed article by Victor L. Berger. In the speech, delivered at the Socialist National Convention in 1908, Mr. Berger said:

"'I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there.'

"In the signed article which appeared in a Socialist newspaper published in Milwaukee the following year, he wrote:

"'Socialists and workingmen should ... have rifles and the necessary rounds of ammunition ... and be prepared to back up their ballots with their bullets.'"

In reply, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920, putting his own far-fetched construction on Victor L. Berger's words, Morris Hillquit himself advanced the doctrine of "a little shooting" in the following statement:

"'History ... has shown that when the privileged minority is about to lose its privileges ... it tries to destroy reform or lawful revolutionary movements by force, ... and in a case of this kind it may come to shooting.

"'It is not at all impossible that, even in this country, when the majority of the people will be ready to introduce substantial reform and take away the privileges of the profiteering class by constitutional, legal methods, these self-same profiteering interests will take offense and try to play some trick upon the people, and in that case it is possible--as a matter of prophecy, not as a matter of program, so far as we are concerned--that the people of this country will be compelled to supplement their political action by a little shooting.'"

Testifying the same day, Hillquit endorsed Debs as follows, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920:

"When asked if Debs is a candidate of the Socialist Party for President, Mr. Hillquit replied:

"'If any voice or influence of mine could accomplish anything, he certainly will be nominated at the next convention.'

"'The Supreme Court has passed upon the conviction of Debs and affirmed it,' said ex-Judge Sutherland, of counsel. 'Notwithstanding this judgment, you still declare that Mr. Debs represents and personifies the attitude of the Socialist Party on the subject of loyalty to the United States Government?'

"'I do not say that he represents the attitude of the Socialist Party. I think I said that he represents the highest and noblest sentiments of United States citizenship and American loyalty.... Debs was convicted only for saying things, not for doing things. I do not for a moment doubt he said the things he is charged with having said.' ...

"'Do you uphold and approve of, as a leader of the Socialist Party, the words that Mr. Debs pronounced, and for which he was convicted?'

"'I haven't got his complete speech before me. I do not want to commit the Party in this general way to every statement. I will say, as a whole, I read his speech at the time and my impression was that it was a perfectly innocent, honest expression of opposition to war for very good and patriotic motives.' ...

"'Have you any respect at all for the decision of the tribunal to the contrary?'

"'I have respect to this effect: that I know that it is final and binding and in practice will go. I do not have respect in the sense of believing that it is just, impartial, and well-reasoned out.' ...

"'Mr. Hillquit, do you wish to be understood as saying that you approve of the words spoken by Mr. Debs for which he was convicted?'

"'Are you trying to get me a little conviction, also, Judge?' asked the witness.

"'I am not in a position to indorse every word and every phrase because I have not the speech before me,' he continued. 'As a rule, I fully indorsed his statements on the subject of the war, expressed, I suppose, in that speech and in other speeches.... I share with all my comrades the greatest respect for Debs, and cannot think any compliment too high for him.'

"'And you think it was that largeness of view, do you, that led Mr. Debs to say the things which brought him into conflict with the law of the United States?'

"'Absolutely, just in the same way as it once happened to one Jesus of Nazareth.'"

"'And you say that notwithstanding the highest judicial authority known under the Constitution has declared him guilty of doing that, and in contempt of that authority, notwithstanding that authority, you say that he is the man that should be placed in the President's chair by the votes of the Socialist Party?'

"'I do.'

"'If Mr. Debs were elected in 1920, how would you proceed to inaugurate12 him, as he is serving a twenty-year sentence?' asked Assemblyman Jenks.

"'The chances are that prior to the time he would be called upon to occupy the chair the powers that be would sober up enough to know that the present conviction is an improper and inhuman act and liberate him.'"

On several occasions at the trial, in spite of Hillquit's studied effort to cast an air of innocency over his party, menacing words escaped from this crafty leader. He could not restrain them even at the end, on March 3, 1920, when summing up the case for the Socialist defendants at Albany, according to the following account in the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 4, 1920:

"Justifying the general strike as an emergency weapon, Mr. Hillquit made this startling statement interpreted in some quarters as an open threat:

"'The workers of this country have the right "to call a general strike" and it is well that they should at least hold it in abeyance as a possible instrument in some cases, in very exceptional emergencies. I will say that the general strike has been used abroad for the purpose of enforcing political action.'

"'A labor party is being formed,' Mr. Hillquit said, 'in some parts of the country. Suppose it should elect representatives to the Legislature and a capitalist in that Legislature should get up and say "I don't approve of your programme; get out of my Legislature."

"'I say this would be eminently a case where the workers would be justified in declaring a general strike until such time as their constitutional rights are actually accorded to them.'"

To this "veiled threat" Martin Conboy, counsel for the Judiciary Committee, replied the next day in summing up for the prosecution. We quote his words from the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 5, 1920:

"'Under the veil of a simile a threat was employed that if you gentlemen concluded that these five Socialist Assemblymen should not sit in this chamber as members of this Assembly a general strike might be called. In the whole history devoted to the development of this idea there has been no more frank exposition of the doctrine than that. It is proof, sufficient and satisfactory to the point of a demonstration of the charge that has been made in this case.

"'The threat carries itself further. You must not only admit them, but you must take their legislative programme and exact it into law; otherwise the general strike will again be employed.

"'No opportunity is lost by the leaders of the Socialist Party to impress upon the rank and file that it is impossible to achieve ultimate triumph by political action. For this reason the American Federation of Labor is subjected to continuous attacks and misrepresentation. For this reason Debs, originally an ardent trade unionist, abandoned and repudiated his former associates after joining the Socialist Party.'"

The hypocritical defense made by the Socialists at Albany, through which the unchanged character of the unrepentant plotters has constantly revealed itself, should put us on our guard. Brought into the light by wholesale arrests and deportations, all branches of radicalism, in this country and at Moscow, have adopted new tactics of deception. They profess peace and a return to peaceful methods, claim the liberties which belong only to the law-abiding, and hide behind the sympathies of those who are easily taken in. Yet they justify all their misdeeds, and withdraw none of their evil principles, but rather reaffirm them, with subtlety. What does this mean? It means that the old conspirators, whose overt acts have lately crowded our law-courts, hope to fool the American people into letting them continue their propaganda unto lawlessness under a thin mask of conformity to the very laws they seek to destroy.

Although the "Red" conspiracy, as a result of government prosecution, has taken on disguises and gone under ground, it is not, thus, less virulent and dangerous, but more so. Evidence of deceit appeared in the "One Big Union Monthly" for February, 1920, to which lack of space prevents more than a mere allusion. That issue contained articles showing even the I. W. W. preparing an alibi and a disguise. They argued that their organization was not "illegal," and that its famous Preamble meant "evolution" and not "revolution." Another article urged the I. W. W. to give up its name and amalgamate with other industrial unions in a new organization to be known as The One Big Union.

Still more significant, the same magazine for February, 1920, published a new incitement to revolution by Leon Trotzky, together with a "Call for Proletarian International" signed by "The Bureau of the Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions" and an "Appeal of the Russian Industrial Unions to the Workers of the Allied Countries" signed by "The Bureau of the All-Russian Council of Industrial Union." The "call" reads:

"The Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions invites all economic organizations based on the real and revolutionary class struggle for the liberation of labor through the proletarian dictatorship to solidify anew their ranks against the international league of brigands, to break with the international of conciliators, and to proceed in unison with the Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions toward the organization of a truly international conference of all Socialistic labor unions and veritable revolutionary workers' syndicates.

"We beg all economic labor organizations that accept the program of the revolutionary class struggle to respond to our call and enter in a direct touch with us."

The accompanying I. W. W. comment was, "We are sure that our organization will be there." Thus, if it be under ground, the mole still works. Moscow still inflames, unifies and directs the great world-conspiracy against the "Entente Powers" and all the nations that have been looking toward peace. The "Appeal," accompanying the "call," says in part:

"Can it be true, that you, the workers of England, France, Italy and the United States, will much longer support your governments and permit your blood to quench the spreading conflagration of the social revolution? Can it be that the international bandits of the League of Nations and the thrice-branded Versailles shall be allowed unhampered to weave their nets for the strangling of the world proletarian revolution?...

"Down with the bandits of imperialism!

"Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!

"Long live the International Soviet Republic!"

Near the end of his article Trotzky says, according to "The One Big Union Monthly," for February, 1920, page 21, "By thrusting the bourgeoisie away from the helm of state, by taking power into its own hands, the working class is preparing for the creation of Federation of Soviet Republics of Europe and the whole world.... War was and will remain a form of armed exploitation or armed struggle against exploitation."

An editorial note on the same page, immediately below the article of Trotzky, says: "The above article and the APPEAL OF THE RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL UNIONS TO THE WORKERS OF THE ALLIED COUNTRIES are taken from documents on Russia of the working class, written by members of the Soviet Government.... These materials were sent to Fellow Worker Wm. D. Haywood by Comrade Leon Trotzky, the valiant Commissary for War of the victorious Workers' Commonwealth. We are happy to announce that the I. W. W. will be the first to publish these latest documents on peasant and industrial life in Bolshevikland."

Did Martens and Hillquit advise Lenine and Trotzky to disguise their American propaganda by using the Industrial Unions of Russia as their cat's-paw? We ask this because Hillquit has long been "Councillor" in America to the Russian Soviet Republic,L while the above method of inflaming American labor unions has been the secret method of the Socialist Party's Rand School of Science for some years--since 1916, at least. These are facts established by documents obtained in the summer of 1919 by raids of the Rand School, put in evidence before the New York State Legislative Committee, Senator Clayton R. Lusk, Chairman, and referred to in the July 30, 1919, issue of "The National Civic Federation Review," from which we quote the following:

"One David P. Berenberg is director of the correspondence department of the Rand School. From the letter-files seized there, evidence was produced showing the kind of propaganda conducted through Berenberg's department. In a carbon copy of a letter to Harry L. Perkins, of San Diego, Cal., dated June 7, 1916, the statement was made:

"'When we read of 'preparedness' that is in full force in the camps of the capitalists, we realize that unless we organize and fit ourselves to resist, and to take over the government, we will one day find ourselves where our French and German brothers are today, dead or maimed in the fray.'

"'In other words,' commented Chairman Lusk, 'for over two years this Rand School has been advocating armed preparedness to take over the government.'

"A letter--obviously after a form letter sent to correspondents generally--dated October 3, 1916, addressed to M. E. Rabb, Xenia, Ohio, offered as evidence, contained the following:

"'What are you doing when the State robs you and your union and so makes you helpless to strike? There is only one thing to do: take over the State.

"'Are the members of your local prepared to take over and conduct wisely and well the affairs of your town and county? Are you prepared to meet the militia when the powers of the State and courts are against you? Are you arming yourself with the knowledge of the foundations of our society so that when these crises come to you, you will have an organization strong enough to have foreseen and forestalled them? Are you training your members in scientific Socialism?'

"This same adroitly phrased incitement was found in other correspondence."

This pest-house of treason and lawlessness, the Rand School, Hillquit's pet university of Socialism, ought to be dug up by the roots. And what shall we say of such evidence? Why should the Socialist Party of America hesitate to affiliate with the Third (Moscow) International and approve its "programs and methods" when Hillquit's illegitimate offspring, the Rand School, was teaching such "methods" a year before the Bolsheviki seized Petrograd and the dictatorship? Is Hillquit Lenine's pupil or Lenine's teacher? Is Hillquit, backer of the Rand School propaganda, the same gentle Morris Hillquit who as an "expert on Socialism" testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on February 17, 1920:

"The word 'revolution' does not have for us the romantic significance of barricade fights or other acts of violence that it has for most of our newspaper writers and school boys." ("Sun and New York Herald," February 18, 1920.)

Can this be the same Hillquit who earlier in the trial broke out in the angry threat: "What we say to you, gentlemen: the contemplated act of this Assembly, if consummated, will ... loosen the violent revolution." ("New York Evening Sun," January 21, 1920.) Did he allude to some pink tea party?

And perhaps the "school boys" Hillquit referred to are those by his pet institution poisoned and turned into degenerates in the bud of manhood, like poor Oscar Edelman, whose valedictory speech on graduating from a course in the Rand School of Social Science ran thus:

"For us as students, Socialists and Labor Unionists, our work is laid out. We must help educate the workers of America so that their slogan, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' be replaced by the revolutionary slogan, 'abolition of the wage system.' ... In the great world-struggle which is taking place today, we must take active part.... The ideals which today inspire Debs and Lenine are the ideals which inspire us." (Lusk Committee evidence, quoted from "The National Civic Federation Review," July 30, 1919.)

But of all the sublime performances of Hillquit, that which lays the brightest crown on his veracity was the answer he gave at Albany on February 17, 1920, to the long hypothetical question concerning the attitude of the Socialists should their friends of the Third International, the Bolsheviki, invade the United States.

At this question the redoubtable Mr. Hillquit, according to the "New York Times" of February 18, 1920, "settled back in his chair and smiled" and said: "I should say that the Socialists of the United States would have no hesitancy whatsoever in joining forces with the rest of their countrymen to repel the Bolsheviki who would try to invade our country and force a form of government upon our people which our people were not ready for and did not desire." (Italics mine.)

Had Hillquit stopped where the italics began he would have stretched our credulity to the utmost. But if "our people" meant to him American Socialists, we readily believe that invading Bolsheviki, coming to wrest the American dictatorship from our native talent, would find themselves and their undesirable "form of government" pitched into the sea by Hillquit and his crowd. Majority Socialist against Spartacide and Bolshevik against Menshivik--we have seen how one Socialist group repels the "form of government" forced by another.

When we think of the heroic exploits of Hillquit in repelling foreign invaders from America about 1917-18, can we not imagine him hurling one of his deadly manifestoes at his Bolsheviki friends? No doubt when Comrade Martens, the vanguard of the invading Bolsheviki, stormed Hillquit's castle on Riverside Drive with a fee and a commission as "Councillor," the outraged patriot crashed a receipt in full against the invader's outstretched paw.

As we think of Hillquit's love for peaceful "political action"--on the witness stand--those words from his foundling, the "New York Call" of May 1, 1919, return to our minds:

"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future, has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the masses and the shining example of the martyrs: its spread is irrepressible....

"The war of the nations has been followed by the war of the classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the great cities for life or death."

Mr. William English Walling, in an article published in the "New York Times," January 20, 1920, asks a pertinent question about the revolutionary activities of the American Socialist Party:

"The 'American Socialist Party,' finds itself compelled, precisely like Lenine, to pretend to be a peace-loving organization, loyally accepting constitutional democracy and opposed to violence. Are we to take it at its own word? Is it possible that a few pious phrases offered on occasion can deceive the American people as to the nature of a propaganda organization that is shouting from the housetops in every corner of the country and every day of the year?

"The only imaginable reason why the public has paid any attention is that there are two or three organizations more wholly given over to violence, whereas the Socialist organization gives a share of its attention to party politics. It was said until recently, 'Oh, the anarchists are for violence, but the Socialists are for law and order.' Last August it was found that a large part of the Socialists were for immediate revolution. Then it was said that the Communists are revolutionary, but the Socialists are for law and order. The reasoning was that if the Left Wing was for immediate revolution, then the Right Wing must be for law and order!"

Mr. Walling expresses an expert opinion, having been a prominent member of Hillquit's party until this organization, at St. Louis in 1917, began the openly lawless course which led to the conviction of a large number of its leaders under the Espionage Law. Moreover, since January, 1920, when Mr. Walling recorded the above opinion, evidence has come to light which shows he was exactly right in saying that the American Socialist Party acted "precisely like Lenine" in pretending "to be a peace-loving organization" because it found "itself compelled" to do so.

The tactics of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff, the Bolshevist "triumvirate" of Russia, and of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens and Morris Hillquit in America, are so similar that the evidence brought by Lincoln Eyre out of Russia perfectly interprets the "weasel words" of Martens and Hillquit on the witness stand at Washington and Albany, respectively. Hillquit, the connecting link, according to his testimony at Albany, February 19, 1920, was born at Riga, Russia; came to America a boy, like so many Russian immigrants; attended New York's public schools; and under the protection of the Stars and Stripes, which he would drag down, has made himself so emphatically one of the "capitalists," whom he hates, that he resides on New York's famous "Riverside Drive," and was able to testify with a smirk, "I flatter myself that I am not a failure." (See printed "Testimony" of the trial of the five Assemblymen for the details.)

A moral failure, without extenuation, most Americans will regard Morris Hillquit. For out of thirty-five years, spent by him on our hospitable shores in getting rich under the protection of our Government, institutions and people, he has used at least twenty in trying to destroy the benefactor that nursed him. See the "New York Evening Telegram" of February 17, 1920, as follows: "Mr. Hillquit was called to the stand as the first witness for the five Assemblymen. He gave his residence as No. 214 Riverside Drive, New York City. Mr. Hillquit said he had lived in this country thirty-five years, and had been a Socialist since the party was organized, in 1900."

This is the man who in 1917 and 1918 backed his organization, so far as he dared, to cripple the people of the United States while they were engaged in a desperate war; and who since has been Lenine's brain in America in trying to set fire to the house of government in which the American people live. Notice his intelligence in the hypocritical Bolshevist refinement of separating the Moscow Soviet Government from the Moscow International, so that one of these may offer our people peace while the other continues to plot our destruction. This distinction was made, with its significance concealed, in Hillquit's testimony at Albany on February 18, 1920, which the Albany "Knickerbocker Press" of the next day, February 19, thus summarized:

"Mr. Hillquit testified at length concerning Soviet Russia.... Mr. Hillquit also testified that there were differences between Soviet Government, Bolshevists and the Moscow International. The latter, he said, did not represent Soviet Russia, and the Bolshevists, he said, were merely a national party of Russia." (Italics mine.)

In a cabled account of an interview with Zinovieff, sent by Lincoln Eyre from Russia to the "World," headed, "Riga (by courier via Berlin), Feb. 24," and printed in the "New York World" of February 26, 1920, we have a flood of light showing that the central plot of the Socialist international conspiracy hinges precisely on the distinction which Hillquit had made at Albany a few days before, namely, that the Moscow International does "not represent Soviet Russia." Through the courtesy of the "New York World" we quote from its issue of February 26, 1920, the essential parts of Eyre's statement as follows:

"Bolshevik propaganda abroad, though still as active and insidious as it has ever been has undergone a radical change of late. That conclusion was arrived at by a close study of the subject, which I pursued in Moscow and Petrograd, reinforced by an interview with C. S. Zinovieff, ruler of the latter city, also President of the Executive Committee of the Third Internationale and firebrand of the revolution.

"The Russian Communist Party, which is the Bolsheviki's official political title, no longer exports agitators chosen from among members to kindle the flames of revolt in foreign lands. They are too wise for that antiquated process nowadays. What they do in these scientific times is to import from the country of his birth the crudely fashioned product of his own domestic Bolshevism, subject him to certain finishing processes (including perhaps a gold lining) and ship him back home again complete in every detail, smooth running and highly inflammable. That is one of the reasons why the Soviet Government is prepared to promise and to keep its promise to refrain from sending forth agents charged with spreading the gospel of capitalistic annihilation....

"Another reason for the Soviet's willingness to quit propagandizing abroad is that it has already turned over to the Third Internationale all business of that kind.... Now, the Third Internationale has no official connection with the Soviet Government. It is supposed to be a separate institution. Yet all its leaders hold office under the Soviets and its funds, which are considerable, must be derived from Soviet sources. Nevertheless it is technically, indeed legally, non-governmental, wherefore the Moscow Cabinet is justified in pledging itself to leave propaganda to 'friendly' foreign states alone.

"The moving spirit of the Third Internationale is Zinovieff, who, with Lenine and Trotzky, forms the triumvirate on which Bolshevism today rests, although he is by no means as big a man as the other two. Zinovieff is not a member of the Council of Peoples' Commissaries (the Cabinet), but merely of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, from which the former body derives its powers, and which itself is subordinate to the supreme executive legislative judicial organ, the All-Russian Convention of Soviets. Thus, while the role allotted to him on the administrative stage is really as prominent as that of any of his fellows, short of Lenine and Trotzky, Zinovieff can legitimately claim to be without voice in the actual administration of the Soviet Republic....

"The first point that Zinovieff made clear to me in our talk was that the Third Internationale is not comparable to the League of Nations.... The Overlord of Petrograd affirmed, ... 'The Third Internationale ... is a purely political group. It is a confederation of the world's Communists, an international coalition of the Communist Parties already existing in their respective countries.... The Third Internationale is a going concern, with some 8,000,000 members.' ...

"'But,' I asked, 'how is your aim of a European world republic of Soviets to be realized unless there is some international governmental machine?'

"'There will be some such machine,' Zinovieff replied, 'but probably it will take the form of a new organization along Soviet lines. In my view, the revolution will follow the same general channels it has taken in Russia, with alterations of detail, of course. Should France overthrow capitalism, for instance, she will at first establish Sovietism, and subsequently combine with us. To foresee the mechanical angles of such combination, however, is too early.'

"'And your propaganda programme,' I ventured, 'is as strong and far-reaching as ever?'

"The prompt reply was: 'The Third Internationale is primarily an instrument of revolution. It reunites at Moscow the intelligence and energy of all the Communist groups the world over. Delegates from the various national organizations come to us and give and take knowledge about the cause and return to their respective home countries refreshed and invigorated. This work will be continued, no matter what happens, legally or illegally. The Soviet Government may pledge itself to refrain from propaganda abroad, but the Third Internationale--never!'"

Let us ponder this description of the Third International by its manager and greatest living expert: its scope, a confederation of the world's Communists, a coalition of the Communist parties of all countries; its size, 8,000,000 members, perhaps greatly exaggerated; its nature, "an instrument of revolution;" and its determination, to carry on propaganda, for the violent seizure of every land by a dictatorship, "no matter what happens, legally or illegally." Let us reflect that it is with this Third International, and not the Russian Soviet Government, that Hillquit's Party in America is affiliated, according to the testimony of the Socialists themselves at Albany. Finally, with these facts for a plummet, let us try to find the bottom of Hillquit's hypocrisy in pretending at Albany that he and his disciples do not believe in "revolution" but only in "evolution."

Before passing from Lincoln Eyre's testimony, we further quote from his cable in the "World" of February 26, 1920, what we may call his description of "the Third International at work," as follows:

"Zinovieff ... is that combination of idealistic Hotspur and practical executive which is characteristic of many Bolshevist leaders. Despite his long years in exile with Lenine, to whose Doctor Johnson he played Boswell ably and loyally, this shock-haired enthusiastic young Jew--he is to-day scarcely forty--was able to run Petrograd.... Petrograd is still underfed, underheated, dirty and desolate, but it continues to live.... For this Zinovieff, as all-mighty controller of the city's destinies, ... deserves credit....

"Besides having a hand in everything that concerns local administration, and most things which have to do with national government, he personally edits and writes many pages of the Third Internationale's organ, 'The Internationale Communist,' a monthly magazine of some 250 pages printed simultaneously in Russian, English, French and German. Moreover, he passes upon all important printed matter emanating from the Internationale's press. Every foreign Communist coming to Moscow or Petrograd sees Zinovieff and gets pointers from him how to propagate Bolshevism.

"In the seven weeks I spent in Moscow, three delegates arrived from the United States and literally scores from Germany, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, China, Japan, Corea, India, Afghanistan and Asia Minor countries. The only important states from which few Communistic envoys come are Britain and France. Practically all these missionaries are obliged to travel illegally, that is, with false passports or without any. They slip across the fighting fronts that encircle the Soviet Republic in astonishing ways, risking death and all forms of hardship to reach Moscow. The one-time seat of Moscow's Emperors has become to Communists the world over what Mecca is to the Mohammedan pilgrims.

"A youthful emissary of the I. W. W. said to me: 'We come here to drink of the fountain of revolutionary youth.' I asked him what he thought would happen when Russia's frontiers were opened. 'We shall come as we come now, but in greater numbers and with greater ease,' he replied.

"'But won't the Third Internationale send its Russian agitators abroad then, thus making it unnecessary for you to come here?' 'What for?' he retorted. 'There is no use sending Russians to talk to American workmen. Americans will close their ears to a foreigner where they will open them wide to one of their own countrymen. The Third Internationale is a realistic organization. It has learned long ago that racial and national prejudices, however misguided they may be, are deep seated and cannot be overcome in a day. It aims to get results, and so it lets Americans talk to Americans.' ...

"The Bolsheviki are as eager to precipitate a world revolution as ever. But at the moment they are even more eager to establish relations with the markets of the world, so that Russia may be saved from economic catastrophe.... The Kremlin realizes full well that it cannot hope to spread Bolshevism by means of its own people. And with the Third Internationale headed by Zinovieff, operating in close contact with the National Communist groups, it knows it does not have to."

Thus the overtures of peace and promises of good behavior made by the Russian Soviet Government to the other Powers are pure humbug; and equally false are the professions of peace in America which Hillquit's branch of the Third International has made to lull the fears of the American people. To get the full force of this parallelism we have only to place the law-breaking Socialist Party of America since 1917 in juxta position with the hypocritical Socialist professions and principles brought out in 1920 during the trial of the Assemblymen at Albany.

As the long record of jury convictions of officials and members of the Socialist Party of America is the real foundation of the case against the five New York Assemblymen, exposing the character of the organization they serve, we quote for the reader's information a press summary of the facts, submitted by a citizens' "Committee on Publicity," March 2, 1920, "for the approval of the People of the State of New York." According to the Albany "Knickerbocker13 Press" of March 3, 1920, this Committee's statement, after referring to "the procedure of the New York Assembly in January, 1920," in "temporarily suspending the five Socialist Assemblymen while instituting a judicial inquiry into their qualifications to serve as law-makers," continues as follows:

"We believe the Assembly was misjudged in the minds of many who reasoned: 'Socialists elected to previous Assemblies were seated without objection, why then suspend the five Socialist Assemblymen this year and investigate them?'

"We offer what we believe to be a complete answer to the question. We believe the Assembly had a compelling warrant for its procedure in serious facts and charges not known to previous Legislatures. These include:

"First--Court records showing that most of the principal leaders of the Socialist 'Party' were convicted lawbreakers.

"Second--the revelations of the Lusk Committee.

"Under the first head may be mentioned the conviction and twenty-year sentence, on January 8, 1919, of Victor L. Berger, National Executive Committeeman of the so-called Socialist Party; the conviction of Eugene V. Debs, four times Presidential candidate of the party, whose ten-year sentence was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court March 10, 1919; and other convictions in 1919, including, Adolph Germer, National Executive Secretary; J. Louis Engdahl, editor of the Socialist Party's official publications; Irwin St. John Tucker, head of its literature department, and William F. Kruse, Secretary of the Young People's Socialist organization. In addition, twenty of the Socialist Party's lesser leaders and scores of its rank and file had been convicted of disloyal acts and utterances, while nineteen of the chief Socialist organs had their second-class mail privileges canceled for disloyalty.

"Under the second head may be mentioned the fact that the investigations of the Lusk Committee showed that the Socialist incitement to lawlessness prevalent throughout the country was largely due to the propaganda of the Rand School of Socialism, a New York Corporation of which two of the Socialist Assemblymen were members. Furthermore, the American Socialist Society, the corporation that owns and conducts the Rand School, had been convicted under the Espionage Act before the United States District Court and heavily fined by Judge Julius M. Mayer.

"These were some of the facts and charges which were matters of public record and public knowledge when the Assembly of 1920 convened. We submit, therefore, that if the Assembly had not taken action as it did, it would have been derelict in its duty.

"We therefore recommend:

"1. That all loyal organizations pass, publish and file with this Committee resolutions in acknowledgment of the service rendered by the New York Assembly and in encouragement of similar action by the Legislatures of other states.

"2. That individuals affirm this judgment in suitable ways, and particularly by letters to the press in their localities.

"3. That all loyal individuals and organizations co-operate to give the whole American people the exact facts concerning the conspiracy of radicals against our Government and institutions.

"To this end we propose to continue the work of education by permanent organization under the name of 'Publicity Committee Against Socialism.'"M

The above list of Socialist convictions for lawbreaking will be found completely confirmed, on Socialist authority, in Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, pages 92-103.

Was this record questioned by the Socialist defense at Albany? In no wise; it could not be. Was the record faced, the guilt of the lawbreakers confessed, and their transgressions deplored as acts of disloyalty which the Socialist Party now condemns and repudiates? Not at all. These acts were freshly confirmed, and taken anew upon the Socialist Party, by brazen justification of them at Albany and condemnation of the laws, juries and courts of the American people.

We have seen how Hillquit on the witness stand justified the disloyal and violently revolutionary utterances of two of the chief offenders, Debs and Victor L. Berger, identifying himself with their sentiments and proclaiming Debs as the highest type of American citizen, the man most fit for President of the United States. We have also seen that the whole Socialist Party was in 1919 committed to the nomination of Debs as its Presidential candidate in 1920; while it is a well known fact that when Congress excluded Victor L. Berger from that body because of his conviction as a lawbreaker, the lawless Socialist Party at once re-elected him to show its contempt for law and order under our institutions.

The testimony piled up by the prosecution at Albany showed that, instead of judging the wholesale lawbreaking by its leaders and members in 1917 and 1918, the Socialist Party had in 1919 and 1920 involved itself in a still deeper guilt, adding treason to disloyalty by affiliating itself with the open enemies of our Government in Russia and other foreign lands. Was this denied by the Socialist defense at Albany? No, the fact of affiliation with the Third (Moscow) Internationale was admitted, reducing the defense to the false principle that the five Socialist Assemblymen should not be excluded on account of their signed pledge of obedience to a lawless organization, no matter how lawless it might be. Thus in summing up for the defense, on March 3, 1920, Morris Hillquit, according to the "New York Times" of March 4, 1920, made the following excellent summary of the evidence against his party:

"First--That the Socialist Party is a revolutionary organization.

"Second--That it seeks to attain its ends by means of violence.

"Third--That it does not sincerely believe in political action, and that its politics is only a blind or camouflage.

"Fourth--That it is unpatriotic and disloyal.

"Fifth--That it is unduly controlled--or that it unduly controls public officials elected on its ticket.

"Sixth--That it owes allegiance to a foreign power known as the Internationale.

"Seventh--That it approves of the Soviet Government of Russia, and seeks to introduce a similar regime in the United States; and, finally,

"Eighth--That the Assemblymen personally opposed prosecution of the war and gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

"'All of these charges,' Mr. Hillquit said, 'are distinctly charges against the Socialist Party as such. In other words, it is the Socialist Party of the United States that is on trial before you.' ...

"'I think, perhaps, the most telling point is the charge that the Socialist Party is unpatriotic and disloyal--at least it has been emphasized more than any other,' said the lawyer. 'We opposed the war.... If similar conditions again arise I am sure we will take the same position.'"

Similarly, Seymour Stedman, summing up for the Socialists on March 5, 1920, not being able to deny the many convictions of leaders and members of the Socialist Party under the Espionage Law, openly attacked the law itself, according to the following account in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 5, 1920:

"Albany, March 5.--A bitter attack on the Espionage Act was made by Seymour Stedman in his final summing up for the five suspended Socialists before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly today.

"'Because of that act, you don't know the truth about this war; you cannot know the truth about this war until the Espionage Act is dead,' he asserted....

"Mr. Stedman admitted that the St. Louis war platform of the Socialist Party was drawn 'in lurid language to meet a situation in high flame,' but said no meeting could be called to consider amending it because those who favored it might have been convicted under the Espionage Act....

"Mr. Stedman contended that, of course, the Socialists took their oath to uphold the Constitution of New York State and the United States with the idea that they could interpret for themselves what the Constitution means.

"'Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.'"

According to the "New York World" of March 6, 1920, Stedman, in his speech of the preceding day, justified Eugene V. Debs' lawbreaking with the disgusting remark, "He had no conception of Jesus with a dagger in his teeth;" and justified the lawbreaking for which Rose Pastor Stokes was convicted with the sentence, "She had a right to disagree with the war aims." She, of course, was not convicted for "disagreement" but for wilfully interfering with the "recruiting service" of the United States Government.

The "New York World" of March 6, 1920, also gives the following specimen of Stedman's reasoning:

"Answering the charge that Socialists generally were guilty of law violations, he exclaimed: 'Go down to the penitentiaries and get the histories of the birds there and you won't find any Socialists.

"'We are quite willing to say that if 2,000 Socialists had been arrested during the war, we are guilty.'"

It is difficult to follow this logic. After telling us that we wouldn't "find any Socialists" in the penitentiaries, did Stedman suddenly bethink himself of the scores convicted, and then, on the spur of the moment, fix 2,000 as the number of "arrests" necessary to wring from Socialists the confession, "We are guilty"? From a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 92, we quote the following figures for Stedman's edification:

"The total number of prosecutions for violation of the Espionage Act from June 15, 1917, to July 1, 1918, were 988. Of these, 197 pleaded guilty and were sent to prison, 166 others were convicted (a large number appealing), and 497 cases were pending for trial July 1st, while 128 had been acquitted or dismissed up to that time. The act has been enforced with increasing vigor since that date, but no official figures subsequent thereto are available."

According to Trachtenberg, pages 93 and 94, the above cases do not include about 450 cases of "conspiracy to obstruct draft" under the Penal Code and Draft Act, 30 prosecutions for threats against the President, others under the treason statutes, and prosecutions under state statutes and city ordinances, in "number," says Trachtenberg, "doubtless greatly in excess of the federal prosecutions," including "in New York City alone scores of cases." A flock of 27 Socialists was convicted at Sioux Falls, S.D. (Trachtenberg, page 92), and at Chicago a herd of 166 I. W. W.'s, first cousins to the Socialists; while these first cousins were also indicted in various places in batches of 47, 38, 27, 28, etc. (Ibid.) Nor do any of the foregoing figures include the "arrests" of two or three thousand "Communists" who were members of Stedman's party prior to September, 1919.

In short, even accepting Stedman's extraordinary dictum that "2,000 Socialists ... arrested" is the minimum necessary to force Socialists to confess themselves "guilty," that test is more than met by the arrests already known.

Martin Conboy, in summing up for the State in the proceedings before the New York Assembly Judiciary Committee, on March 4, 1920, according to the "New York Times" of March 5, 1920, accused the Socialist counsel and witnesses of "evasive and hypocritical sentiments, expressed on the witness stand, to throw the dust of political, parliamentary and inoffensive acts into the eyes of this Committee and the correspondents of the newspapers." On the other hand, he said, "the leaders of the Socialist Party" lost "no opportunity" to "impress upon the rank and file of that organization that it is impossible to achieve the ultimate triumph of their cause by political action," in support of which he cited the testimony in evidence as follows:

"Every manifesto, every platform, almost every utterance of the Socialist orator carries with it the party mandate that the workers of America should be organized industrially so as to be submissive to the command of a revolutionary leadership.

"In adopting a programme of industrial action, involving the use of the general strike, the Socialist Party has stripped itself of the mask of political action and stands revealed as a radical revolutionary propaganda organization.'"

Another part of Mr. Conboy's address we cite from the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 5, 1920:

"The danger of revolution is more real than the nation realizes, Mr. Conboy charged, saying that the Socialist Party seeks to set up its rule here by the following 'unlawful methods':

"'Obstruction of the Federal and State governments in all measures relating to defense, thereby rendering the nation defenseless against the attack of enemies from without and within.

"'Destruction of government by mass action and insisting in all teachings that political action must be backed by force.

"'By making its members and those elected to office responsible only to its dues-paying members, thereby relieving its agents of obligation to established government.

"'We are confronted with the necessity of determining how we shall treat this group of persons who are in the United States but not of it; who, while accepting the benefits of our laws and constitutions and the sacrifices of blood and treasure given to support them, refuse their support to them; who take all they can get but will not give a life or a dollar to preserve, defend and perpetuate the Government that is their sole and only guaranty of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness,' said Mr. Conboy.

"'It is the first time since the rebellion of 1861 that notice has been plainly and explicitly served upon the Government of the United States by a group of men residing within its borders that they will not support or defend it, but that they will by all means obstruct and resist its effort to maintain in time of stress its national honor and existence.

"'The Socialist Party of America is not a loyal organization disgraced occasionally by the traitorous act of a member, but a disloyal party composed of perpetual traitors.'"

Again, in a part of his address reported in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 4, 1920, Mr. Conboy mentioned the fact that "at the National Convention of the Socialist Party of America held in St. Louis," in April, 1917, "its members were directed to deny and repudiate allegiance to this Government," and added:

"The explanation of the anti-American attitude of the Socialist Party of America during the war lies in the anti-national and pro-international character of its programme. Its members are not occasional but perpetual traitors, in constant conflict not merely with the purposes of any temporary administration of the affairs of this Government, but with the very institutions and fundamental laws. They are citizens not of the United States, but subjects of the Internationale, whose pronouncements are to be given their moral support, a support which they not only withhold from but deny to the Government of the United States.

"The principal exponent of this party, who appears here in the dual capacity of witness in chief and counsel in chief, is the international secretary for America of the International Socialist Bureau."

To complete our information concerning the Moscow International, we add here some details concerning its Executive Committee, and the right of representation on it enjoyed by the affiliated "Parties" in other lands than Russia, including, no doubt, the Socialist Party of America. Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, in its article, "The Moscow International Communist Conference" (held at Moscow, March 2-6, 1919), says, page 312:

"The Conference ... perfected the organization of the new International and entrusted the direction of the work to an Executive Committee consisting of one representative from the Communist parties of the more important countries. The parties in Russia, Germany, German-Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden and the Balkan Federation, were directed to send members to the Executive Committee. Parties which have declared their adherence to the new International will be given seats in the Executive Committee, pending the arrival of delegates from other countries. The members of the Committee from the country in which the Executive Committee has its seat [Russia] were empowered to plan the work of the new organization. The Executive Committee was authorized to elect a bureau consisting of five members to do the actual work of the Committee."

Has the Socialist Party of America contributed its Executive Committeeman to this revolutionary machine? Even so, the orders, or "suggestions," evidently come from the Bolshevist Bureau of Five who "do the actual work of the Committee." Are these the Russian power that, according to correspondence found in a raid of the Lusk Committee, has already appointed Eugene V. Debs to reign over us "as 'Proletarian Dictator' of the United States" as soon as the plotted revolution is pulled off in this country? (See "The National Civic Federation Review" for July 30, 1919.) Are these the power, too, according to report, that induced the Italian Socialists and Syndicalists to postpone their proposed revolution to a more convenient season? And was this to give Soviet Russia a chance to put through a temporary peace or truce with Europe to stave off "economic catastrophe?" If so, the twitching revolutionaries in other lands must evidently train their toes to dance at Moscow's convenience.

Meanwhile, under the International, the diabolical work of getting the immoral elements ready for violence goes on in every land, including the United States.

Let Hillquit excuse, extenuate, deny and palaver as he may, it remains true that the Socialist Party of America teaches the same treasonable doctrines of violence and insurrection as the Russian Bolshevists, but in a more covert way. We have a sample in the pamphlet, "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat," put in evidence on January 27, 1920, in the inquiry of the Judiciary Committee at Albany. It is published by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, New York City, a part of the Socialist Party of America. It says in part:

"Socialism does not believe in the State, wants to annihilate it entirely. It holds that the task of the State has always been to oppress the country in the interests of one class. So long as there are classes in society which seek supremacy, the mastery, there must be a State. But as soon as classes are eliminated the State will have no justification for existence, and it will disappear of itself.

"The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution. It preaches to them the class struggle, awakens within them class-consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the Socialistic organization feels that the moment has come, it will make the revolution.

"The dictatorship will be employed for the one thing, to eliminate capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community. The industries will be managed by the workingmen through their soviets.

"Let the true Socialists stand as sentinels; let them see that the Socialist programs strike with hot, revolutionary blood. The great task of the Socialist movement is to create an army in this country which should be ready to make the Socialist revolution when the suitable moment arrives. This army must know its aims and the method of attaining these aims, must be an intelligent army. Every soldier in it must himself know the way, the plans, the strategy."

In the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee to and Including February 5, 1920," issued by counsel for the State, they quote from the Yiddish book, cited above, referring to the printed "Testimony," pages 199, 204 and 207, in proof that the Jewish Socialist Federation, which published the book, is "part of the Socialist Party," and introducing their citations from the book with the very significant remark, "Published in Yiddish the principles of Socialism were not camouflaged as they frequently are in English." Bearing this in mind, let us note how this plain-spoken book, which we cite from the State counsel's "Outline," pages 31-34, gives the lie to Hillquit's camouflage about "revolution" being "evolution." The book says:

"History teaches us that through evolution, through natural developments alone, no ruling class in society has ever been deposed from its power.... Workingmen cannot depend on 'peaceful evolution'; they must prepare for a revolution, and class-dictatorship....

"To the Socialist at present, the meaning of class struggle, Internationale and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, must be clear. He must understand that Socialism is not a reform movement. He must know that Socialism is a Revolutionary world-perspective, and that the Socialist movement is a Revolutionary movement.... He must cease to be a moral preacher and become a fighter. He must know that the Socialist movement is a red movement, a movement with blood in the veins, which knows that nothing in life can be won without a struggle."

This is the real stuff, hid in a foreign tongue, with which Hillquit's gang poisons the East Side of New York City, while the gang's leaders lie to the American people.

Yet if the real plan is not to give us Socialism by "peaceful evolution" but to impose it on us by "a revolution, and class-dictatorship," what is the real object of the "political action" carried on meantime by these hypocrites? Again the Yiddish book gives us the real thing:

"So long as the State is ... a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the proletariat, ... why do the Socialists seek to send their representatives there? Where do Socialists fit into the State? What can they do there?

"Socialists seek to enter into the government for two reasons, first, to be nearer to the doors of the chambers, where dictatorship sits, and second to hinder the dictatorial work in any way possible. The first reason is the most important. Sitting in Parliament or in Congress, being inside of the government ranks, affords Socialists an opportunity to find out the plans, the strategy of the State. And knowing this, they can carry out the propaganda the better."

If this is not treason--wickedness using "political party" methods both as a mask and a blackjack to destroy the State--what is it?

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Ample proof has been given in this chapter to show that there is a nation-wide conspiracy to destroy our government and institutions and replace the Stars and Stripes by the red flag. I. W. W.'s, Communists, Communist Laborites, Socialists and Socialist Laborites have united under the leadership of the Bolshevist Government of Russia. Their agents are everywhere, everywhere hypocritically protesting that in our land freedom, of speech and freedom of assemblage are no longer tolerated. Unless our loyal citizens promptly rally to the defense of America, disorder, strife and rebellion will be seething everywhere, the foundations of the glorious nation that sprang from the blood of the brave soldiers of '76 will be completely undermined, our country will be afflicted with evils far more grave than those averted by the heroes who fought and died in 1812, and the land that we love will fall a prey to the terrible ravages of crime, lawlessness and anarchy.

We must save our country, and save it now. Now is the time to act--now, before it is too late; and we must act so effectively and so vigorously that the Socialists and all their allied, criminal, revolutionary crews will wish that they never had seen a red flag or left their homes abroad. They are conspiring enemies of our country. They are traitors to the flag under which Washington and his soldiers fought for the independence of America; traitors to the flag to whose defense the brave men of 1812 rallied; traitors to the flag for which a million soldiers suffered or died in our great Civil War. They are traitors to the flag that symbolizes the union of countless happy homes under a democratic government held in honor, respect and veneration. Traitors they are to the flag that stands for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and for the protection of individual as well as of family rights. They are traitors to the flag of a much slandered and calumniated government, which, though imperfect, like all things on this earth, extends its blessings to all, not even excepting ungrateful Socialists and other radicals.

Fellow citizens and fellow countrymen, rally to the defense of the flag that you love! Denounce, to the north, south, east and west, the evil teachings and deceptions of the Red conspirators; for there is nothing that will more quickly ruin the parties of Reds than to reveal to the world their professed and secret teachings.

/P "Immortal patriots, rise once more! Defend your rights, defend your shore! Let no rude foe with impious hand, Invade the shrine where sacred lies Of toil and blood the well earned prize. While off'ring peace, sincere and just, In heav'n we place a manly trust, That truth and justice shall prevail, And every scheme of bondage fail." P/



In glowing colors the imaginations of Socialists have beautifully pictured their utopian state for the benefit of the credulous and oppressed. Unfortunately, however, for the followers of Karl Marx, a little reasoning and common sense show that their visionary state, instead of being a heavenly paradise, would in reality be a descent into chaos and anarchy. Domestic peace would be a blessing of the past. Discontent, wrangles, fights, riots, civil discord and sabotage would be the order of the day till irrepressible rebellion had sounded the death-knell of Socialism.

There is every indication that the Revolutionists would not destroy our present system of government without having recourse to arms. Besides the many convincing proofs given in the preceding chapter, we learn from "The Call," New York, January 28, 1912, that the celebrated Socialist novelist, Jack London, scouted the idea that the social revolution would be realized without force. Then, again, Victor Berger--who was Socialist Congressman from Wisconsin, and who, like Debs, was one of the "innocents" whom the "poor," "persecuted" Reds have been trying to save from a long imprisonment by a nationwide agitation for amnesty--writing in the "Social Democratic Herald" of Milwaukee, on August 14, 1909, said: "We should be grateful if the social revolution, if the freeing of 75,000,000 whites would not cost more blood than the freeing of 4,000,000 negroes in 1861."

Roland Sawyer, the Socialist candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 1912, writing in "The Call," New York, October 1, 1911, dares to confess that "the conceptions of modern Socialism are all found in a cruder form on the streets of Paris during the Revolution." Finally, as we have seen, Eugene V. Debs, who on four different occasions was the Socialist candidate for the presidency of the United States, in the "Appeal to Reason," Girard, Kansas, September 2, 1911, said: "Let us marshal our forces and develop our power for the revolt.... A few men may be needed who are not afraid to die. Be ye also ready.... Let us swear that we will fight to the last ditch, that we will strike blow for blow, that we will use every weapon at our command, that we will never surrender."

It is evident that if, after a bloody rebellion, the Socialists should overthrow the United States Government, the many millions of defeated patriotic Americans would continue to be the enemies of the new regime. But even if no rebellion took place, and the present system of government were overthrown merely by the ballot, the new state would begin life with millions of enemies, those, namely, who for one reason or another had been radically opposed to Socialism.

When the Marxians come into power, several large factions of them usually rebel against the government of the Socialists, as in Russia, Germany and Bavaria.

The Socialists, in most cases, gain control of a country after a foreign war, at a time when it is most difficult for even the wisest and most experienced statesmen to solve the serious problems of the hour. Great discontent should, therefore, be expected from the failure of inexperienced agitators after coming into power, because of their inability to solve an almost endless number of serious difficulties. Foremost among these would probably be food difficulties, which, as in Russia, Germany, and Hungary, have resulted in widespread opposition to the newly established regimes.

The Socialists have never yet made known to the people of America the detailed working plan of their proposed state. They have, of course, made lots of very general statements, which do not stand the test of accurate criticism, but they have utterly failed to offer solutions of the grave difficulties that they know would confront them. They prefer to let the future work out the solution, and, in the meantime, invite us to ruin our present form of government and industry, imagining that we Americans are a lot of ignorant children who will entrust our destinies to a pack of wild theorists with nothing but a vague hope of a propitious future.

Think of the discontent which would result if our people tore down the old structure, to find no structure whatever into which to move. They would be in the same predicament as the people of San Francisco in the days after the earthquake and fire, when they had to camp out in the open with an insufficient food supply, exposed to the inclemency of the weather. In fact, they would be far worse off. A big-hearted world rushed supplies to the San Franciscans and soon helped them to surmount their difficulties. But the new Socialist state would be attacked from within and without, by citizens hoping to destroy the hated form of government, and by foreign nations dreading the spread of anarchy, just as the United States, England and France blockaded Socialist Russia, causing untold trouble to the Bolshevist government.

In the midst of embarrassments like these the inexperienced Marxian agitators must attempt to solve ten thousand times ten thousand problems which require skill in the extreme and years of careful thought. Would not this result in widespread discontent? Or would the citizens of the United States, who just before the dawn of Socialism had been taught by Debs and his crew to find fault with everything under the sun, suddenly learn patience and remain as meek as lambs merely because the Socialists had raised the Red flag in place of the Star Spangled Banner?

No sooner would the all-perfect Socialists take control at Washington than the endeavors of the new state to settle the serious difficulties confronting it would occasion so much discontent and strife as seriously to threaten, if not actually bring to an end, the very existence of the new government. For, first of all, the people would have to determine whether the immense number of property owners, whose goods must be taken over by the state, should receive full payment, partial payment, or no payment at all.

The famous Belgian Socialist, Vandervelde, informs us that we may group into three categories the plans of socialization proposed by different schools, according to their aiming at the expropriation of the means of production without indemnity, with complete indemnity, or with limited indemnity. ["Collectivism and Industrial Evolution," by Vandervelde, page 152 of the 1904 translation into English.--Chas. H. Kerr and Company.]

If full compensation were granted, millions of Socialists would become exceedingly disgusted and discontented, for not only would the new state from the very beginning of its existence be burdened with a tremendous debt through having to borrow many billions of dollars, if such a thing were possible, in order to make the purchases, but--which would make matters much worse--many of the property owners, who even now are hated and detested by the Socialists, could, after receiving payment, either sit down for the rest of their lives and watch the Revolutionists labor and toil, or else, while doing some work themselves, could use their wealth in bribing the Socialist officials to bestow on them all kinds of privileges and favors.

If no compensation whatever were granted, then, in addition to the hatred and disgust for the new system, which would prevail among the millions who would be dispossessed of their property, after long years of work and careful saving in order to purchase it, there would also be boundless dissatisfaction on the part of persons who, still respecting God's Commandments and the sense of right in natural conscience, would want to see justice and honesty reign throughout America.

Finally, if partial payment were made, both those opposed to full compensation and those in favor of it would be displeased because of the reasons given, which would still influence them very decidedly. If the indemnity paid were very small, the former property owners and all honest citizens would be those especially offended. If the amount paid were large, dishonest Socialists would take offense. Therefore, no matter which plan of expropriation were adopted, the state would make a great number of new enemies.

Though we learn from page 186 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party" that the delegates to the convention, after a factional dispute on party principles, declared by a vote of 102 to 33 for the collective ownership of all the land, and thus determined that the state should take over all the farms of the country, still it cannot be denied that a great number of Revolutionists have claimed, especially of late years, that the government should not dispossess the small farmers of their properties. On account of the rival theories of the two contending factions, the Socialist state might have to pass through a serious ordeal before either plan was adopted. Should the new government finally determine to take possession of such property, millions of farmers and their families would become exceedingly hostile to the government. Should the state allow former owners to cultivate the fields about their old homesteads, the discontent would be but partially lessened, for strict obedience to the commands of government bosses would replace the freedom of action once enjoyed by the farmer's family.

Pages 167 to 190 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," and pages 220 to 235 of the "Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," convinced us that very many of the Revolutionists who oppose government ownership of all land do so in order to gain votes. It seems highly probable, therefore, that if Socialism became the law of America many of the apparently moderate Revolutionists would throw off their masks and unhesitatingly declare for the most radical plan of government ownership.

Yet even if the contemplated state should permit the private ownership of small farms, their owners would be displeased because they would no longer be allowed to hire laborers for working the fields. Some conservative Socialists, indeed, profess willingness to tolerate the employment of one or two farm hands. But not alone do the 1908 National Platform and the amendment adopted by party referendum on September 7, 1909, oppose exploitation, or the employment of hired labor in the production of goods, but innumerable articles in Socialist papers, books and reviews denounce exploitation most emphatically. Hence, if the Socialist state allowed farmers in good standing with the government to own little farms, they could not hire labor to operate them. If the farmer should fall sick, his crops would go to ruin. Advantage could not be taken of some of the great inventions helpful to agriculture, nor scientific methods of work and management. The individual farmer, thus handicapped, might feed himself, his wife, his children, his horse, his cow, his pig, but very little more.

In the Socialist state great discontent would arise from either the toleration or prohibition of small business enterprises. If permitted, without power to hire labor, they must compete with the government. If forbidden, large numbers of persons would be obliged to work for the government, after losing little stores or shops in which for years they had been interested.

In its issue of March 30, 1912, the "Appeal to Reason," then the leading Socialist weekly of the United States, declared that under Socialism John D. Rockefeller would be allowed to retain his money and decide what to do with it. Were this the case, and every person of wealth allowed to retain his money, it is difficult to see how Socialists who hate and detest the rich could endure such a condition, any more than they could tolerate the granting of full or partial indemnity to property owners. The attempt to leave the rich in possession of their wealth would probably incite Socialists to rise in arms against the state they had founded.

On the other hand, if wealth were confiscated, the wealthy and the honest poor alike would be discontented with a dishonest government. Moreover, where would the Socialists draw the line of lawful possession? At $1,000,000, $10,000, $1,000, or $100? Would the decision be reached peaceably? Would the use and possession of government bonds be allowed? As the desire to acquire is one of the strongest passions, bitter hatred would assail the Socialist state, which, Debs tells us, would prohibit business profits, rent and interest. ["Socialism and Unionism," by Eugene V. Debs.] How could insurance companies, in which the American people have invested so much, and which depend on interest, exist under Socialism? Socialism having ruined the insurance companies, would the millions of policyholders just sit down and have a good, hearty laugh over their losses?

The real crux of Socialism is the inability of the Marxians to determine upon a system of employment and a scale of wages or remuneration satisfactory both to the government and the working classes.

Remuneration must either be in the form of money, or of goods or labor certificates entitling the holder to receive goods from the government stores. As labor certificates would be like money, we shall class them as "money" when speaking of wages.

Different schemes of employment have been proposed by Socialists. One of the oldest allows each individual to select the occupation he desires, provided he can do the work. All citizens, under this system, receive equal pay or equal supplies for their services.

Such a system is absurd. The more repugnant occupations, no matter how important for the welfare of the nation, would be neglected. All would want easy, clean jobs. Bootblacks might prefer to become artistic decorators; street-cleaners would ask to be put in charge of big factories; night-workers would prefer day-work. The result would be endless discontent, jealousy and disorder. As everybody would receive equal recompense, the system would set a premium on sloth and inefficiency, and entail state bankruptcy. One of the most serious objections would be the discontent among skilled workingmen, who would want skill to be a determining factor in the wage scale. Yet should their system of equal remuneration not prevail, unskilled laborers, led by agitators to believe that equal wages would be paid to all, would become the sworn enemies of the government. A second system, favored by many Socialists would permit all citizens to choose their occupations and allow each individual to draw upon the national storehouses according to his needs. [Gotha Programme of the Socialists of Germany.]

This scheme, like the first, is absolutely absurd. It would permit all to demand more than they needed, would encourage sloth, would bankrupt the state, and would occasion discontent among skilled workingmen. Under this system, too, the entire population would neglect the more distasteful occupations, and ill-feeling and jealousy would arise in the hearts of those failing to obtain congenial positions.

As diligence should be a determining factor in the arrangement of the wage scale, in considering the remaining systems we shall assume that the wages are those for men whose diligence may be termed first class.

Many Socialists, foreseeing the evils of a mad rush to obtain the attractive positions, yet realizing how intolerable it would be for the state to drive its citizens into uncongenial occupations, have endeavored to find a way out. Several solutions have been proposed, among which is the one we shall call the third system.

In the third system, occupations may be chosen by those qualified to do the work. The recompense would be the same for all, but with the hours of toil lessened in proportion to the disagreeableness of the work. ["Looking Backward," by Bellamy, Chapter 7, Social Democratic Publishing Company of Milwaukee.] But such a system would give more reason than ever for jealousy and discontent on the part of skilled workingmen, who would be terribly incensed at seeing street cleaners and garbage collectors for example receive salaries equal to their own and at the same time enjoy shorter hours. This system would put a premium on such occupations as sewer-cleaning and dish-washing, and would discourage persons from pursuing occupations of the highest importance to the country.

Morris Hillquit, writing in "Everybody's," December, 1913, page 826, tells us that "the national government might well own and operate all means of interstate transportations and communication, such as railroad systems, telegraph and telephone lines; all sources of general and national wealth, such as mines, forests, oil-wells; and all monopolized or trustified industries already organized on a basis of national operation.

"Similarly the state government might assume the few industries confined within state limits; while the municipal government would logically undertake the management of the much wider range of peculiarly local business, such as street transportation and the supply of water, light, heat and power.

"Still other local industries, too insignificant or unorganized even for municipal operation, might be left to voluntary co-operative enterprises."

On page 829 of the same issue of "Everybody's," Hillquit adds that "under a system of Socialism each worker will be a partner in the industrial enterprise in which he will be employed, sharing in its prosperity and losses alike."

At first sight this fourth plan seems attractive, but upon examination we notice that nothing is said as to how the millions of persons to be employed by the national, state or municipal governments will be assigned to the different enterprises. Will the people be forced to labor at repugnant tasks? That will make endless turmoil and trouble in the Marxian state. But if all persons enjoy equal rights under the Socialist government there would be a grand rush for the most congenial occupations, and especially for the most lucrative. The result would be an immense amount of discontent and jealousy in those who failed to secure the positions they desired. True, these objections might not hold for well-to-do persons like Hillquit, founder of the "New York Call," for he and other Socialist politicians who have become wealthy by always remaining leaders of their dues-paying comrades might, perhaps, invest their money in co-operative enterprises. But such persons constitute only a small part of the population of the country.

The many objections brought against these four systems could not be obviated by the adoption of a fifth, in which all would be free to choose their occupations, and would for the same number of hours of work receive as recompense an amount determined by all the factors which should be taken into consideration, such as skill, the physical difficulty of the labor, danger, disagreeableness of the work and the increased value added to the raw material.

In trying to arrange the details of such a system, innumerable difficulties would arise. Unskilled laborers would want physical labor rather than skill or talent made the principal factor in determining the scale; for they would recall the promises of Socialist orators that in the new state all should enjoy equal rights, and they would consider it a grave injustice to work as hard or even harder than skilled laborers and yet receive lower wages through want of skill and talent due to no fault of theirs. Should the plea of these millions of unskilled laborers go unheeded, the new state could count them among its most bitter enemies.

On the other hand, skilled laborers would want skill and talent to be the main factors in determining wages, arguing that they had worked hard to become proficient and that their talent and skill made the work more valuable to the state. They would protest that they should not suffer simply because unskilled laborers lacked their skill and talent. Should the skilled workingmen not be heard, the new state would have another throng of enemies.

Compromises might be attempted by different adjustments of talent and skill to physical labor in determining the wage schedule; but in each case the new regime would only be at the beginning of troubles. What bitter disputes among the skilled workingmen in different trades! There would be conflicting views of every sort regarding the exact amount of skill and of physical labor required in the different trades, and regarding the difficulties, disagreeableness of work, dangers to health and life, and increased value added to the raw material in each line.

But what would happen even if the ship of state under the red flag and its mast could weather the wage-storm and come safely into port with some working system?

The people, we are told, would enjoy equal rights. The government could not refuse to grant work to any qualified person applying for it. Suppose the members of some trade, the carpenters, for example, displeased with the wages they were getting, should apply for other work and stick to it until the government was forced to grant their demands. Other craftsmen, seeing how easily the carpenters had won their strike, would imitate their example. Thus would occur derangements of the intricate wage scale--which had occupied the attention of the country for so long a time and been adopted only after the greatest difficulty--causing great discontent and jealousy, while the economic losses through successful strikes would raise the prices of commodities, bringing on a general fever of discontent.

A further source of trouble would be the problem of determining what wages should be paid to shirkers and those incapable of working with efficiency. Would wage courts decide the value of their services? If so, how many thousands of such courts would be required? If not, would state officials or politicians decide the cases? The wages of such persons, no matter how determined, would cause discontent.

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine justly and accurately the wages of eminent specialists, physicians and persons whose important services the state could not afford to lose. If very high wages were awarded them, the poorer classes would take offence at the prospect of a rich class once more rising with power to suppress them, as many do at the present time. If low wages were paid to eminent specialists, they would neglect important pursuits and vocations to the detriment of the nation's welfare. Even if they received moderately high wages, other persons of the same profession would become offended at the government's refusal to grant them like salaries and would line up with the enemies of the Socialist state.

Even under the most favorable circumstances, the fifth wage-system would produce two classes, the comparatively rich, and the comparatively poor, a condition repugnant to Socialists.

The forcing of women to work, in accordance with Socialistic doctrines, would arouse opposition to the new government. The husbands, fathers and sons of the women would be displeased with the wretched way in which their homes would be kept and their meals prepared.

A further source of tremendous discontent in the Socialist state would be the prevalence14 of political corruption to a far greater extent than under the present system. For there would be a far greater throng of state employes than now, and there would be an immense number of people trying to get permissions, privileges and exemptions of every description. With human nature unchanged, but with the opportunities for deals and bribery greatly multiplied, political corruption would greatly increase.

Another important cause would be in operation. Socialism is spreading anti-religious and atheistic doctrines, loosing men and women from their moral restraints. With dishonesty thus increasing, acceptors of bribes would not only be more common in the Marxian state, but the average number of their offences would increase; for since opportunities of collecting large single sums would be rarer than at present, owing to abolition of the capitalist system and the small amount of wealth possessed by individuals, dishonest politicians would naturally endeavor to enrich themselves by granting corrupt favors to a larger number of people. The reader himself can picture the condition of affairs in the Socialist state when large numbers of its citizens were its declared enemies because of a vast and hopeless system of political corruption.

The Socialist state would contain many persons who by soapbox orators and revolutionary authors were led to believe that police, soldiers and courts would disappear. These persons would be greatly discontented when the Socialist government still hedged them in by retaining the old system for the preservation of law and order, or, as in Russia, greatly increased the restraint on their liberty by means of immense numbers of Red Guards, heavily armed and noted for cruelty. Or if these were taken away, the state would feel the enmity of all its better citizens who realized the need for guardians, police, soldiers and courts, to protect them from the crimes of the lawless.

Under the Socialist regime there would be atheists, fighting as in Russia, Mexico, France, Italy and Portugal for the propagation of their doctrines, while in opposition to them would be millions of believers, defending themselves from the attacks of the enemies of God. Any concession granted by the state to one of these parties would arouse the enmity of the other.

So, too, there would be a rapidly growing faction in favor of free-love, as well as one opposed to it, and as each party would be extremely powerful, and use every effort to defeat its opponents, there would be great strife and discontent.

The Socialists in power in Europe, whether "moderate" or extremely radical, have made millions of enemies by imprisonments, executions, suppression of free speech, the gagging of the press, the withholding food, etc. Would these things happen in our country if the Reds gained control?

There is every reason to believe that the Socialist Government would become exceedingly unpopular here as in Russia, owing to a great increase in crime; for to say nothing of the criminal offences occasioned by the prevalent discontent of the citizens, the atheistical and anti-religious doctrines of the Revolutionists, by continuing to undermine the faith of the people in the existence of God and by leading them to disbelieve in the rewards of heaven and the punishments of hell, would very seriously interfere with the beneficent effects of several of the most excellent preventives of crime.

With discontent, jealousy and crime reigning supreme in the state from its very birth, many who had hoped for the success of Socialism would become utterly disgusted with its absolute failure and would long for the re-establishment of the old order. As the leaders of the Marxian movement now make the most extravagant promises concerning perfections of their prospective state, their government, should it come, would suffer the hatred of all who discovered that they had been cruelly deceived.

We must remember, too, that the very persons who would discover that they had been deceived by their Socialist teachers would be the very same people who are now taught by the same teachers to find fault with everything under the sun. It would, therefore, be a terrible day for the new state when the embittered rank and file of the Revolutionary Party fully realized the total failure of Socialism. The Socialist state would then have millions of enemies, recruited from the Socialist Party itself, as well as from the ranks of those who had always opposed Socialism.

Not alone would these enemies be far more numerous than those who oppose our present form of government, but their wrath and anger, wrought to fever heat by the many causes we have enumerated, as well as by the mistakes of the Marxian rulers, would urge them to commit deeds of violence that have never yet been conceived even by the "bomb squad" of the revolutionary I. W. W. Rebellion against the new government would be the order of the day, and the Socialist state would not long endure. It would crumble to pieces, and the poor workingman, in the midst of anarchy and the total destruction of industry, would deeply regret having listened to the crazed imaginations of silver-tongued fanatics.

Lincoln Eyre's cables from Russia, received by the "New York World" when this book was in type, more than corroborate the picture drawn in this chapter of the "perils to workingmen" from any attempt to put the economic fallacies of Socialism into practice. In the first place, according to Eyre's cable of February 26, 1920, printed in the "World" of February 28, 1920, all the blood and violence inflicted on Russia have failed to establish real Communism there. Through courtesy of the "World" we give, in part, Eyre's statement as to this, from the cable just mentioned:

"In wartime France, England or Germany no man could obtain for love or money more than a specified maximum of food, fuel or the household requirements. In wartime revolutionary Russia, ruled by a communist dictatorship, any man with enough thousand ruble notes can buy all the food and warmth he desires. Throughout the war dwellers in London, Paris or Berlin affected by war conditions (and that meant practically everybody) were freed of paying rent by a moratorium. Residents of Moscow and Petrograd are still obliged to pay rent and at a higher figure than in pre-war days. These two incontrovertible facts are evidence that an all-powerful Bolshevik in the Communist Government has in two years installed a lesser measure of Communism in actual practice than existed in the belligerent European countries during the war years. To my mind this is one of the severest, albeit the most rarely mentioned, indictments of the Bolsheviks' vast communistic programme, since it reveals their impotency to attain their initial aim--the abolition of classes."

In the second place, not alone has there been failure to destroy capitalism and equalize possessions, but new class distinctions and "new aristocracies" have arisen. We quote Eyre on this point from the same issue of the "World," February 28, 1920:

"While capitalism in the larger sense of the term has been destroyed, together with private ownership on a large scale, capital continues to be accumulated and to make its influence felt. One man may still possess more than another in worldly goods and receive higher pay for his work. Equality of material possessions is as non-existent in the Russian social republic as it is in the American 'bourgeois' republic. Hence there are coming into existence new groupings of Russian population, new lines of economic demarcation, new forms of social standing and of wealth. The beginning of two new aristocracies are detectable. One is found in the governmental hierarchy, the other in the ever-increasing speculator class.... The Soviets ... cannot do without the speculators (which means all persons engaged in private trading)."

Thirdly, "Communist" Russia already has her "ruling class," as privileged and as distinctly marked off from the ordinary day-laborer as in any "bourgeois" republic. We quote Eyre as to this from the same article:

"Governmental aristocracy has its boots imbedded in the Kremlin, that ancient Moscow citadel.... In Soviet Russia today one speaks of the Kremlin as one spoke of Versailles in the magnificent days of Louis XIV.... Only the most eminent commissaries of the people and a few other Soviet stars of the first magnitude are domiciled there in the grandiose palaces that once housed the most famous figures of Muscovite history.

"Protected behind numerous barriers of bayonets and machine guns, the Bolshevik chieftains have made this barbarically gorgeous nesting place of Oriental autocracy the throbbing nerve centre of world revolution.... And from its frowning gates they sally forth in their high power limousines on affairs of state even as the Czars in their day went forth to superintend the administration of their colossal heritage.

"Bolshevism's upper ten are in the Kremlin. The lesser lights of the Bolshevik aristocracy must content themselves with quarters in the 'Soviet houses,' which were the city's leading hotels, and are now nationalized habitations reserved for prominent Soviet officials. These buildings, like the Kremlin, are better heated and generally cared for than most other domiciles and the food served in them is slightly more abundant. Sentries guard the doors to prevent unauthorized visitors from gaining admission....

"The fact that some individuals ride to the opera in limousines while the rest walk is necessarily productive of class division. Already there is a slang term for the former--the proletarian bourgeoisie, they are called."

The observant reader will also have gathered from the extract just given that, fourthly, the "ruling class" of Communist Russia is much more distrustful of the "common people" than any class in the United States, Great Britain or France would think of being. Thus the lords and lordlings of the "proletarian dictatorship" barricade themselves in "citadels," behind "barriers of bayonets and machine guns," while "sentries guard the doors" to keep out "visitors." What would we poor "bourgeois" Americans think if our wealthier inhabitants and public officials kept "common citizens" out of range by such a display of infantry and artillery?

Fifthly, despite all the gush about a "workingmen's" republic in Russia, that country is now absolutely helpless under the yoke of the most absolute autocracy the world has seen in a long while. As to this we quote Lincoln Eyre's cable, dated February 25, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920. Eyre says:

"Lenine ... and Trotzky ... wield a more absolute power than any Czar.... They are the only really strong men detectable among the Bolsheviki or anywhere else in Russia. That their strength is greater than ever is demonstrated by the amazing program for the militarization of labor that they have just entered upon; a programme which when first proposed aroused the Communist Party's instant antagonism, but which in a few days the dictators easily persuaded their disciples to support."

We shall return to this astounding conscription of labor a little further on. It is referred to here merely to show who actually does the "ruling" in the widely advertised "labor" government of Russia. Eyre continues:

"There is iron law and order all over Russia, neither anarchy nor chaos being visible.... With the recent abolition of the death penalty the Red terror, long since bleached to pale pink, came to a definite end. Such is the omnipotence of the Soviets that it is no longer necessary for them to terrorize their opponents into obedience."

Thus horrible butcheries are no longer necessary because no one longer dares to resist. All liberty, all self-government, all self-initiative have been crushed in the iron vise of dictated policy. This is the case, as Eyre says, "twenty-seven months after the social revolution gripped the nation in a clutch of steel that never has been relaxed since." Is not such mental, moral and spiritual death a greater calamity than physical death?

Sixthly, the common people, crushed under this experimental Socialist Juggernaut, are starving to death. In the article last cited, in the "World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:

"The food problem is hideously acute, yet not quite so critical as at the outset of the winter. In Moscow, Petrograd and other industrial centres some 8,000,000 human beings, of whom only a tiny fraction are Bolsheviki, are slowly but surely starving to death. There are abundant food stocks in the south and east, but they cannot be carried in sufficient quantity over the semi-paralyzed railroads....

"Trotzky himself defined the industrial situation as a race between economic reconstruction and reversion to savagery."

Seventhly, craving for food is one of the things which make it impossible to shut out the food speculator, whose extortion at least helps to prolong life. As Eyre says:

"City and country food speculation, which the dictatorship thus far confesses its inability to suppress or even control, is fast developing a new capitalist class right under the Communists' noses. One of the most painful sights in Russia is some pale, thin, tottering old woman paying out more than she earns in a week for a few lumps of sugar bought from a well-fed trader from the country in the Sukfarevka, Moscow's open air market place."

Eighthly, the common people are nearly as cold as they are hungry. In the cable printed in the "World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:

"Fuel is slightly less scarce than it was two months ago. The lack of heat, however, is helping the food shortage to increase the mortality rate, which is likely to attain 30 per cent in Moscow before spring."

In the ninth place, disease stalks through the land, hand in hand with cold and famine. The article just cited contains the following by Eyre:

"Disease is rampant, and the typhus epidemic in Siberia, where Kolchak left many tens of thousands of victims behind him in his retreat, is spreading swiftly westward. Owing to the absence of medical supplies, the epidemic can be combated only by quarantine."

In the tenth place, "labor" in Russia, the real "working class," is conscripted, enslaved under military discipline, and "exploited" under an incredible system of military court martial--a degradation of workingmen by the Socialist tyrants of Russia which no form of modern "capitalism" has dreamed of since human slavery was abolished. On this subject Eyre says, in the "World" of February 27, 1920:

"Four of Trotzky's sixteen armies have been turned into 'labor armies,' which means that soldiers fresh from victories on military fronts are being obliged to work, still under military command and discipline, on the 'economic front.' They are used chiefly for building up the transport system and assuring shipment of food and fuel from the country to the city....

"Labor generally is being militarized to an amazing extent. Discipline is being imposed upon factory workers by the establishment of special tribunals with powers of courts martial. Communist commissaries, no longer required at the front, are being detached from their regiments and sent to stimulate production endeavor in industries and railroads."

Is this the kind of thing which Hillquit's Socialist gang of would-be labor "exploiters" would lure America's liberty-loving workingmen into by calling them "slaves" in their present dignified situation as self-governed and self-reliant freemen? On December 13, 1919, the presidents and secretaries of the 113 national and international unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor met at Washington, D. C., with the heads of the four railway brotherhoods and several farmers' organizations, and are to be congratulated for having passed the following resolution, which the late information from Russia overwhelmingly vindicates:

"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is an American institution, believing in American principles and ideas, and

"Whereas, an attempt is being made to inject the spirit of Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism into the affairs of the American Federation of Labor, and

"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is opposed to Bolshevism, I. W. W.'ism and the irresponsible leadership which encouraged such a policy, therefore be it

"Resolved, that the conference of representatives of trades unions affiliated with the A. F. of L., and other organizations associated in this conference, repudiate and condemn the policy of Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism as being destructive of American ideals and impracticable in application; be it further

"Resolved, that this conference reiterate the action of the conventions of the American Federation of Labor, and the advocacy of the principles of conciliation and voluntary arbitration and collective bargaining."

We cite this here to put the freedom of self-determination, practiced by the great progressive body of American labor, in vivid contrast with the abject slavery which the Socialists of Russia are now imposing upon the labor of that country. Lincoln Eyre's statement of the labor situation in Russia is confirmed by Trotzky himself, as we learn from the "New York World" of February 28, 1920, as follows:

"London, February 27.--Leon Trotzky, Minister of War of Soviet Russia, addressing the third Russian Congress, held in Moscow January 25 last, outlined the Bolshevist plan for converting the Red Army into an army of labor. According to reports of his speech reaching here he said:

"'There is still one way open to the reorganization of national economy--the way of uniting the army and labor and changing the military detachments of the army into detachments of a labor army.

"'Many in the army have already accomplished their military task but they cannot be demobilized as yet. Now that they have been released from their military duties, they must fight against economic ruin and against hunger; they must work to obtain fuel, peat and other heat-producing products; they must take part in building, in clearing the lines of snow, in repairing roads, building sheds, grinding flour, etc.

"'We have already organized several of these armies and they have been allotted their tasks. One army must obtain foodstuffs for the workmen of the districts in which it was formerly stationed and it also will cut wood, cart it to the railways and repair engines. Another army will help in the laying down of railway lines for the transport of crude oil. A third labor army will be used in repairing agricultural implements and machines, and, in the spring, will take part in the working of the land....

"'Trade unions must register qualified workmen in the villages. Only in those localities where trade union methods are inadequate other methods must be introduced, in particular that of compulsion, because labor conscription gives the state the right to tell the qualified workmen who is employed on some unimportant work in his village, "You are obliged to leave your present employment and go to Sormovo or Kolomna, because there your work is required."

"'Labor conscription means that the qualified workmen who leave the army must proceed to places where they are required, where their presence is necessary to the economic system of the country. We must feed these workmen and guarantee them the minimum food ration.'"

No doubt these "qualified workmen" are what we call "skilled workmen." Here we have, in its naked reality, the "deliverance" from "wage-slavery" which the crazy Socialists of all schools have so long been preaching to the laboring freemen of America. How would the millions of labor's noblemen in the American Federation of Labor like to see Debs, Hillquit and Victor L. Berger cracking the whip over them after the fashion of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff in Russia?

Notice the "capitalistic" language of Trotzky: "We"--the tyrannical, exploiting drones in the Kremlin--"must feed these workmen and guarantee them the minimum food ration." Do not the "workmen" produce the food? Then why do they not take it and cut the throats of these drones? Is not this the Socialist doctrine we are taught by our American theorists, who froth at the mouth over the alleged "wage-slavery" of American workmen who rear intelligent families in comfortable homes and maintain the independence and self-initiative of American freemen?

In the eleventh place, we notice that the workmen of Russia, as a reward for complete slavery under military conscription and courts martial tribunals, are guaranteed nothing but this "minimum food ration" and a possibility of being able to buy enough additional food out of their wages to postpone starvation. The last-mentioned possibility is described for us by Lincoln Eyre in his cable in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920, where, it must be remembered, he is speaking of the most-favored workmen, in the big cities. He says:

"Nobody in Russia relying wholly upon 'Sovietsky' food--food handed out through official agencies--gets enough to eat except soldiers, a small percentage of heavy workers and high Soviet officials. Ordinary factory workers seldom receive as much as 60 per cent of their alimentary requirements through the Government. The remainder they must buy at fantastically high prices from speculators. And though they themselves, in collaboration with central dictatorship, fix their own wages, they never earn enough to cover the swift-climbing cost of living. If this is the plight of the workers, that is, of the ruling class, the ghastliness of the situation confronting the less favored elements of the population may well be imagined."

Is it in irony that Eyre speaks of these "workers" as "the ruling class"? What are the real workmen in Russia but victims of this cruel experiment of tyrannizing Socialist "intellectuals"?

We remark next, in the twelfth place, that the Soviet system of food distribution, wholly unequal and thus anti-communistic, has resulted in dividing the Russians into eight classes, each category having a special card defining its special ration. The account of this is given by Lincoln Eyre in a cable dated March 9, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of March 10, 1920, from which we take two sentences:

"The commissariat of food control has gradually built up no less than eight distinct classes.... Special cards also are provided for children from one, two to five and from five to sixteen. It will be seen that this totals eight distinct varieties of card."

The affect of these distinctions may be gathered from the following instance given in the article just cited:

"In the month of November there was distributed by the Petrograd Soviet altogether 13,631,480 pounds of bread.... Had all the bread been divided evenly among the whole population, each person would have had about one-half a pound a a day, whereas, in fact, one category got much less than that amount daily and the third category none at all."

In the thirteenth place, we note that the Russian Socialist tyrants give the workmen, in exchange for their labor, pieces of paper run off from printing presses which seem almost to have solved the problem of perpetual motion. The workmen are wise if they spend this fiat money daily for whatever it will bring in food, for its value will collapse utterly when the dictatorship bursts, leaving the country financially prostrate, without credit or means of exchange. This is one of the greatest bunco games ever practiced upon workingmen. Eyre describes it in a cable dated March 3, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of March 4, 1920, from which we quote:

"In 'the Socialist Federative Republic of Soviets of Russia,' to give the Bolshevik land its official title, no mention has been made of finance. The reason for this is simple. There is no finance, in the European or American sense of the word, in present Russia. The Soviet Government pays its own people what it has to pay in paper money, of which it prints unlimited quantities. Being determined eventually to abolish money altogether in favor of Communistic exchange of products, it is not worried about depreciation in the value of its currency. It possesses about 1,000,000,000 rubles--the exact amount is kept very secret--in gold, with which it intends to pay for goods purchased abroad until it can establish a system of barter with foreign commercial interests. From the capitalistic viewpoint its budgetary expenditures are chaotic, but in Communistic eyes they are both sane and logical."

Only to minds financially insane or criminally degenerate could such a system seem "sane and logical." Their carefully kept store of gold shows that the Bolshevist dictators are not insane but criminal. They understand their game, which is that of bunco-steering to "exploit" labor on the largest scale the world has ever seen. Honest paper money is a promise to pay, for value received, in gold, silver or good merchandise. If this form is used by these frauds, it is with the deliberate intention of repudiation, the possibility of payment being also destroyed by the floods of the stuff turned out. If the paper given is not a promise to pay, it is circulated simply through the tyranny of men who by threat of punishment or starvation force workingmen to exchange a day's labor for a bit of food and a piece of paper. In either case the labor exploiters in the Kremlin exact from Russia's workingmen, in exchange for a little food and a wad of paper, a genuine value, the product of hard labor, which these get-rich-quick Wallingfords can turn into gold, or exchange with the world for anything they want. All that Russian workingmen get is semi-starvation and the temporary delusion, conveyed to them in fine speeches, that they are "in the game," whereas they are only its dupes.

The worthless character of the paper money, which the workmen nevertheless have to take and spend to keep soul and body together, is shown by the fact that the peasants refuse it. In his cable printed in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says that "the peasant twenty miles outside of Moscow ... has more food than he can eat, more clothes than he can wear," yet "refuses to sell his products for money except that proportion of them that he is compelled to turn over to the Soviets at a fixed price. In private trading," Eyre continues, "he will take in exchange for his foodstuffs only manufactured articles, clothing and other things he needs." Thus the peasant is fortunate in that he lives on land where he can at least raise enough to eat; whereas the "proletarian," in whose behalf the Socialists pretend to have made the Russian revolution, is most of all victimized by it.

The reason why the Bolshevist dictators are now conscripting Russian labor seems evident. These pick-pockets have finished exploiting the Russian aristocracy and "bourgeoisie," squeezed them dry, and squandered what they stole. The only game left to them now is to exploit labor to the limit and appropriate the profits.

Two other features of this thimble-rigging arrangement complete the exposure of the most inhuman scheme to exploit labor which the world has seen for centuries. One of these shows us, in the fourteenth place, that the rascals Lenine and Trotzky, are actually inviting "foreign capital" to form a partnership with them in their exploitation of Russian labor, under promise to turn over to this outside "capital" a good share of the "profits" to be wrung by labor conscription out of the sweat of Russia's brow.

The invitation to "foreign capital" to join hands with the Bolshevist dictatorship, under promise of good profits and guarantees of security was made by both Lenine and Trotzky through interviews granted to Lincoln Eyre. Through courtesy of the "New York World" we have quoted the propositions of these "friends" of Russian labor near the close of Chapter XV of this book, as the reader doubtless remembers, and we merely recall the facts here to put them in line with the other features of Bolshevist labor oppression which we have just been considering. Who could have imagined that within a little more than two years after beginning their barbarous Socialist experiment with Russian industries the brazen dictatorship would be urging "foreign capital" to join in a scheme to squeeze both a domestic and a foreign profit out of the toil of Russian workingmen conscripted by Socialist task-masters and held in wage-slavery under fear of death by court martial?

In the fifteenth place, we have the dreadful fact that Russian labor is enslaved by a Socialist autocracy not for the sake of promoting peace but for the sake of promoting war. In our last chapter we quoted the statements of Zinovieff to Lincoln Eyre that the Third Internationale would never give up its purpose to make the whole world Bolshevist. Eyre also found the belief general in Russia that so long as the Socialists retain power, any peace made by them with the outside world will only be a short truce in which to prepare for another war. He says, in his cable printed in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920:

"All, Bolsheviki included, feel that as long as the Soviets remain in power in Russia and Bolshevism does not spread to other lands, peace cannot be more than a truce in the international class warfare."

Again, in his cable printed in the "New York World" of March 4, 1920, Lincoln Eyre says:

"The Red Army's victories against Kolchak, Yudenitch and Denikine are in themselves paradoxical, in that they serve to increase the Russian need for peace.... Every advance recorded in Siberia or the Crimea brings the front line further from the base and complicates the task of supplying munitions, food and equipment. Thus it becomes increasingly evident to all Russians, whatever their political leanings may be, that Russia must have peace in order to survive economically. And yet--another paradox--all feel that any peace established now between Soviet authority and Governments of the bourgeois and democratics cannot be more than a brief truce because Socialism and capitalism cannot abide side by side, and because neither can be suppressed without warfare. The Bolshevik faith in the ultimate appearance of a world revolution has not waned, but their hope of its speedy coming has lessened considerably."

Who but the long-suffering Russians would endure the hopeless fate imposed by Socialism on Russian labor? The workingmen were conscripted by Trotzky's armies. They won victories, but these have not freed them. Returning from the front they are conscripted for labor armies, to work as they fought, under military discipline, subject to court martial and death if they rebel. Yet this military toil will not free them. They slave under the pistols of the commissaries only to get themselves economically equipped for a new war against their "capitalistic" neighbors, and in this war the workingman, if he can still walk, will be conscripted to go to the front again. Should he survive this, must he begin the same round over again?

But why not strike against this slavery? Russian labor does not dare to strike. Tender-hearted Socialism has made the labor strike a crime in Russia. Says Lincoln Eyre, in a cable dated March 11, 1920, and printed in the "New York World" of March 13, 1920:

"The unions, of course, lost their former principal weapon--the strike. Today any body of workers that would venture out on strike would be considered, to quote President Melnitchansky of the Moscow unions, as traitors to their Socialist fatherland and as such would doubtless be shot."

With this utter collapse of Socialist theories and professions in Bolshevikiland, we need not wonder that, according to a cable in the "New York Times" of March 2, 1920, the French National Socialist Congress adjourned at Strasbourg, March 1, 1920, "after voting down by more than 2 to 1 a motion to ally the Socialists of France with Lenine and Trotzky." According to the same cable, "The pleaders for the Third Internationale, formed at Moscow, were answered by the reply that the beautiful doctrines enunciated there had been thrown aside by Lenine and Trotzky and that any one who believed in real Socialism would be a fool to get behind the leaders of Soviet Russia."

Is it now in order for our American Bolshevists, Gene Debs, Morris Hillquit (alias Hilkovitz) and Vic Berger, solemnly to inform us that Russian Bolshevism never was Socialism, nor anything like it, but only a base counterfeit? And will they also inform us that Lenine and Trotzky are unprincipled adventurers and cold-blooded blackguards who have hidden behind the mask of Socialism to blackjack a great people and filch a wealth they never did a day's work to accumulate?

When our American wavers of the Red Flag try to hide their shipwrecked theories behind a repudiation of Bolshevikiland, we shall have to remind them of their many, many utterances jubilantly assuring us that "Bolshevism is Socialism in practice." A specimen will do, taken from one of the books published by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, a "part of the Socialist Party" of the United States piloted by Debs, Hilkovitz and Berger, which we quote as cited on page 34 of the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee" of the New York Assembly:

"Bolshevism is not a new Socialist theory, but the practical carrying out in life of the old Socialist theory.

"Bolshevism especially is not a theory. Bolshevism is a method of how to establish Socialism in life.

"Bolshevism is practical Socialism, the Socialism of today, and not of the remote future day."



It is but proper to begin this chapter by conceding that there are many church-going members among those who vote the Marxian ticket--not as an indorsement of the teachings of international Socialism, but merely as a protest against political corruption and the abuses of capitalism. Justice, moreover, demands that we acknowledge the existence of a small minority of dues-paying members of the Socialist Party who neither attack religion nor tacitly approve of the atheistic propaganda carried on in the official Marxian press, as well as in the books, pamphlets and magazines on sale not only in the leading Socialist book-stores of America, but even at the National Office of the party in Chicago.

In most countries of Europe, where the war against religion is much more open and widespread than in America, the Socialists are frank in confessing that their movement is atheistic and anti-religious.

In our own country some of the more violent Socialistic enemies of the church admit both in their speeches and in their writings that they would be extremely happy to see the very idea of God become a matter of ancient history. Christian Socialists of the old Carr faction, who constitute a minority of far less than one per cent of the Socialist Party of the United States, have not only conceded the existence of an atheistic propaganda within the ranks, but have attacked it and utterly failed to suppress it.

Apart from these two classes of American Socialists, who admit the existence of a campaign in favor of atheism, most Socialists in our country, because they fear that votes will be lost if our people are convinced of the anti-religious character of the party, steadfastly deny that they are conspiring against religion. Indeed they are quite cunning and crafty in their effort to beguile the unwary. If the person hesitates joining the party, owing to his conviction that nearly all the Socialist leaders have been the enemies of religion, he is informed that it would be just as foolish for him not to be a Revolutionist for this reason, as it would be for one not to become a Republican because Robert Ingersoll did not believe in God and even propagated atheism.

As the conspirators against religion have, by this plausible argument, involving the name of Ingersoll, removed the prejudices that many persons formerly had against Socialism on account of the atheistic teachings of its leaders, it seems but fitting to give a short refutation of the deceptive argument and to point out the absurdity of the comparison just mentioned.

In the first place, although Robert Ingersoll was an atheist, he never stated that Republicanism was anti-religious. On the other hand, very many of the highest authorities in the Marxian Party, whose extensive knowledge of Socialism justifies our belief that they know but too well the policy of the revolutionary movement, admit that Socialism postulates atheism and war against religious beliefs. Ingersoll, moreover, never attacked religion nor taught atheism with a view to furthering the cause of Republicanism. But a very large number of the Socialists, whether Europeans or Americans, in their endeavor to promote what they consider to be the best interests of their party, have in their books, magazines, pamphlets and papers been waging a relentless war against religion. The atheistical works of Robert Ingersoll were not purchased by the rank and file of the Republican Party for purposes of party propaganda, but the rank and file of the Revolutionary Party spend large sums of money on publications in which their avowed leaders teach atheism as part of the Socialist program. Not content even with this, the members do their utmost to increase the circulation of anti-religious Socialist books, magazines, pamphlets and papers.

Before producing the evidence that will convict the Socialist leaders and the rank and file of the party of openly advocating atheism and hostility to religion, or at least of tacitly approving of such a propaganda, a few words must be said relative to the materialistic conception of history, or of economic determinism, as it is often called. According to this doctrine, which is one of the fundamental teachings of the Socialists, the whole history of mankind, including its political, intellectual and religious development, is nothing more than a process of evolution, the guiding principle of which is the prevailing economic conditions and their resultant class struggles. Consequently, the Socialists who believe this doctrine deny the intervention of God in the development and spread of the Christian religion; for economic determinism teaches that the development of the church is not the work of Divine Providence, but of the economic conditions and class struggles of society.

W. D. P. Bliss, the Socialist editor of the "New Encyclopedia of Social Reform," in an article on page 1135 of his work, admits that it is perfectly true that the large majority of avowed Socialists are divorced from recognized religion and the church, and that this leads many of them to extreme radicalism on all questions of ethics, money and the family.

Frederick Engels, one of the renowned founders of modern Socialism, taught that "nowadays in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a ruler." ("Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," by Frederick Engels, page 17 of the Introduction to the 1901 edition in English--New York Labor News Co.)

Wilhelm Liebknecht, who until shortly before his death in 1900 was one of the foremost leaders of the Socialist Party in Germany, addressing the Halle Convention, said: "As regards my own self, I had done with religion at an early age.... I am an atheist, I do not believe in God.... We may peacefully take our stand upon the ground of Socialism, and thus conquer the stupidity of the masses in so far as stupidity reveals itself in religious forms and dogmas." The same German Socialist and atheist taught in his book, "Materialist Basis of History":

"It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is anyone worthy the name, who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism."

August Bebel, who before his death in August, 1913, was the leader of the Socialists of Germany, gave many proofs of the intimate relation existing between Socialism and atheism. On September 16, 1878, he declared in the Reichstag:

"Gentlemen, you attack our views on religion because they are atheistic and materialistic. I acknowledge the correctness of the impeachment. I am firmly convinced that Socialism finally leads to atheism."

In the Reichstag, on December 31, 1881, he made the following profession of faith:

"In politics we profess Republicanism, in economics Socialism, in religion atheism."

According to the 1903 platform of the German Socialists, adopted at Dresden, "No religious instructions of any kind shall be given to children under the age of sixteen; after that they can select their own religious tenets and teachings, as they please. Superstitious religious notions that are current among the less educated classes are to be eradicated through proper instructions."

"The Comrade," September, 1904, confesses that the satirical weekly "L'Asino," published by the Socialists of Italy, and known throughout the world for its attacks on religion, carries on a bitter fight against the Catholic Church. In the early part of 1913, "L'Asino," speaking of the coming Italian election, boasted that the Socialists would proclaim their anti-clericalism and atheism in the public meetings.

The Austrian Socialists in convention at Linz, May 30, 1898, passed a resolution proposed by Pernerstorfer to the effect that "Socialism is directly contradictory to Roman clericalism, which is enslaved to unyielding authority, immutable dogmas, and absolute intellectual thralldom. We doubt all authority, we know of no immutable dogma, we are the champions of right, liberty and conscience." [Reported in "Vorwärts," 1898, no. 126, suppl.]

The bitter persecution that has for years been waged against the church in France is too well known to require much comment. The representatives of the French Socialist Party at Tours in March, 1903, voted upon a program from which several clauses will be cited:

"The Socialist Party needs to organize a new world, free minds emancipated from superstition and prejudices. It asks for and guarantees every human being, every individual, absolute freedom of thinking, and writing and affirming their beliefs. Over against all religious dogmas and churches as well as over against the class conceptions of the bourgeoisie, it sets the unlimited right of free thought, the scientific conception of the universe, and a system of public education based exclusively on science and reason. Thus accustomed to free thought and reflection, citizens will be protected against the sophistries of the capitalistic and clerical reaction." The program also declares for the "abolition of the congregations, nationalization of property in mortmain of every kind belonging to them, and appropriation of it for works of social insurance and solidarity."

In the Tours program, therefore, we have the open confession of the Socialist Party of France that it is anti-religious and that it favors the disgraceful robbery of the church that has for many years been going on in that country.

The Belgian Socialists are quite as violent as the French in their hatred of the church, for in addition to the large number of vile anti-religious pamphlets distributed during the campaign that preceded the elections of 1912, we have the testimony of no less an authority than the Socialist leader, Emile Vandervelde, in the "Social Democrat," England, January, 1903:

"In the end the question to be solved is: what is the essential aim of Socialism? There is not a Socialist who would hesitate to say that it is the emancipation of the workers, the freedom of the proletariat--and by this freedom we mean its complete freedom, the abolition of all slavery in the spiritual sphere as well as in the material sphere.... Can a sincere believer follow the church's teachings and yet be a Socialist? We are bound to admit that both in philosophy and in politics there must be war between Socialism and the Church."

In England, too, the Socialists are the avowed enemies of religion. Blatchford, who is well known to his comrades for his extreme work in propagating Socialism by the pen, wrote in the "Clarion," October 4, 1907:

"Believing that the Christian religion was untrue, and believing that all supernatural religions were inimical to human progress, and foreseeing that a conflict between Socialism and religion was inevitable, I attacked the Christian religion. I am working for Socialism when I attack religion which is hindering it."

Again in his book, "God and My Neighbor," Blatchford utters the following blasphemies:

"I am an easiful old pagan, and I am not angry with you at all--you funny little champion of the Most High....

"This is the God of Heaven? This is the Father of Christ? This is the Creator of the Milky Way? No! He will not do. He is not big enough. He is not good enough. He is not clean enough. He is a spiritual nightmare, a bad dream born in the savage minds of terror and ignorance and a tigerish lust for blood....

"Is this unspeakable monster the Father of Christ? Is he the God who inspireth Buddha and Shakespeare and Beethoven and Darwin and Plato? No, not he. But in warfare and massacre, in rapine and rape, in black revenge and in deadly malice, in slavery and polygamy, and the debasement of women, and in the pomps, vanities and greeds of royalty, of clericalism, and of usury and barter--we may easily discern the influence of his ferocious and abominable personality."

This book, which teaches atheism from cover to cover, could be bought for a dollar a copy in 1912 at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago, Ill. In the May, 1917, issue of the "International Socialist Review," "God and My Neighbor," by Blatchford, is thus advertised:

"Is the Bible true? This is the chief subject of debate today between Christians and Scientists the world over. Robert Blatchford says: 'Is the Bible a holy and inspired book and the Word of God to man, or is it an incongruous and contradictory collection of tribal tradition and ancient fables, written by men of genius and imaginations? Mr. Blatchford believes religions are not revealed, they are evolved.

"'We cannot accept as the God of Creation,' he writes, 'this savage idol, Jehovah, of an obscure tribe, and we have renounced him and are ashamed of him, not because of any later divine revelation, but because mankind have become too enlightened to tolerate Jehovah.'"

Ernest Bax, an Englishman, one of the greatest authorities in the world on Socialism, an author who, even in America, has been styled "the most accomplished writer on behalf of Socialism in this and perhaps in any country," in his book, "Religion of Socialism," thus testifies to the relation existing between Socialism and religion:

"In what sense Socialism is not religious will now be clear. It utterly despises the other world with all its stage properties--that is, the present objects of religion." ["Religion of Socialism," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 52 of 1891 edition.]

Who could imagine any more convincing testimony of the atheistic and anti-religious nature of the Socialist movement than the following words of the English Socialist, James Leathan, in "Socialism and Character":

"At the present moment I cannot remember a single instance of a person who is at one and the same time a really earnest and intelligent Socialist and an orthodox Christian. Those who do not openly attack the church and the fabric of Christianity, show but scant respect to either the one or the other in private.... And while all of us are thus indifferent to the church, many of us are frankly hostile to her. Marx, Lassalle and Engels among earlier Socialists; Morris, Bax, Hyndman, Guesde and Bebel among present-day Socialists--are all more or less avowed atheists; and what is true of the more notable men of the party is almost equally true of the rank and file the world over."

In 1910 a pamphlet entitled "Socialism and Religion" was issued by the Revolutionists of Great Britain. One quotation from it will amply suffice to show the utter contempt of the English15 Socialist for religion:

"If a man supports the church, or in any respect allows religious ideas to stand in the way of principles of Socialism, or activity of the party, he proves thereby that he does not accept Socialism as fundamentally true and of the first importance, and his place is outside. No man can be consistently both a Socialist and a Christian. It must either be the Socialist or the religious principle that is supreme, for the attempt to couple them equally together betrays charlatanism or lack of thought. There is, therefore, no need for a specifically anti-religious test. So surely does the acceptance of Socialism lead to the exclusion of the supernatural, that the Socialist has little need for such terms as atheist, freethinker or even materialist, for the word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who (on all such questions) takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation--Socialism being not merely a politico-economic creed, but an integral part of a consistent world philosophy."

"The Western Clarion," a publication of the Canadian Socialists, declared in its issue of May 23, 1914, that the Socialist Party of Canada would have "no compromise with advocates of Christianity."

Alvarado, the governor of Yucatan, and his criminal sustainers several years ago drove the clergy from the country, turned the churches into I. W. W. meeting houses, and turned some, as in the case of the Cathedral of Merida, even into warehouses. Religion was outlawed and an atheist tyranny established. Alvarado is an ardent I. W. W. Socialist of the most violent sort. His advent into Yucatan from the lawless northern part of Mexico was marked by wholesale confiscation of property, by robbery and outrage. His vile subordinates, of like origin with himself, committed loathsome crimes, unspeakable and without number, and no opportunity was overlooked to persecute the unhappy people whose accumulations by thrift and industry and whose steadfast adherence to their religion marked them as certain victims of robbery, murder and outrage.

"The Call," New York, April 9, 1919, informs us that the workers in Yucatan have elected a succession of Socialist governors, and in its issue of April 14, 1919, under the caption, "Up to the Minute Official Socialist News," we read the following:

"Felipe Carrillo, president of the Socialist Party of Yucatan, Mexico, spoke on conditions in Yucatan. Among other things he said: 'The Socialist Party of America should do everything possible against intervention in Mexico.... All the public officials, from the highest to the lowest, are members of the Socialist party.... There is no middle class in Yucatan.... The Socialist Party of Yucatan has been in power three years.'

"A rising vote was taken, expressing our fraternal greetings to Felipe Carrillo and the Comrades of Yucatan."

The April 9, 1919, issue of "The Call" informs us that Alvardo in 1915 organized the Socialist Party of Yucatan, 62,700 members of which belong to the League of Resistance, an organization which, we are told, is purely economic in its activities.

What a strange name for an economic league, especially in Mexico, where economics have for some years been taught by the torch, bomb, dagger!

The March, 1919, edition of "The Eye Opener," the official organ of the Socialist Party of the United States, throws a little light on this economic league of "the knights of the red flag." On page 4 of that issue we are told that among the principles of the League of Resistance are the following:

/P "The Land is Mother, and Labor is the Father of Humanity. Attack no one without motive, but never present the other cheek to any who has struck one. Fly from the religions, principally the Catholic religion, as from the plagues." P/

The article on the economic League of Resistance ends with the call of Yucatan to the rest of the continent: "Workers of the world, unite." Carillo is then quoted as saying:

"Never will labor conquer until it understands solidarity. Political action, economic action, perhaps military action--todos metodos necesitamos. En todas las epocas del mundo, rifley dynamita sean necesarios; pero siempre y sobre todo, solidaridad." The words, "rifley dynamita" mean nothing and are evidently a misprint for "rifle y dynamita." There was good reason for letting the words remain in the Spanish in the official organ of the Socialist Party of the United States, for if "rifle y dynamita" were the Spanish words meant, their translation would be:

"We need all means. In all periods of the world's history, the rifle and dynamite may be necessary, but always and above all solidarity."

So much for the economic League of Resistance of the Socialists of Yucatan, which has been destroying both religion and civilization alike! Carrillo, its president, has been greeted throughout our country by the Socialists, who have been extending their fraternal greetings also to the rest of their "Comrades in Yucatan."



Much more testimony than has already been given could easily be furnished for proving that the Socialist movement in foreign lands is atheistic and anti-religious, but as sufficient has been given, let us dwell more on the anti-religious activities of the Revolutionists in our own country.

In answer to a possible objection, namely, that the American Socialists should in no way be held responsible for the anti-religious and atheistic teachings of their comrades abroad, the attention of the reader is called to the fact that the Socialist movement is an international one, and that nearly all the Marxian leaders in Europe are considered by the American Socialists as first class authorities on Socialism. Moreover the books and writings of these foreign protagonists form a very considerable part of the Socialistic literature of the United States and are considered as standard works on the subject.

But in addition to the fact that the American Socialists thus share the responsibility of their European comrades, the Revolutionists of our own country will now come forward with more than enough testimony to prove that they are just as guilty as their foreign comrades of propagating atheistic and anti-religious doctrines.

Rev. William T. Brown, formerly the pastor of Plymouth Church, Rochester, New York, after becoming a Socialist, wrote the following in the May, 1902, number of "Wilshire's Magazine":

"For myself, I do not recognize any existing church or state as complete in itself or founded by God. There is absolutely nothing in church or state that cannot be traced to a perfectly natural origin.... Instead of the religious idea that God breathed into clay the breath of life, and so man came into existence in the image of God, we know beyond question that man's ancestors were animals, and he is the image of his animal parentage.... Singing hymns, saying prayers, learning catechism, attending the services of a place miscalled a sanctuary will do nothing whatever to effect the ends for which men are striving.... The church will attract its own, and the Socialist cause will draw those who belong to it. People who are interested in fossils and relics and curios will find a congenial place in the church as will also the ignorant and deluded masses."

George D. Herron, who, like William T. Brown, had once been a minister, on becoming a Socialist expressed his atheistic sentiments by writing in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, August, 1901:

"When the gods are dead to rise no more, man will begin to live. After the end of the gods, when there is nothing else to which we may turn, nothing left outside of ourselves, we shall turn to one another for fellowship, and behold! the heart of all worship is exposed and we have omnipotence in our hands....

"There will be no more priests, no rulers, no judges, when fellowship comes and the gods are gone. And when there are neither priests, nor rulers, nor judges, there will be no evil on earth, nor none called good, to stand over against others called evil."

John Spargo, a former Socialist of considerable renown in the United States, and until recently very popular with the party, speaking of education in "Socialism, A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles," touches upon the question of parochial schools in the Marxian commonwealth:

"Whether the Socialist regime could tolerate the existence of elementary schools other than its own, such as privately conducted kindergartens and schools, religious schools, and so on, is questionable. Probably not. It would probably not content itself with refusing to permit religious doctrines or ideas to be taught in its schools, but would go farther, and as the natural protector of the child, guard its independence of thought in later life as far as possible by forbidding religious teaching of any kind in schools for children up to a certain age....

"This restriction of religious education to the years of judgment and discretion implies no hostility to religion on the part of the state, but neutrality16." ["Socialism, A Summary and Interpretaion17 of Socialist Principles," by John Spargo, page 238 of 1906 edition.]

"The Call" does not fail to publish among its many poems those that are violently anti-religious. In confirmation of this we shall transcribe several, all of which furnish excellent proofs of the existence of the conspiracy against religion. The first poem that will be quoted appeared in the November 19, 1911, edition, and reads as follows:

/P "When all the choric peal shall end; That through the fanes hath rung; When the long lauds no more ascend From man's adoring tongue; When overwhelmed are altar, priest and creed; When all the faiths have passed; Perhaps from darkening incense freed, God may emerge at last." P/

The following poem, entitled, "To the Religionist," appeared on the same day:

/P "You bid us spare your vision; Put faith in a life after death, Strive on toward some realm Elysian And heed all that one Book saith.

"You will pray to a power celestial, To direct us in all our ways, Lest we fall to a region bestial And lose ourselves in its maze.

"You speak of the Crucifixion Of one on Calvary As if his benediction Was a rank monopoly.

"Shall we pray to a power not human For guidance miraculous When the nearest man or woman Will give help, and without that fuss?

"When the glorious future people Have realized our dream, Then the cross upon the steeple No longer shall blaspheme.

"The godhood of the lowly Their sacrifice unknown; Of the temple once held holy There shall not last one stone." P/

Only two stanzas of a poem which appeared in "The Call," March 17, 1912, are hereby given:

/P "The Gods are dead; Dead lies their Heaven, their Hell. The Gods are dead, With all their terrors! Well!

"Man now unmakes them, Who made them in his youth; He boldly breakes them With shattering blows of truth." P/

Editorials and articles attacking religion are of very common occurrence in "The Call." Several illustrations will suffice. In the May 1, 1912, edition we read:

"In our combat with the natural forces we have been taught by science to seek the cause and effect not in anything supernatural; we have gotten rid of superstition18 and fear of revengeful gods."

The following short article appeared on November 19, 1911, in the same paper:

"Our exploiters might as well understand now that we have no use for the distorted and mystical figure that they present as Christ, a conservative member of the Property Defence League, a thing neither man nor woman, but a third sex--not understood of us except as a rightful object of suspicion; we have no use for this rant, cant and fustian of his holiness and immaculate qualities. That presentation has always been repellent to us and always will be, no matter how much he may be proclaimed as the friend of the workingman.... Christ, the democrat, the agitator, the revolutionary, the rebel, the bearer of the red flag, yes we can understand that figure."

Under the caption, "The Old Year and The New," an editorial, part of which is here given, was published in "The Call," January 1, 1912:

"Interesting is it to see these clerical reactionists trying to kindle into flame the dying embers and ashes of the religious enthusiasm of past ages, now on the point of flickering out, and marshalling the remnants of fear and ignorance against the inexorable march of humanity and social progress.

"We have no verbal answer to expend upon them. They are not worth it. Well do we know that their show of attack is but a defensive movement. The only answer they need expect from us will be given in the steady continuance of our work. For we can put a thousand workers into the field for their one, and despite all they may do, we will take from them thousands and hundreds of thousands of those who now follow them, and in whose ignorance alone lies their defensive strength. Economic conditions fight on our side. Their capitalist Christ cannot feed the multitude. We can teach the multitude how to feed themselves."

"The Proletarian," the Socialist paper of Detroit, in its April, 1919, edition tells us that "Socialism is not a religion, it explains the causes and fallacies underlying all religions."

In the "International Socialist Review," August, 1908, a notable confession is made relative to religion:

"Religion spells death to Socialism, just as Socialism to religion. The moment Socialism turns into a religion it loses all its progressiveness, it ossifies and turns into a superstition of fanatics, who never forget and never learn anything. Socialism is essentially, although not apparently, a free-thought movement. The thinking Socialists are all free-thinkers."

In the "International Socialist Review" not only are there many articles and editorials attacking religion, but also many advertisements of atheistical and anti-religious books. For instance, in the February, 1912, edition, among the many works advertised on page 512 the following are listed under the heading, "Free-Thought Pamphlets":

/P "Holy Smoke in Holy Land. Myth of the Great Deluge. Revelation Under the Microscope of Evolution. Chas. Darwin, What He Accomplished. Jehovah Interviewed. Church and State--by Jefferson. Mistakes of Moses--by Ingersoll. Ingersolia: Gems from R. G. Ingersoll. Age of Reason--by Thos. Paine. Ingersoll--44 Lectures. Ingersoll's Famous Speeches." P/

In the April, 1912, edition of the "International Socialist Review" the subsequent additions are made to the advertisements already mentioned:

/P "Voltaire. Confessions of a Nun. Merry Tales of the Monks. Secrets of Black Nunnery." P/

Surely such books as these would not be extensively advertised in the "Review" and in the Socialist papers, nor would money be spent in this way by their publishers, unless the atheistic and anti-religious works found many purchasers among those who inserted a plank in their party platform stating that the Socialist movement was primarily an economic one and was not concerned with matters of religious belief.

The following is part of an editorial taken from the "Comrade," New York, January, 1904, on the death of Herbert Spencer:

"Dying at 84 years of age, Herbert Spencer leaves behind him an enduring monument such as few men have been able to build for themselves. He helped to rid the world of superstition and to destroy priestcraft; he put the idea of a God-direction of the world, and its counterpart, the eternal subjection and the dependence of man, into the waste paper basket of history. He cleared the way for the feet of the army of progress."

In the propagation of atheism, the German Socialist papers of the United States are worthy imitators of those that are published in English. The "New Yorker Volkszeitung," October 9, 1901, thus acknowledges the atheistic and anti-religious attitude of the revolutionary movement:

"Socialism and belief in the Divinity as taught by Christianity and its representatives do not agree, cannot agree, are diametrically opposed to one another. Socialism is logical only when it denies the existence of God, when it maintains that we do not need the so-called assistance of God, since we are able to help ourselves. Only he who has no faith begins to feel that he can accomplish something. The laborer who places confidence in God, and who, with Christian resignation, thinks that all is done by God is well done--how can that laborer develop revolutionary forces for the overthrow of authority and social order, both of which, according to his faith, are instituted by God? As long as he clings to this belief he will not be able to acquire a genuinely revolutionary spirit."

In the May 10, 1902, edition of "Vorwärts," a weekly supplement of the "New Yorker Volkeszeitung," we read:

"New York, May 6.--Archbishop Corrigan died last night after a protracted illness. Preparations are going on for a grand funeral with the usual paraphernalia. The soul of the prelate whizzed out of his mortal remains straight up into the seventh heaven, and now the bishop is staying there with lovely little angels and other beautiful beings hovering about him. Let him who is fool enough, believe it."

We are informed by "The Call," April 5, 1911, that at Utica, New York, on April 4, 1911, churches of all denominations were placed under the ban of the Italian Socialist Federation of the United States at the closing session of its National Congress, which had been in session for the last three days in that city and that strongly worded resolutions charging all churches with being against the emancipation of the working class and for the protection and perpetuation of capitalism and moral and economic slavery were unanimously adopted amid vociferous applause; finally that by the adoption of these resolutions, all members of the federation must sever their affiliations with any and all existing churches and religious organizations and refrain from all religious practices and rites.

Some information regarding the atheistic teachings of the New York "Il Proletario," the official organ of the Italian Socialist Federation of the United States, will be of interest to the reader. In the edition of December 23, 1910, there are several attacks on Christianity. One of these entitled "Christmas Is Here" is translated as follows:

"Christmas is a fib, Christmas is a fraud, Christmas is a crime wanted and continued by the powerful to delude their servants and to make them believe that there is really happiness, justice and love on this earth.... There is no everlasting joy. How long, O poor and exhausted workingmen of the world, will the shameful comedy continue? When will you finally perceive that not from a false and unexisting God, not from a mystical and epileptic crucified man, who died without rebellion and without protest, will come your redemption? When will you open your eyes to the truth of Socialism, and realize that finally upon you alone depends your salvation?"

In the same edition of "Il Proletario" there is a detailed list of 170 books and pamphlets that are advertised as being on sale at the book-store of the Italian Socialist Federation. The first part of the list, under the heading "Anti-religious Pamphlets," includes 22 works, whose prices range from 5 cents to 30 cents. Among them are to be found:

/P "The Religious Pest--5 cents. The Crimes of God--5 cents. The Sins of My Lady Penitents--8 cents. The Last Religious Lie--5 cents. Neither God Nor Soul--15 cents." P/

Near the end of the detailed list 22 more works are advertised as anti-clerical novels.

On May 1, 1912, while its editor, Arturo M. Giovannitti, was in prison at Lawrence, Massachusetts, "Il Proletario" published an article under the caption, "The Priest":

"Now at last the nations have understood that God is a monstrous fable, and that hell, heaven, immortality, and all the other devilish things are states created by rascals to despoil and oppress the people."

We are very much indebted to the Social Reform Press for favoring us with the translation of "The Little Catechism," edited by Bartos Bittner, whose dead and corrupt body was found by neighbors in his lodging in Chicago. This blasphemous Catechism, from which quotations are to be given, was published for the use of the children of the Bohemian-American Socialists:

"Question. What is God?

Answer. God is a word used to designate an imaginary being which people of themselves have devised.

Q. Is it true that God has never been revealed?

A. As there is no God, He could not reveal himself.

Q. What is heaven?

A. Heaven is an imaginary place which churches have devised as a charm to entice their believers.

Q. How did man originate?

A. Just as did animals; by evolution from their lower kinds.

Q. Has man an immortal soul as Christianity teaches?

A. Man has no soul; it is only an imagination.

Q. Who is Jesus Christ?

A. Jesus Christ is the son of a Jewish girl called Mary.

Q. Is he the son of God?

A. There is no God, therefore there can be no God's son.

Q. Did Christ rise from the dead as Christianity teaches?

A. The report about Christ rising from the dead is a fable.

Q. Is it true that after Christ's death the Apostles received the Holy Ghost?

A. It is not; the Apostles had imbibed too freely of wine and their dizzy heads imagined all sorts of queer things.

Q. Did Christ ascend into heaven?

A. He did not; what the church teaches is a nonsensical fable, because there is no heaven, and there was no place to ascend to.

Q. Will Christ come to this earth?

A. He will not because no dead person can come back.

Q. Will Christ return on judgment day?

A. There will be no judgment day; that is all a fable so that preachers could scare people and hold them in their grasp. Man has no soul, neither had Christ a soul. All these things have been invented by the church.

Q. What is the Holy Spirit?

A. The Holy Spirit is an imagination existing only in the minds of crazy religious people.

Q. Is Christianity desirable?

A. Christianity is not advantageous to us, but is harmful, because it makes us spiritual cripples. By its teachings of bliss after death it deceives the people. Christianity is the greatest obstacle to the progress of mankind, therefore it is the duty of every citizen to help wipe out Christianity. All churches are impudent humbugs.

Q. Is there communion of saints?

A. No, because there is no God, no saints, no soul, and therefore our prayers are wholly useless, and only a waste of time, which should be spent in more useful things.

Q. What is our duty when we have learned that there is no God?

A. We should teach this knowledge to others.

Q. Should we take the name of God in vain?

A. Yes, because the name of God has no meaning."

Isador Ladoff, a Socialist of Cleveland, Ohio, and a candidate for office in 1911, speaks very frankly about religion on page 11 of his pamphlet, "Socialism, The Anti-Christ":

"The church knows that Socialism in spite of the declaration of neutrality of the latter in religious matters, undermines the very foundation of the former. The church realizes that Socialism is anti-Christ. For the church it is a question of life and death, a struggle for existence. Why, then, should the Socialists not engage in an open aggressive campaign against the church? Would not an honest war between Christ and anti-Christ be more dignified, more wise and more effective, than a false pretence of neutrality and a defensive attitude toward the attacks of the church? Let us have the courage of our convictions, not only in matters of social and economic significance, but in all things affecting the interests of the toiling masses of humanity, including religious institutions."

Rev. E. E. Carr, writing in the "Christian Socialist," Chicago, May 15, 1907, informs us that, "The Christian Socialists do not ask or desire that the party declare for religion. Strictly speaking, Socialism is a purely economic proposition.... We demand absolute freedom of religious opinion in the party, and that officials of the party cease teaching anti-religious dogma as an essential part of Socialist philosophy."

Dishonest Socialists, when arguing that their party does not advocate atheism as the "religion" of their contemplated state, frequently appeal to the religious plank of their 1908 National Platform, which declares that the Socialist Party is not concerned with matters of religious belief.

Though this deceitful appeal of the "Knights of the Red Flag" has been exposed time and again, still it seems expedient that the underhand methods of the party which boasts of being the only one sufficiently honest and upright to fight for the rights of poor and oppressed workingmen, be better known to the American people, and that the more important parts of the indoor convention speeches be presented in greater detail.

Pages 191 to 205 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," edited by John M. Work, published by the Socialist Party19, and sold at 50 cents a copy at the National Office of the party, Chicago, Illinois, bear the following ample testimony to the hypocrisy of the Revolutionists.

When Delegate Simons had finished reading the proposal of the platform committee "that religion be treated as a private matter--a question of individual conscience," Arthur M. Lewis, a delegate from Illinois rose and moved its rejection, saying:

"I am among those who sincerely hoped the question of religion would not be raised at this convention. I am willing to concede so far that we shall let sleeping dogs lie. I know that the Socialist position in philosophy on the question of religion does not make a good campaign subject. It is not useful in the propaganda of a presidential campaign, and therefore I am willing that we should be silent about it. But if we must speak, I propose that we shall go before this country with the truth and not with a lie.... Now I do not propose to state in this platform the truth about religion from the point of view of the Socialist philosophy as it is stated in almost every book of Standard Socialist literature; but if we do not do that, let us at least have the good grace to be silent about it, and not make hypocrites of ourselves.... I say, let us either tell the truth or have the good grace and the common sense and the stamina and the manhood and the self-respect to keep our mouths shut about it. Therefore I move this be stricken from the platform."

Delegate Hillquit of New York urged the following amendment as a substitute for the one the ratification of which Lewis had tried to prevent: "The Socialist movement is primarily an economic and political movement. It is not concerned with the institutions of marriage or religion." Hillquit then went on to say:

"The fact that Comrade Lewis as a scholar, as a student of psychology, of history, of ethics and of everything else, has in the domain of religion come to the position of an agnostic, and that ninety-nine per cent of us have landed in the same spot, does not make Socialism agnostic, nor is Socialism Christian, nor is Socialism Jewish, Socialism hasn't anything to do with that side of our existence at all. I say to you, Comrades, if we are to follow Comrade Lewis's advise, and to say in our platform and declaration of principles what is true, let us not be afraid to insert in it the things we are advocating day after day and on all occasions."

Delegate Unterman of Idaho, speaking in favor of the adoption of the religious plank as originally proposed by the platform committee and read by Simons, added:

"Comrades, no one will accuse me with any sympathy with Christianity, either as a church or as a religion. I am known in the United States as a materialist of the most uncompromising order. But I want it clearly understood that my materialist philosophy does not permit me to strike this plank out of the platform. I want it understood that my materialist dialectics do not permit me to forget the exigencies of the moment for our ideals in the far future.... Would you expect to go out among the people of this country, people of different churches, of many different religious factions, and tell them that they must become atheists before they can become Socialists? That would be nonsense. We must first get these men convinced of the rationality of our economic and political program, and then after we have made Socialists of them and members of the Socialist Party, we can talk to them inside of our ranks, talk of the higher philosophy and of the logical consequences of our explanation of society and nature.... We should not go out in our propaganda among people that are as yet unconvinced and are still groping in ignorance and obscurity, and tell them that they first must become materialists before they can become members of the Socialist Party. No. This declaration that religion is a private matter does not mean that it is not a social matter or class matter at the same time. It merely means that we shall bide our good time and wait till the individual is ready, through his own individual evolution, to accept our philosophy. It means that we shall give him plenty of time to grow gradually to the things that are necessary to him, and those material things that affect his material welfare, the economic and political question of Socialism. After he has grown into them, it will be so much easier to approach him with the full consequences of the Socialist philosophy. Therefore I ask you to retain this plank in our platform."

Delegate Stirton gave the following reason for his opposition to the adoption of any religious plank in the party platform:

"If this statement is true that religion is no concern of our movement, as stated in the amendment, or in the original recommendation that it is a private matter--if that is a true statement, then we don't need it. If it is a lie, then we don't want it."

It will be remembered that Delegate Lewis at an earlier session of the convention had said: "Let us either tell the truth or have the good grace and the common sense and stamina and the manhood to keep our mouths shut about it" (i.e., religion from the viewpoint of Socialist philosophy).

To show the insincerity of Lewis, we shall now quote parts of a second speech made by him in the evening of the same day on which he had spoken so eloquently in behalf of asserting the truth and not telling a lie:

"I have gone into conference," he says, "between the afternoon session and the evening session with most of the members of the platform committee, and I have reached an agreement with them which I am sure the convention would be glad to hear, and it will dispose of this question, I think, amicably to all concerned.... I consider myself and every other delegate on this floor as being present at this convention for the sole purpose of promoting the best interests of the Socialist Party. I am willing to waive any personal views of mine, and I believe the members of the platform committee are in the same position, to promote those interests.... While it may not harmonize with my personal opinion to have this plank remain in the platform, I am willing to sink those personal opinions rather than put the Socialist movement in America in a false position and lay it open to the attacks of our enemies."

Victor Berger of Wisconsin mentioned expediency as his reason for favoring the adoption of a religious plank and argued:

"In the first place, a plank of this kind you will find in every platform or program of every other civilized nation in the world. Yet in no country do they have as much reason for it as in this country. There is not a race in the world that is as thoroughly religious as the Anglo-Saxon race. If you want a party made up of free-thinkers only, then I can tell you right now how many you are going to have. If you want to wait with our co-operative commonwealth, until you have made a majority of the people into free-thinkers, I am afraid we will have to wait a long while. I say this, although I am known, not only in Milwaukee, but wherever our papers are read, as a pronounced agnostic.... You can hardly find a paper in which we are not denounced as men who want to abolish all religion and abolish God. Something must be done in order to enable us to show that Socialism, being an economic theory--or rather the name for an epoch of civilization--has nothing to do with religion either way, neither pro nor con."

What reader, who elsewhere in this book has followed the evidence linking together the cunning craft of Morris Hillquit and Victor L. Berger in committing their party and followers to deceit and hypocrisy to obtain votes under false pretenses, will be surprised to find them thus also in the 1908 convention uniting the tongues of two old foxes to put through Hillquit's hypocrisy-plank on marriage and religion? These are the two whose deceit and violence have now reduced the Socialist Party of America to little more than a hollow echo of two lying hearts.

Delegate Vander Porten opposed the adoption of the plank as originally read by Simons and urged the adoption of Morris Hillquit's amendment:

"Nobody regrets more than I do that this question has arisen in this convention, but as long as it occupies the position that it does, I believe that there is to be an expression upon it, that expression should be the truth and not a lie.... When we talk of educating mankind and when we talk of raising mankind above the level in which he is, then we have got to throw from his arms those crutches that bind him to his slavery, and religion is one of them. Let it be understood that the moment the Socialist Party's whole aim and object is to get votes, we can get them more quickly by trying to please the religionists and those whose only ambition is to pray God and crush mankind.... Let us say nothing or say the truth. To spread forth to the world that religion is the individual's affair, and that religion has no part in the subjection of the human race, we lie when we say it."

After several other delegates had spoken, the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention" inform us that the chairman put the question on the acceptance of the substitute offered by Delegate Hillquit, and the result being in doubt, a show of hands was called for, and the vote resulted in 79 for the substitute, and 78 against it.

Those who honestly voted against the plank admitted thereby that the Socialist Party was very much concerned with matters of religious belief and that the Revolutionists were then, just as they are today, the bitter enemies of religion.

The 79 who voted for the plank did so, not because they had any love for religion, for this is evident from their speeches and from their method of procedure, but because they considered that a great deal of prejudice against Socialism would be removed by the adoption of a plank stating that the Socialist Party is primarily an economic and political movement, and that it is not concerned with matters of religious belief.

On one single plank therefore there were 79 liars in the Socialist National Convention out of a possible 157. Quite an unenviable record for the party which is so fond of accusing its opponents of lies and falsehoods!

When speeches against religion, such as the ones quoted, can be delivered at the national convention of a political party, without arousing anything like serious opposition among the delegates present, or among the rank and file of the party who afterwards read them, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the vast majority of the members of the party either advocate atheism or else are in sympathy with those who do.

For four long years the Socialists all over the country appealed to the religious plank of their 1908 platform to prove that their party was not opposed to religion; and although they were aware that the plank was a lie, they were not sufficiently honest to have it removed by referendum, as could have been done at any time. The plank was finally dropped by the National Convention of 1912 and has not since then been readopted. This, however, was not because the Socialists as a body had become more upright through their adherence to atheism, but because their lies concerning religion had become pretty well known all over the United States.

No doubt the reader will be interested in the following quotation taken from "The Communist," the Left Wing Socialist paper of Chicago. In the April, 1919, edition there is an article by John R. Ball, entitled, "Challenge of the S. P. [i.e., the Socialist Party] of Michigan":

"When the delegates to a State Socialist Convention gathered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, February 24, 1919, to nominate candidates for the coming State Elections, they were determined to do much more than to go through the mere formalities of complying with State Election Laws....

"There were many striking features about the personnel of the delegates: not only were the preachers entirely absent, but their following also. A Christian Socialist would have felt lonesome indeed, with no one to act as a listener for him....

"Fearless and unashamed, in true Bolshevik fashion, the delegation paid no heed to the prejudice of some, but adopted, with one opposing vote, an additional constitutional amendment, guided solely by historic facts and scientific data. A Socialist who understands the Materialistic Conception of History cannot have faith in superstitions of any kind. In other words, a 'religious' or 'Christian' Socialist is a contradiction of terms, and the statement that 'religion is a private matter' is a lie. The belief in a supreme being or beings is a social phenomenon which can be explained on the materialistic basis, just as all economic phenomena can be explained. With persistent adherence to honesty, the convention adopted a resolution and a constitutional amendment declaring religion to be a social phenomenon and instructing all organizers and speakers to explain religion upon its materialistic basis.

"Here again, the Socialist Party of Michigan issued a direct challenge to the National Organization. This time it is not a challenge in regard to tactics, but we challenge the honesty of the National Organization in declaring that 'religion is a private matter.'"

Now listen to the words of Eugene V. Debs, published on the editorial page of "The Call," New York, July 21, 1919, and see what a fraud and hypocrite the leader of the Socialists of the United States is:

"If you have not already done so, read the platform of the Socialist Party, and then let us know what you find in it to warrant the lying charge of the sleek and fat leeches and parasites and their degenerates, tools and hirelings that Socialism is atheism and free-love(?) and that it will tear up the family by the roots, smash up the home and turn society into a raging bedlam."

Sufficient evidence has now been given to prove that the Socialists are the declared enemies of the church. They are conspiring to destroy an institution which, apart from the supernatural blessings that it has conferred upon mankind, has done wonders to promote the happiness of nations. To the church many countries owe their civilization and their conversion from heathenism. She has preserved for us the priceless treasures of art and learning that would otherwise have fallen a prey to the ravages of the barbarians. For centuries she has trained untold millions to observe the Commandments of God, and has thus been instrumental in the prevention of innumerable crimes and sins from which the human race would have suffered. Not only has she taught the people the virtues of charity, justice, temperance, humility, liberality, purity, meekness and forgiveness of enemies, and been a source of immense consolation to the poor and oppressed, the sick and the injured, but she has comforted millions of the dying, who, when they realized that no earthly joys remained, took hope and delight at the thought of an eternal reward in heaven.

It is this glorious institution, then, founded by Almighty God Himself, that the Socialists hate with all their hearts, and would destroy forever, because it prevents the spread of their revolutionary doctrines by teaching respect for law, order and authority, and by exposing to all the world the deceptions, frauds and empty promises of the conspirators against religion.



Most of the Marxians in America, when confronted with the charge that they advocate free-love, deny the truth of the accusation, claiming that it is a base calumny. False and calumnious, indeed, would the charge be, if it were directed against each individual among the Revolutionists, or if from its universality exceptions were not made for many, who, not having as yet accepted the full consequences of International Socialism, go no further than to cast their votes for the party candidates. For would it be fair to except no others from condemnation, for among the dues-paying members of the party are many who are extremely averse to the system of loose morals that their comrades propose to substitute for the monogamous form of marriage now in vogue.

Books advocating free-love are advertised in the Socialist press and receive favorable notice in editorial columns. They have long been on sale at the leading Socialist book-stores of the country and even at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago. Finally, the Revolutionary clubs and locals all over the United States have in their libraries books on free-love that are standard works on Socialism.

The Marxians, in their endeavors to offset the charge that a free-love propaganda exists within their party, frequently argue that prostitution, now so prevalent throughout the world, will under Socialism no longer remain the dreadful menace to society that it is today. They attribute the prevalence of this vice principally to poverty, and argue that in the new state, all persons will be abundantly supplied with the goods of this world, and consequently no one will be obliged to indulge in this sin for obtaining a livelihood.

The Reds, therefore, try to dodge the question at issue by leading their opponents off on a tangent. The real question, free-love, will, however, by no means be forgotten by us until the Socialists have been shown up thoroughly. Since the conspirators against family life are so fond of harping on the matter of prostitution, with a view to drawing critics away from attacking their doctrine of free-love, the reader will be shown that even prostitution, instead of decreasing in the Socialist state, would, together with immorality of every sort, become far more prevalent under Marxian rule than it is today.

Prostitution and impurities of every sort may, of course, be due to many different causes. First, let us consider prostitution in connection with poverty and destitution. The Socialists claim that there will be far less prostitution in their state since the people, as a whole, will be supplied more abundantly with the needs of life. This talk about greater supplies for all in the Socialist state is mere assertion. The Marxians have never proven that such would actually be the case. If so, where is their proof? Can they give any convincing argument? Can they name any country, state or city, where they have ever ruled, in which the people, as a whole, were better supplied with the needs of life under the red flag than they were before the Socialist rule began?

The fact is just the contrary. Look at any part of Europe over which the Socialists have ruled and you will see far greater destitution under Socialism than there was before. As for places that have never yet tried Socialism, enough arguments were given in the chapter, "Socialism a Peril to Workingmen," to show that there would be so many upheavals, so much turmoil, discontent and strife in a Socialist state, that production would be at a minimum and entirely insufficient to supply the needs of the people.

We concede that poverty often leads to prostitution, and this is one reason out of many for sincerely wishing that our poor people were better supplied than they now are with the necessities of life. Still it must not be forgotten that poverty and want are often greater factors in preventing prostitution than in helping it. Think of the millions of poor people whose very poverty indirectly makes prostitution and vice in general less likely by keeping them from immoral theatres, movies, dances and cabarets and association with bad companions of greater means who would be attracted by better clothes and greater wealth if these poor people had them.

Do the Socialists claim that the average poor woman is less moral than the average rich one? Do not the Marxians know that poverty, rather than wealth, fosters religion and piety, the greatest of all factors in keeping persons pure? Do the Reds deny that millions and millions of the very poorest are chaste? If these souls can remain pure, notwithstanding their poverty, so, too, can others; and when these others do not remain pure, usually something other than poverty is the cause, e.g., irreligion, lawlessness or disregard of authority, all of which the Socialists are advocating, day after day, in their books, pamphlets, papers and speeches.

Again, Debs and his followers, by having a separate party for workingmen, are dividing the laboring class against itself, knowing full well that millions upon millions of decent, honest workingmen will never join them. And since Socialists are making unjust and impossible demands, and injecting into labor organizations radical leaders who cause general distrust and fear, labor cannot succeed in its battles against the abuses of capitalism nearly as well as it would if all were united. Hence, because of the existence of the Socialist Party, low wages still prevail in many cases, with extreme poverty which often leads to prostitution.

If the Socialists ever gain control of our country they will probably do so through a revolution. Or they will come into power gradually, by an increased vote at each election. In the meantime, as victory came near, there would be business failures by the thousands, owing to the impending destruction of the existing system of industry and government. In either case there would be terrible destitution and a great dearth of the necessities of life. This, according to the Socialists' own argument, would mean a great increase in prostitution.

It has been proven theoretically in the chapter entitled, "Socialism, a Peril to Workingmen," and actually by events in Europe, that a Socialist state, even should it endure, cannot be a success. Hence, were the Marxian argument about prostitution as strong as the Socialists claim, picture the immorality among the people where a Socialist government plunges the industries and sources of production and distribution into total chaos.

With this refutation of the claim that prostitution would become a very rare thing under Socialism, the national conspirators must confess that the same argument they have for years been using to further the interests of their cause, can with telling effect be turned against them.

Not alone are the Socialists defeated in their argument that prostitution would be less prevalent in the Marxian state, but they are hypocrites in using the argument they do. "The Call," for instance, which frequently uses the argument which has been refuted, in the magazine section of its issue of June 8, 1919, published a poem entitled, "The Harlot," to satisfy its lustful patrons:

/P "I do not understand you-- I cannot see How you can lie passive in my arms When such a passion swells in me.... You lie in my arms-- Your face is close to mine. I look into your eyes, Revelation! And you Look into mine Unmoved." P/

We now return to the question of free-love--we have not forgotten it, though no doubt the Reds wish we had. Socialists who deny that an active free-love propaganda exists within their ranks must either confess their ignorance of what is going on, or plead guilty to the base charge of deceiving the American people.

The "New Encyclopedia of Social Reform," edited by the Socialist, W. D. P. Bliss, on page 484 contains an article on the family which reads in part as follows:

"We then come to the third form of free-love, the free-love theory par excellence, which is held today by many Socialists, and an increasing number of radical men and women of various schools of thought. According to these neither the state nor organized religion should have aught to do with the control of the family or of the sexual relation. They would make free-love supreme. They would have it unfettered by any tie whatsoever. They argue that compulsory love is not love; that all marriage save from love is sin; that when love ends, marriage ends."

In another article, on page 1135, under the caption, "Socialism," Bliss informs us that it is perfectly true that Deville, a French Socialist, said that "marriage is a regulation of property.... When marriage is transformed, and only after that transformation marriage will lose its reason for existence, and boys and girls may then freely and without fear of censure listen to the wants and promptings of their nature.... The support of the children will no longer depend on the chance of birth. Like their instruction it will become a charge of society. There will be no room for prostitution or for marriage, which is in sum nothing more than prostitution before the mayor."

On page 897 of the old 1897 edition of the "Encyclopedia of Social Reform," an earlier work edited by W. D. P. Bliss, we are informed that Socialism would allow all to live in permanent monogamy, but would not force people to remain married if they were unwilling to do so. "The Communist Manifesto," the work that made Marx and Engels famous among Socialists the world over, thus answers the charge made against the Revolutionists regarding their opposition to monogamy:

"What the communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women."

Jules Guesde, a French Socialist, affirms in "Le Catéchisme Socialiste" that "the family is now only an odious form of property and must be transformed or abolished."

The French Socialist leader, Jaurés, in a parliamentary speech said that "They [i.e., married men and women] were free to make the marriage and should in the same way be free to unmake it. In fact, just as the will of one of the parties could have prevented the marriage, so the will of one should be able to end it. The power to annul should, of course, be all the stronger when both parties desire it." It need scarcely be added that free-love would in most cases begin with the voluntary dissolution of the marriage ties.

While the program of the French Socialist Party, adopted at Tours in 1902, does not explicitly advocate free-love, still it calls for "the most liberal legislation on divorce." Ernest Belfort Bax, a prominent English Socialist, in "Outlooks From a New Standpoint," affirms that "a man may justly reject the dominant sexual morality; he may condemn the monogamic marriage system which obtains today; he may claim the right of free union between men and women; he may contend he is perfectly at liberty to join himself, either temporarily or permanently with a woman; and that the mere legal form of marriage has no binding force with him." ["Outlooks From a New Standpoint," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 114 of the 1891 edition.]

"Prostitution for private gain is morally repellent. But the same outward act done for a cause transcending individual interest loses its character of prostitution." [Ibid., page 123.]

"There are few points on which advanced radicals and Socialists are more completely in accord than their hostility to the modern legal monogamic marriage." [Ibid., page 151.]

"There are excellent men and women, possibly the majority, born with dispositions for whom a permanent union is doubtless just the right thing; there are other excellent men and women born with lively imaginations and Bohemian temperaments for whom it is not precisely the right thing." [Ibid., page 157.]

"Herein we have an instance of the distinction between bourgeois morality and Socialist morality. To the first it is immoral to live in a marital relation without having previously subscribed to certain legal formalities.... To the second ... to live in a state of unlegalized marriage defileth not a man, nor woman." [Ibid., page 158.]

"Socialism will strike at the root at once of compulsory monogamy." [Ibid., page 159.]

Quotations from this base free-love book will end with the following: "If it be asked 'is marriage a failure?' the answer of any impartial person must be 'monogamic marriage is a failure'--the rest is silence. We know not what the new form of the family, the society of the future in which men and women will be alike economically free, may involve, and which may be generally adopted therein. Meanwhile we ought to combat by every means within our power the metaphysical dogma of the inherent sanctity of the monogamic principle." ["Outlooks From a New Standpoint," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 160 of the 1891 edition.]

"Outlooks From a New Standpoint," from which these quotations have been taken, was advertised in the price list of the Social Democratic Publishing Company of Milwaukee; and though it was sold for a dollar a copy at Victor Berger's establishment, it has never been used by the Socialists of America to prove to the world that they do not advocate free-love.

In view of the fact that "Outlooks From a New Standpoint" was sold at Berger's own publishing company, it is somewhat surprising to see him, in the August 10, 1912, edition of his paper, the Milwaukee "Social Democratic Herald," attacking, in a party squabble, "the men in control of the 'International Socialist Review,' ... who publish books in defense of what our enemies call free-love." Further on in the factional quarrel he writes: "I shall leave out the Christian Socialists entirely. Many of them are honest in this fight. But these Christian Socialists--who are only a handful--are being used by cowardly assassins and practical free-lovers as a cat's paw." Perhaps the Socialist publishers would be a little more free with their love for each other, if there was less competition for the silver dollar.

Ernest Belfort Bax in another book, "Religion of Socialism," thus denounces the present form of family life: "We defy any human being to point to a single reality, good or bad, in the composition of the bourgeois family. It has the merit of being the most perfect specimen of complete sham that history has presented to the world." ["Religion of Socialism," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 141 of the 1891 edition.]

"Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," edited by Ernest Belfort Bax and William Morris, also advocates free-love, for its authors tell us that under Socialism "property in children would cease to exist, and every infant that came into the world would be born into full citizenship, and would enjoy all its advantages, whatever the conduct of its parents might be. Thus a new development of the family would take place, on the basis, not of a predetermined life-long business arrangement, to be formally and nominally held to irrespective of circumstances, but on mutual inclination and affection, an association terminable at the will of either party.... There would be no vestige of reprobation weighing on the dissolution of one tie and the formation of another." ["Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," by Ernest Belfort Bax and William Morris, pages 299 and 300 of the 1893 edition.]

The "International Socialist Review," December, 1908, states that "Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," by William Morris and Ernest Belfort Bax, is "a standard historical work long recognized as being of the utmost value to Socialists." According to the price list sent out from the National Office of the Socialist Party this work on free-love was on sale there for fifty cents a copy. Chas H. Kerr and Company, the Socialist publishing company of Chicago, in their catalogue advertised the same book as being one of the most important works in the whole literature of Socialism, by the two strongest Socialist writers of England. From these facts the reader may judge for himself whether or not the Revolutionists of America tell the truth when they claim that they are not the enemies of the family.

In a speech delivered on November 12, 1907, Henry Quelch, editor of the Socialist paper, "London Justice," made the following statement: "I do want to abolish marriage. I do want to see the whole system of society, as at present constituted, swept away. We want no marriage bonds. We want no bonds at all. We want free-love."

Edward Carpenter in his book, "Love's Coming of Age," tells us that "marriage relations are raised to a much higher plane by a continual change of partners until a permanent mate and equal is found."

That this work on free-love might find a ready market among Socialists, Chas. H. Kerr and Company advertised it as follows in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, December, 1902:

"He [i.e., Carpenter] faces bravely the questions that prudes of both sexes shrink from, and he offers a solution that deserves the attention of the ablest leaders of popular thought, while his charmingly simple style makes the book easy reading matter for any one who is looking for new light on the present and future of men and women in their relations to each other."

In a 1912 catalogue the same publishing company volunteered the information that "'Love's Coming of Age' is one of the best Socialist books yet written on the relations of the sexes." In a 1917 booklet it was advertised by the company as being "by far the most satisfactory book on the relations of the sexes in the coming social order."

Carpenter's work was sold for a dollar a copy at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago, and yet the Revolutionists persist in telling us that they do not advocate free-love.

August Bebel, the late leader of the German Socialists, was the author of a book entitled, "Woman Under Socialism." This work, however, is better known by the simple appellation, "Woman." A simple quotation will suffice to show that Bebel, like many other excellent Socialist authorities, advocates free-love:

"If incompatibility, disenchantment or repulsion set in between two persons that have come together, morality commands that the unnatural and therefore immoral bond be dissolved." ["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 344 of the 1904 edition in English.]

Bebel's book has had an immense circulation. Over thirty editions have been issued, and translations have been made into nearly all the European languages. Before his death in August, 1913, he was the admiration of millions of the Revolutionists the world over. His book is considered everywhere as a standard work on International Socialism and is, of course, on sale with the other free-love publications at the National Office of the Socialist Party. Chas H. Kerr and Company in 1917 advertised Bebel's work as being one of the greatest Socialist books ever written.

Frederick Engel's "Origin of the Family," a work that has made its author famous among Socialists on both sides of the Atlantic, contains the following statement relative to free-love:

"These peculiarities that were stamped upon the face of monogamy by its rise through property relations will decidedly vanish, namely the supremacy of men and the indissolubility of marriage.... If marriage founded on love is alone moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love lasts. The duration of an attack of individual sex love varies considerably according to individual disposition, especially in men. A positive cessation of fondness or its replacement by a new passionate love makes a separation a blessing for both parties and for society. But humanity will be spared the useless wading through the mire of a divorce case." ["The Origin of the Family," by Fredrick Engels, page 99 of the 1907 translation into English by Untermann.]

"The Comrade," New York, November, 1902, thus commends Engel's book: "One of the most important issues of that excellent Standard Socialist Series published by Chas. H. Kerr and Company is 'The Origin of the Family,' by Fredrick Engels, now for the first time translated into English by Ernest Untermann. This book, first published in 1884, has been translated into almost every European language and has long been regarded as one of the classics of Socialist philosophical literature."

"The Call," New York, February 27, 1910, deems "The Origin of the Family" worthy of editorial comment: "The one book that contains in small compass what every woman ought to know is Fredrick Engel's 'The Origin of the Family.' Every Socialist woman should become a book agent to sell this book."

"The International Socialist Review," October, 1902, expressed its admiration of Engel's work by stating that "this book has long been known as one of the great Socialist classics and has been translated into almost every other language than English.... The book is really one of the two or three great Socialist classics; and now that it is in English, it must find a place in the library of everyone who hopes to master the real fundamental philosophy underlying Socialism."

"The Origin of the Family," notwithstanding20 the fact that it contains matter too foul to comment on, for example a certain comparison that is made on page 39, was listed with the books sold at the National Office of the Socialist Party, and at Chas. H. Kerr and Company, the largest Socialist publishing company in the United States.

Ernest Untermann, the American Socialist who translated Engel's work into English, writes on page 7 of the preface of the 1907 edition: "The monogamic family, so far from being a divinely instituted union of souls, is seen to be the product of a series of material, and in the last analysis, of the most sordid motives."

Rives La Monte, in "Socialism Positive and Negative," tells his readers that "from the point of view of this Socialist materialism, the monogamous family, the present economic unit of society, ceases to be a divine institution, and becomes the historical product of certain definite economic conditions. In the judgment of such Socialists as Fredrick Engels and August Bebel, we shall probably remain monogamous, but monogamy will cease to be compulsorily permanent." ["Socialism, Positive and Negative," by Rives La Monte, page 98 of the 1907 edition.]

In the "International Socialist Review," February, 1909, there appears on page 628 a notice which reads as follows:

"The 'Review' lately returned to a contributor a clever and readable article in which he emphasized certain absurdities and miseries of the present marriage system. His letter in the reply to us raises some interesting questions, and we are glad to publish it: ... 'It is disappointing to be advised to frankly discuss subjects of such importance as religion and marriage only in hushed whispers behind closed doors. In the fear of offending conservative prejudice on these topics, some Socialists become more conservative than the bourgeois themselves.... Of course, the main stream and most important phase of Socialism is the political-economic agitation, but at the same time the Socialist movement inevitably brings into being, at least for a great part of its adherents, a new culture, a new literature, a new art, a new attitude toward sex relations and religion and individual freedom, a new conception of life as a whole. In face of this fact it is sickening to see individuals, whom one knows to be atheists, defending Socialism as the will of God and the fulfilment of Christianity; and other individuals, whom one knows to be free-lovers, going out of their way to defend the home and family against the inroads of capitalism. Nevertheless such things are seen.... There are thousands of women who are worn out with the bearing of unwelcome children on account of ignorance of proper ways of preventing conception.... If sex life, the personal heart life, of revolutionists were more free and joyous, if they breathed an atmosphere of liberty and spontaneity, free from religious and moral superstitions, if they became now as much like the free people of the future as possible, would they not be that much more ardent and joyous and unceasing workers of the Great Revolution? And if former non-Socialists, especially women who had suffered grievously from the evils of the marriage system, or been intellectually blindfolded by religious teaching, were first led into the light of more emancipated ideas by some of us Socialists, would not they serve and glorify Socialism forever?... If the Christian Socialists have a right to their God, and monogamists to their eternal marriage, then surely in a revolutionary movement like ours, the complete revolutionists have, to say the least, an equal right to their agnosticism and their free union."

Clarence M. Meily, before speaking explicitly of free-love, praises lust and sensuality in the highest terms on page 129 of his book, "Puritanism": "Freed from the privation of millenniums of unrequited toil, with the wealth and wonders of the world at its command, it is fairly certain that the emancipated working class, still wan from its centuries of service and sacrifice, will take great joy in repudiating, finally and forever, the fallacies and aberration of asceticism.... Not the denial of life, but the laudation and triumph of life, will be the keynote of the new ethics. The lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, the pride of life, will become new formulas, holy and pure in the light of the perfect development of the whole man, and of all men, to which the race will dedicate itself."

Meily then approaches the marriage question and says: "The question of the status of marriage in the new society is one of extreme importance, since it is here that reactionaries of all sorts center their opposition to social reconstruction. It is both idle and disingenuous to assert that marriage as a legal and civil institution is not likely to undergo profound modification.... The artificial perpetuation of the marriage tie, in the face of the disinclination of the parties involved to continue the relation, will cease to be a matter of public concern, or the occasion of state interference. The dissolution of the marriage relation will become as purely a personal and private affair as is the assumption of the relation now. Some sort of registration may be required for the purpose of vital statistics."

In July 2, 1901, "The Haverhill Social Democrat," apparently without fear of offending its subscribers, asked: "What is there sacred in the modern home? Can anything be sacred which is based on a lie or on impurity, or on ignorance? The marriage system today is based on impurity, on ignorance and on a big lie."

"The Call," New York, December 4, 1910, tells its readers to "give all women the vote, and they will strike off the rusty chains that hold them still in marriage as the property of the man."

That the same paper is very lax as regards the divorce evil, so closely allied to free-love, is evidenced from the following quotation taken from the edition of March 30, 1913: "Among the many encouraging signs of woman's growing strength--of her determination to be at last the captain of her soul and the master of her faith--are recent divorce statistics....

"Far from being a sign of moral decadence, the large number of divorces granted to women is one of the healthiest portents of the regeneration of the body social....

"The divorced woman is today the connecting link between the non-resisting, ignorant victim of the past and the self-reliant, enlightened, eugenically minded woman of the future. The divorce statistics of the present are perfectly logical and the divorced woman is a cheering omen, as she fulfils her historic mission."

"The Little Catechism" for the use of the children of Bohemian Socialists, a book from which we have already had occasion to quote in the previous chapter, shows us the exceedingly low standard of morality that is taught to the youthful Revolutionists; for in answer to the question, "Is adultery a sin?" we are astounded by the boldness of the reply, "It is not a sin."

We shall finally corroborate our charge that the Revolutionists advocate free-love by quoting the words of no less an authority than Morris Hillquit, who concedes in "Everybody's," February, 1914, page 233, that "Most Socialists stand for dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parties."

As many Socialist books on free-love have attained a high circulation, and as they have not been repudiated by the party, but have been praised and advertised in its newspapers, and, moreover, since these very books have been sold as standard works both at the National Office of the party and at the leading Socialist book-stores of America, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the number of party members who openly advocate free-love, or at least tacitly approve of its propaganda, must be in the majority, for otherwise the party would never tolerate such a condition of affairs within its ranks.

Once the Socialists gain control of a country, as in the case of Russia, laws legalizing free-love are very soon passed. In the No. 2 edition of the Los Angeles magazine, "More Truth About Russia," its radical editor mentions many of the Bolshevist laws on marriage, divorce, etc., in vogue in Russia. Among them is one fully legalizing free-love, making it possible for married parties to change partners whenever they wish and for no other reason than their mutual or individual desire to do so:

"1. Marriage is annulled by the petition of both parties or even one of them.

"2. The petition is submitted, according to the rules of local jurisdiction, to the local court.

"Note: A declaration of annulment of marriage by mutual consent may be filed directly with the department of registration of marriages in which a record of that marriage is kept, which department makes an entry of the annulment of the marriage in the record and issues a certificate.

"3. On the day appointed for the examination of the petition for the annulment of marriage, the local judge summons both parties or their solicitors.

"4. Having convinced himself that the petition for the annulment of the marriage really comes from both parties or from one of them, the judge personally and singly renders the decision of the annulment of the marriage and issues a certificate thereof to the parties."

This chapter shows that free-love filth, to corrupt and demoralize our people, is being propagated by the Socialist Party of America through its National Headquarters in Chicago, Berger's publication company in Milwaukee, Hillquit's "New York Call," and other publishing houses and papers affiliated with the party. Yet, because the question of the qualifications of five representatives of this system of abomination to make laws for the State of New York was so much as raised by a judicial inquiry in the New York Assembly, that body of legislators has been assailed and falsely charged with undermining the fundamental principles of representative government. The ignorance concerning the true character of the Socialist Party of America is startling.

Is it not time for the American people to awake? Should not every decent American petition all our legislative bodies, state and national, to outlaw the Socialist Party of America and curb its iniquitous propaganda?



To most persons it will certainly be a surprise to hear that race suicide has been openly advocated in the columns of leading Socialist publications. True it is that the number of individuals endeavoring to spread this practice by their writings is comparatively21 small; still, as the articles have continued to appear for years at more or less regular intervals, without exciting anything like serious opposition, we are forced to conclude that advocacy of race suicide is looked upon by a very large number of the Revolutionists as one of their characteristic virtues.

Though many vile articles advocating race suicide were published in the 1910 and the 1911 editions of "The New York Call," we shall pass them over, and discuss those of a more recent date.

In the Sunday editions of "The Call," Anita C. Block has for years been editing a page called "Woman's Sphere." This section of the paper on the 24th of March, 1912, contained an editorial comment under the caption "Enforced Motherhood and the Law," in which the practice of base and criminal race suicide is encouraged:

"Within a space covering not much more than a month, six letters have been received by us, containing in substance about what is contained in the following letter:

"'Mrs. A. C. Block, New York City:

"'Dear Comrade Block.--I have been a reader of "The Call" since December 1, 1911. I do not know whether you can give me any information as to what I wish to know....

"'I have three children, 3½ years, 2¼ years, and a baby 9 months. Now, you cannot blame me if I do not care for more for some time to come....

"'Could you give any information? Dr.... in "..." [We suppress the author's name and the title of his work.] and "..." by ... contain the sentence, "Every woman should know prevention of conception." I should be thankful for any advice.

"'Yours for the Co-operative Commonwealth.'"

The editorial comment then goes on to say:

"Four of these letters we answered personally, stating the impossibility of imparting this information under our present laws. But when letters continued to come, we felt that any subject that indeed meant everything in the world to the wives of the working class, was entitled to publicity in these columns.

"These women ought to know exactly what the laws are that make the giving of this terribly needed information--A Felony. And so we print below the Federal or United States law on this subject."

The law is then given in all its details, after which the New York State law on the same subject is also quoted.

We are then told that "such are some of the laws on this grave subject, and, of course, no sane person would endeavor to violate them, openly at any rate. But as Dr.... states elsewhere in this page, we cannot be prevented from agitating for their repeal. Nor can we be prevented from educating the people wherever possible to an understanding that a knowledge of the means of preventing conception is a knowledge of one of the means of regenerating the race.

"Moreover even under Socialism, where economic conditions will be such that every woman can support a dozen children in comfort if she wants to, the volitional limitation of offspring will be completely justifiable. For even parents in the most comfortable circumstances should have the right to determine how many children they want. Of all things in the world this is a matter for the individual and not for society to determine."

Dr...., to whom reference was made in the above editorial comment, is also the author of another work advertised as follows in "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call," March 24, 1912:

"The three most important measures for the improvement of the human race from a eugenic standpoint. What are they? I suppose everybody who has given the subject any thought has his remedies. I have studied the subject for years and my answer is:

"1. Teaching the people the proper means of the prevention of conception so that the people may have only as many children as they can afford to have, and to have them when they want to have them.



"Of the three measures the first one is the most important and still it will be the last one to come, because our prudes think it would lead to immorality. And nevertheless I will repeat what I said several times before, that there is no single measure that would so positively, so immediately contribute toward the happiness and progress of the human race as teaching the people the proper means of regulating reproduction. This has been my sincerest and deepest conviction since I have learned to think rationally. It is the conviction of thousands of others, but they are too careful of their standing to express it in public. I am happy, however, to be able to state that my teachings have converted thousands; many of our readers who were at first shocked by our plain talk on this important subject are now expressing their full agreement with our ideas. And Congress may pass draconian laws, the discussion of this subject cannot, must not, be stopped."

On April 13, 1913, another article on the subject of race suicide, by Clara G. Stillman, appeared in "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" under the caption, "The Right to Prevent Conception." Only part of the foul composition is here given:

"Those who are convinced that the voluntary prevention of conception is a most important weapon in the modern fight with poverty, disease and racial deterioration, will find their position only strengthened by survey of their opponents' objections. These objections are mainly of three kinds--and might be classed as the pseudo-religious, the pseudo-moral and the pseudo-scientific, because all are based on conceptions which our present state of knowledge and social development have enabled us to outgrow....

"Prevention of conception is already an accepted principle among the educated classes of every civilized country. According as the opposition of the law and public opinion are more or less stringent, it is practised with more or less secrecy; but secret or open, the practice is here to stay, and it is spreading. The fear of most of its opponents is, therefore, not nearly so much that the human race will become extinct as that its best elements will gradually be replaced by the worst. At first this may seem plausible. Granting our opponents' premise temporarily, the conclusion is logically unavoidable that in order to restore a normal relation between the so-called more and less intelligent or desirable classes of society, we must put into the hands of all the methods of restricting their increase, now utilized only by the few."

On June 1, 1913, "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" contained a four-column article on race suicide, entitled, "Musings of a Socialist Woman." The author, Antoinette F. Konikow, who was a delegate to the Socialist National Conventions of 1908 and 1912, thus expresses her views:

"I consider the question of the prevention of conception to be of greater value to women than even the knowledge of sexual diseases....

"After meeting hundreds of women and girls in heart to heart talks, I came to the sincere conviction that lectures on sex hygiene which do not give a thorough understanding of conception in its definite bearings on practical life and also of its possibilities of prevention--that such lectures miss their main aim in bringing help to distressed humanity....

"Instead of meeting every need and demand of the worker, we are so hampered by the fear of getting a bad reputation among our enemies that we express our support to a new tendency only after it has acquired a certain respectability in society....

"Do the daring words of Comrade Clara G. Stillman or Dr....'s article not hurt the feelings of some of our Comrades? No doubt some readers felt dissatisfied but not more so than others who had to read the conservative statement of Comrade Carey in 'The Leader,' that he considers Bebel's conception of the family un-Socialistic and anti-Socialistic....

"Do our morals stand on a higher plane, thanks to the careful guardianship of our laws?...

"It is high time then to serve notice upon all our benevolent censors and upholders of such laws, and declare ourselves fit to get along without their superior guidance. It is time to open a crusade against this hypocritical suppression of knowledge, which leads to endless and needless suffering. It is time to emphatically declare the right of the mother to control the functions of her own body for her own good and the welfare of her offspring."

The disastrous consequences of such a crusade to further the cause of race suicide are very forcibly brought home to us by an article which appeared in "The Call," May 10, 1914, on "The Conscious Limitation of Offspring in Holland":

"Our headquarters at The Hague and our subdivisions in all our greater towns are spreading theoretical leaflets and pamphlets; but the special pamphlet giving practical information in the prevention of conception, is only given to married people when asked. We are lecturing everywhere. But the essential missionary work is done privately and modestly, often unconsciously by showing the happy results in their own families, by the nearly 5,000 members of our league spread over the whole country, among whom are physicians, clergymen and teachers, etc. Every day information is asked by letters and still more by our printed postcards; all information is given cost-free and post-free. Almost all younger doctors and midwives are giving information, and are helping mothers in the cases when it is wanted on account of pathological indications. Moreover special nurses are instructed in helping poor women. Harmless preventive means are more and more taking the place of dangerous abortion. So, merely by our freedom of giving information, we have reached the desirable results proved most brilliantly by the statistical figures of our country."

On May 21, 1914, "Woman's Sphere" of "The Call" devoted two more of its columns to the race suicide propaganda in the form of an article by Sonia Ureles under the caption, "Hats Off, Gentlemen, The Law!" Since many parts of the production are too foul to permit our quoting them, we shall give but a few short passages:

"But the doctors only scowled, and the nurse told her gently that the law did not permit poor people to regulate the birth of their offspring....

"To the thought of a private practitioner she gave no heed; it was to her a luxury undreamed of....

"The nurse, a well-meaning honest creature, writhed uncomfortably under her gaze. 'It's--it's against the law to give out such information,' she stammered.

"'I don't care about the law,' came the stubborn reply. 'You promised. Now tell me.' Nevertheless she left the hospital without the information....

"She applied to the women of her neighborhood for information. They told her things they thought they knew, and things they thought they ought to know. And her health was the price she paid....

"They who knew, but would not tell, left her one alternative. She chose it. And so,

"'Hats off, gentlemen--the law!'"

In this same issue of "The Call," May 24, 1914, there is an editorial comment that promised the base devotees of race suicide an abundance of filthy reading matter for the future:

"If unwelcome motherhood is not in accordance with a constructive eugenic program, then the free imparting of information concerning the prevention of involuntary motherhood must be. But as has been pointed out in these columns again and again, to make this part of a constructive eugenic program is to run up against vicious and barbarous state and federal laws which make the giving of necessary information a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

"In connection with this entire subject we call the attention of our readers to the grim sketch by Sonia Ureles, appearing elsewhere on this page today.

"This is the first of a series of stories on the same subject which Miss Ureles is writing for 'Woman's Sphere.' All who know the vivid reality of this writer's work will look forward to them with keen anticipation."

Let it not be thought for a moment that "The Call" has yet given up its propaganda of race suicide. As recently as May 25, 1919, there appeared in the magazine section of that vile Socialist daily of New York City an article on the subject entitled, "Birth Control and the War," the article being no less than twelve columns long. Several quotations are hereby given:

"Everywhere the feudal-minded ones act upon substantially the same impulse. Everywhere they impel and, to a large extent, though by indirection, they compel, prolific breeding among the less intelligent persons. These latter are also the victims of the prevailing religious, political, economic and industrial systems and superstitions. The feudalistic ones proclaim fecundity as a religious duty to God and a moral duty to the state. By psychologic tricks a vanity of the unfortunate classes is encouraged so as to make even the fools believe, or, at least, feel that they, too, have a place in the sun....

"By the uniform activities and lingering dominance of the feudal mind we have remained in a state of development in which we compete, like the stock-raiser, for an international and intercredal supremacy in and through breeding....

"As yet we have had no very urgent need for territorial expansion. Our turn is coming and is coming soon, if only we will heed our own feudal-minded ones, and will breed fast enough. But, without being aggressors in this sense, we are yet unavoidably drawn into the vortex of a world war inaugurated by the feudal-minded of other nations and unconsciously promoted to a small degree by our own feudal-minded ones by education for feudal-mindedness and for prolific breeding in our people....

"The next world war may possibly be one in which the disadvantaged of all nations will fight the feudal-minded of all nations. Something quite near to such an invitation already has come from Russia. Shall we hasten such a conflict by continuing to preach the sacredness of fecundity and of war? Or shall intelligent restraint of the feudalistic compulsion help us toward a more perfect and peaceful adjustment with the processes that make for the democratization of welfare, with and by intelligent family limitation as one means?"

"The Call" is one of the official papers recognized by the Socialists of America. In 1914, while the race suicide propaganda was being carried on in its columns, lectures to be delivered for its benefit by Eugene V. Debs in many of the cities of New Jersey were advertised in its columns. It is most likely, therefore, that such a splendidly informed leader of the Revolutionists as Debs, like many thousands of members of the rank and file of the party, read some of the articles favoring race suicide. As we have never yet heard of Debs or a single Socialist complaining against the race suicide propaganda so long carried on in the columns of "The Call," we shall, unless the Marxians repudiate this form of immorality of their paper, be forced to conclude that their leader as well as a very large number of his followers intend legalizing this vice if they ever gain control of our country.

In April, 1919, a vile, crimson pamphlet was on sale in the radical book-stores of the middle west. We shall not give the title, for it is too foul and indecent. On page 4 it warns its readers "not to forget this fact, celibacy, absolute continence from want of desire congenial or acquired, monkish asceticism are pathological states, diseased states of mind or body." Further on, we read, on page 10:

"Do not be a suffering Jesus. Do not take him as an example. Do not whine or snuffle, but get ahead in the world while you can. Get lands, property and independence somehow....

"The teachings of Christianity were designed for the castration of the human soul. Christ would make you, not a free man, a hero, and a warrior, but a hireling, a submissive beast of burden, a helot, a nobody. Christianity is cowardice institutionalized and peace-on-earth is the philosophy of the tax gatherer, the usurer, and the international exploiter." On the inner side of the back cover of the foul pamphlet a book is advertised by the "International Socialist Control Association of Chicago," which seems also to publish the crimson pamphlet from which the above quotation was taken. The advertisement of the book is hereby given in part:


"The welfare of the world depends upon the bringing up of children.

"Everything depends upon the right start, hence it is your highest duty to see that your children are started right.

"Foremost men say and statistics show the stupendous peril of our political, religious, and educational system. The root of education is not merely knowing how to read and write, but knowing men analytically and scientifically.

"Anything is possible to the man who knows how and why. We develop and plan out your life according to your adaptions and inclinations--no guess work but cold, hard, mathematical facts. We show you how to control, manage, and handle humanity and make it your business to shape men's minds as easily as clay.

"Misery, superstition and poverty must go."

On the back cover sheet of the pamphlet it is stated that the International Socialist Control Association of Chicago is "An organization that teaches the suppressed and downtrodden truth, long controlled by the political and religious machine. The only organization that places health, happiness and marriage upon solid, scientific principles."

In the summer of 1919, "The Call" of New York City, Morris Hillquit's vile publication, became more bold than ever in favoring race suicide. On June 29, 1919, for instance, there appeared a three-column article in the magazine section of the paper, entitled, "The ... League." Parts of the article are hereby quoted:

"Many readers of 'Woman's Sphere' have expressed themselves as eager to know the raison d'etre of The ... League, which is the latest development in the birth control movement.

"The answer is that this new league is started to speed up the birth control movement. Its first aim is to take the question straight to Congress and repeal the Federal statute which prohibits the circulation of contraceptive knowledge. All the restrictive state laws are modeled on this Federal obscenity statute. If that is repealed, the state laws can easily be made to follow suit....

"The repeal of this obnoxious out-of-date legislation is the longest single step toward that end.

"The next step is to get the subject taught in the medical schools, and to have the best possible scientific information wisely and well distributed. Every health agency in the country should have it for the benefit of all who are in need. It should be available at hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, maternity centers, charity organizations and, most of all, through the Federal Health Service and the National Children's Bureau....

"Most Socialists are already convinced of the rightness of birth regulation, but not all of them see the need for working now to free the information. Some say, 'Oh, just work to achieve Socialism and when we have that, things like birth control will come without effort.' ...

"Birth control is a necessary tool for the struggle after social justice. Therefore, Socialists should insist upon it right now, and not be content to wait for the Co-operative Commonwealth to bring it to them, also they should not hesitate to co-operate with non-Socialists to get it. Birth control is a blessing to humanity as a whole. Everybody needs it."

On July 13, 1919, "The Call" published an editorial on Dr. Abraham Jacobi who had recently died. In the course of the editorial the following statement is made:

"Many honors have been showered upon Dr. Jacobi, but probably none will be more brilliant than the fact that he was one of the first to fearlessly discuss the question of birth control."

On July 15, 1919, there appeared in "The Call" the letter of the director of the birth control league similarly praising the late Dr. Jacobi:

"...He did not wait till the baby was born, nor did he limit himself to what is ordinarily known as the prenatal care. He again and again proved his sincere belief that the only way to give babies a fair chance in this world is for the parents to know how to regulate the family birth rate."

"The Call" on July 14, 1919, advertised seven birth control meetings to be held during the week in New York City. Two days later, on July 16, it advertised an open air birth control rally.

In "Woman's Sphere" of the magazine section of "The Call," July 27, 1919, there appears another three-column article favoring race suicide, entitled, "How Shall We Change the Law?" We shall quote briefly:

"Once it is no longer on the statute books that it is unlawful to impart information on the prevention of conception, then people may freely help each other to attain the precious information so urgently needed. The 'limited' bill would give this right only to doctors and possibly to nurses and midwives....

"And while we would not be so unscientific as to deny for a moment that it would be better for every woman to get her advice and instruction concerning the use of contraceptive directly from a doctor, nevertheless it is impossible to overestimate the help men and women could give each other were the free exchange of information on methods of birth control legal instead of illegal....

"We feel quite sure that women will get infinitely more sympathetic help and advice from each other than they will ever get from any free clinic doctors."

"The Call" on July 26, 1919, announced that Anita C. Block, editress of "Woman's Sphere" of the paper, had accepted nomination as a delegate to the August 30, 1919, convention of the Socialist Party in Chicago.

The September 2, 1919, issue of "The Call" states that it received the congratulations of the National Convention of the party then assembled at Chicago. There is, however, no record of any Socialist complaint against its continued race suicide propaganda. We can, therefore, draw our conclusions as to whether the Socialists approve of propagating race suicide.

Away down in Mexico there lives a certain Linn A. E. Gale, a young Socialist who fled to that country from the United States to escape conscription. He is a "brave" fellow, for not only did he shirk his duties as a soldier and flee from his native land to escape jail, but he publishes a Socialist magazine in Mexico City in which he seeks to deprive of life those who have as much right to it as he himself has; in other words he is carrying on a campaign for race suicide. We quote from the August, 1919, issue of his Socialist publication, known as "Gale's Magazine":

"Mr. Felix F. Palavinci,

"Manager of El Universal,

"Mexico City, D. F. Mexico:

"Sir.--It is generally believed that you inspired the recent act of the health department of this city in having confiscated copies of a Spanish translation of ...'s famous book on how to practise birth control, and in sentencing me to the penitentiary when I refused to pay a $500 fine for publishing the said translation, which outrageous and malicious penalty was revoked by order of Mexico's Secretary of State, Manuel Aguirre Berlanga.

"It is hard to believe that a man of your intelligence and supposed progressive ideas would be guilty of such a contemptible act. Yet facts are facts and the facts leave little room for doubt that you were to a large extent, if not almost entirely, responsible. The persistent series of bitter and abusive articles published by your newspaper, El Universal, against birth control and against me personally, constitute convincing proof of your interest in preventing contraceptive information from being diffused among the Mexican people...."

In the same issue of Gale's Mexican Socialist magazine there appears an article entitled, "First Congress of the National Socialist Party of Mexico." Speaking of the party platform to be adopted, Gale says in part:

"Another clause should put the party squarely on record as opposing the recent tyrannical and illegal effort of the Mexico City health department to prevent the dissemination of scientific birth control information among the poorer classes."

Hysterical critics of the New York Assembly have accused the Judiciary Committee of that body of accepting as evidence against the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen every conceivable reproach against the Socialist Party of America which could be scraped together out of its entire history. An inquiry to ascertain the qualifications of Socialists to make the laws of the land assuredly would be justified in searching every possible source of information. But, as a matter of fact, the Judiciary Committee confined its investigation to evidence bearing directly upon the political and governmental aspects of the case.

Had the Judiciary Committee wished to bring out what would most surely and deeply shock the moral sense of the American people--the organized propagation of immorality with which the five suspended Assemblymen were linked--the facts given in this and the preceding chapter show that no difficulty would have been found in digging up overwhelming evidence. The preceding chapter shows the propagation of free-love doctrines through all the publicity departments of the Socialist Party of America. The present chapter shows that the "New York Call," the chief political organ of the New York State branch of the Socialist Party of America, with which the five suspended Assemblymen were most intimately linked, has for years carried on an unclean and indecent propaganda to teach all within its polluting reach to violate one of the laws of the State of New York.



The avowed enemies of our constitutional government have within recent years met with stupendous success in persuading the credulous to rely on their extravagant promises and to look forward to the golden era of Socialism with the same bright hopes that little children do to the candies and toys in kidnappers' homes.

If it be asked why the conspirators against our country, religion, family and everything dear to us are so successful in their efforts to undermine the foundations of a grand and glorious nation like our own, the answer is that their astounding progress is due, first, to an exceptional zeal in the propagation of their doctrines, and, secondly, to the deceptive and specious arguments used for gaining recruits.

The extraordinary activity that has secured for the Socialists of the United States by far the greater part of a million votes in several presidential elections, and the acceptance of their revolutionary doctrines by a much larger number of radicals, who for one reason or another do not vote the Marxian ticket, is manifested under many different aspects.

The Socialist Party of the United States in the early part of 1919 contained a little more than 100,000 dues-paying members, enrolled in approximately 7,000 locals and branches. The members of these locals and branches frequently meet to devise means for spreading the doctrines of Karl Marx and for overthrowing the government of our country. It is almost needless to add that their zeal would do great credit to men engaged in a truly noble cause. The American people would be astounded at their activity, should they carefully read, from the first to the last page, a single copy of one of the foremost Socialist papers such as the "New York Call." Socialists are working by the tens of thousands every day, from January 1st to December 31st, endeavoring to undermine our government. They have been doing this for years, and only recently have the American people begun to wake up. Waking up, however, will not suffice. We must act, act quickly and vigorously, before it is too late and before the forces of destruction become too numerous to control.

Supplementing the indoor work of the locals and branches, one cannot but notice the so-called soap-box orators, found on the street corners of nearly every city of importance in the country. The specialty of these men is to preach class hatred and arouse dissatisfaction in their audiences with the present system of government and industry, and after this to assert, but never to prove, that Socialism is the sole remedy for the evils of our time.

It will be well to remember that the revolutionary Socialist Party, even as far back as 1913, published in the United States some 200 or more papers and periodicals in English, German, Bohemian, Polish, Jewish, Slovac, Slavonic, Danish, Italian, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Lettish, Norwegian, Croatian, Russian and Swedish. Attorney General Palmer made the number over 400 in 1919. Among the papers are two important dailies in English, "The Call" of New York City and the "Milwaukee Leader," two dailies22 in German, two in Bohemian, one in Polish, and one in Yiddish, the "Forward," which in the spring of 1919 had a circulation of about 150,000. The "Appeal to Reason" was once the greatest Socialist weekly in the country having had, in the fall of 1912, a circulation of nearly a million copies. About the latter part of 1917 it became lukewarm in upholding Socialist anti-war principles. As a consequence it lost most of its circulation, and in March, 1920, was still looked upon contemptuously by most members of the Socialist Party.

By the vivid pictures which the revolutionary papers and periodicals draw of the abuses, corruptions and wrongs of our age, they succeed in blinding many American citizens to such an extent that the latter do not realize that they have been caught in the snares of a deceitful and dangerous enemy. Like the soap-box orators, these publications, besides criticising real present-day abuses, frequently lie and exaggerate, and either assert that in the Marxian state man would enjoy the choicest blessings under heaven, or else arrive at this same conclusion by arguing from false and unproven assertions as premises. The Socialist papers and periodicals, notwithstanding their beautifully painted pictures of the visionary state, should in no way incline us towards enlisting under the red flag. For to say nothing of their lies and exaggerations, neither their criticisms of actual present-day wrongs, their unproven assertions of the benefits of Socialism, nor their conclusions drawn from false and unfounded premises, show in any wise that the Marxian state would remedy existing evils and be a source of blessings to our people. Indeed, it would be just as foolish for us to trust in these revolutionary publications as it would be to confide in quacks who should ask us to purchase their so-called remedies merely because they had pointed out the harmful effects of a few drugs sold by a certain apothecary, or because they had claimed excellent healing properties for their own potions.

Not only do the Marxians exert great influence through the papers which they publish, but they help their cause to a great extent by articles published in non-Socialist papers and magazines of the United States.

Another way in which they have distinguished themselves for their activity is by the immense number of books, novels and pamphlets they have written, large numbers of which are in circulation throughout our country and are rapidly undermining the very foundations of our National Government. As these works are found in abundance and are available to all classes of persons in public libraries, our country's library system is supplying its enemies with well-stocked arsenals wherein weapons are kept for the use of those who will one day join the ranks of these national conspirators.

The leaflet campaign of the Socialists has long since reached alarming proportions. To show what progress has been made by the arch enemies of our country, two quotations are hereby presented to the reader. The first is a letter which appeared in "The Call," New York, March 31, 1919, and reads as follows:

"Editor of 'The Call':

"We are living in the days of big events. The revolution in Russia has taught us some things that we ought to follow. One of them is the distribution of literature. In the past we have been climbing up four or five flights of stairs, standing on the street corners handing out leaflets, wearing out our strength and patience. I took a leaf out of the way the thing is done in Germany at present. All over the city there are any number of large window sills, at the top or very near the exits of the subway and elevated stations, the window sills of large stores. These window sills will hold a large amount of literature. Comrades going to work in the morning could very easily place the leaflets on them; it would take only a few seconds, the workers coming after them will pick them up. There is also, in the downtown districts, quite a few empty newsstands that are not used in the morning. These newsstands are generally at the very mouth of the subway stations. Then there are a number of benches in and on the stations that can be used. Our overcoat pockets will easily hold 100 or 200 pieces of literature. The time it takes to transfer the literature from our pockets to the window sills, newsstand or bench is about two seconds. I have been on the job for the last three weeks and the results have been astonishing. What are not picked up by the workers are in a few hours read by a large number of those out of work. We have got to come to it in the very near future. The halls are closed to us; let's get busy.

"Very cold, windy and rainy mornings are not very good ones. The one big drawback is to get some Comrade to write the leaflets. The leaflet I have used is one taken from 'The Call,' issued by local Kings, entitled 'Hell in Russia.' The way the workers grab it does your heart good.

"Yours for the education of the workers,

"Andrew B. DeMilt.

"P. S.--The above-named places are also good for that 'Call' you have laying around the house."

In the April 24, 1919, edition of "The Call," under the caption, "Official Socialist News," and the subheading, "Queens" (County, New York), we read:

"100 Socialists Wanted

"One hundred are required tonight to aid in distributing Socialist literature throughout the Ridgewood section. Those who are able and willing to help should call this evening at the Queens County Labor Lyceum, Myrtle and Cypress Avenues."

The number of revolutionary books, pamphlets and papers on the market is really astounding, and all out of proportion to the number of Socialists, Communists and I. W. W.'s who could possibly support them. Money for their publication must be forthcoming from other interested parties of considerable means. In fact, Deputy State Attorney General Samuel A. Berger, in a statement published in the "New York Times" on October 18, 1919, declared that rich radicals of the metropolis were the means of support for all but two of the forty or fifty extremely radical publications which reach 3,000,000 readers from New York City as a center. The same public official added that he did not have the authority to make known the names of the well-to-do men and women engaged thus in financing the plot to overthrow our National Government.

Not only are the Reds rapidly undermining our institutions by means of literature, but also through the forces of organized labor. Enough has already been said in a previous chapter relative to the I. W. W. itself; but it will not be out of place to comment on the revolutionary influence which the I. W. W. and many Socialist labor leaders as, for example, Maurer of Pennsylvania, are bringing to bear upon the American Federation of Labor.

The members of the I. W. W., as well as the Socialists and Communists throughout the country, have all along made every endeavor to fan the flames of class hatred between rich and poor, the employer and employee. They have, moreover, left nothing undone to promote discontent and strikes on as large a scale as possible with a view to finally ruining our present system of industry and the Government itself. Read any of the radical papers and you will be convinced that the "Red" rebels now place the greatest hopes for their rise to power in the strikes they are fomenting wherever and whenever an opportunity is offered.

The Marxian leaders realize that the high cost of living is constantly gaining recruits for their cause, and that the greater the number of strikes and the greater the number of persons involved, the longer it will take to reduce the cost of the necessaries of life. They know that if the working class secures a six-hour day, a five-day week and, in addition, an immense increase in wages, production will fall far short of the demand, the cost of living will go up by leaps and bounds, and business men will be ruined. Workingmen will then lose their positions and discontent will be far more prevalent than ever. Again, if laboring men can only be made to break their wage contracts soon after every victorious strike, the industries of the whole country will soon be "topsy-turvy."

What will bring on strikes more readily than to teach rebellion against all conservative labor leaders who would oppose uncalled-for walk-outs? It is much easier to get men to strike by having labor agitators harangue and deceive them, than it would be to have the workingmen quietly discuss both sides of the question honestly and fairly and then vote pro or con.

Sympathetic strikes are well calculated to bring on a general strike, which might easily lead to the rebellion that the Reds so much desire. Strikes very often induce the action of courts against the workers involved and frequently demand the use of police and the calling out of troops, and thus the rebel "Reds" obtain other arguments, sound or otherwise, to win more of the working-class to their diabolical cause. If the Socialist strike leaders are imprisoned, justly or not, Socialists do not fail to start nation-wide agitations for amnesty. Strikes, therefore, excessive demands, the breaking of wage contracts, revolts against conservative labor leaders, and impassioned class-conscious strike agitators are among the leading assets of the Marxian rebels for starting a bloody rebellion.

Many of the laboring class, especially newly arrived immigrants, cannot see the ultimate aim of the radical leaders and never dream of the terrible times that will soon overwhelm them if the cost of living continues to rise, business is ruined, and a terrible rebellion drenches our fair land with rivers of blood, leaving in its trail anarchy, crime and evils without end. Of what use are higher wages won by strikes, if the cost of living ascends still more rapidly? Of what use are higher wages for a short time if all industries and our Government with them are to be ruined through continual strikes and unreasonable demands suggested and agitated by men who have never yet given a single proof that their Socialistic scheme would not fall a prey to anarchy and war? The Reds, no matter of what type they are, have never proven that their state would be a success, or that it would not have a million times as many defects as our present system. Their empty assertions prove nothing but the empty-mindedness and ignorance of their illogical rank and file.

Yes, Socialist, Communist and I. W. W. influence is making itself felt even in the American Federation of Labor. During 1919 many an unauthorized strike took place against the will of the lawful labor leaders. The printers' strike and longshoremen's strikes in New York City are examples. "Red" labor leaders and revolutionary propaganda ruined the cause of the steel strikers.

The American Federation of Labor cannot afford to harbor Socialists and members of the I. W. W. It is doomed to shipwreck if it does not rid itself of Marxian agitators. The vast majority of the American people will not tolerate a revolutionary American Federation of Labor any more than they will tolerate a revolutionary I. W. W. If the principles of the American Federation of Labor become radical like those of the I. W. W., the Socialists, Communists and the Bolsheviki, the name "American" and past conservatism will never save our greatest labor organization from ruin. The greater part of the country is rapidly lining up against unreasonable demands made in the name of organized labor, millions of farmers taking the lead. Extreme advantages to city workingmen would spell ruin to the farmers. Millions of others of the middle class in our cities will also soon unite with the farmers, for they are getting tired of the endless and costly series of unreasonable strikes.

The Socialists and agents of the I. W. W. have for years been "boring from within" the A. F. of L. In other words, these Marxians, though members of the A. F. of L., are undermining its conservatism, discrediting and seeking to displace its less radical leaders, changing its policy of co-operation between capital and labor into one of class hatred between employee and employer, and attempting to reorganize it along industrial lines, rather than along those of the various craft divisions of each industry, with a view to making strikes more widespread and dangerous for our Government. In a word, they are seeking to turn the A. F. of L. into a second I. W. W., destined to join forces with Haywood's discredited industrial union of rebels.

William Z. Foster, national leader of the steel strikers in the fall of 1919, affords us an example of an I. W. W. agent "boring from within" the A. F. of L.

Mr. Carl W. Ackerman informs us in the "Boston Evening Transcript," September 24, 1919, that the first appearance of Foster as a radical was in 1910, when, as a reporter for the "Seattle Call," a Socialist paper at that time, he was sent along the Pacific Coast to report a number of so-called free speech fights. "From this," continues Mr. Ackerman, "he appears to have developed into a general agitator. As a result of his tour of the west he joined the I. W. W. and in this capacity he began to advocate sabotage....

"In 1911, while a member of the I. W. W., Foster went to Europe and visited France, Germany and Hungary as a correspondent of 'Solidarity,' the official organ of the I. W. W. in America, at that time published at New Castle, Pa. He wrote many articles for this publication, some of them signed, 'Yours for the I. W. W., W. Z. Foster,' and others, 'Yours for the revolution, W. Z. Foster.'"

In a letter written by Foster in 1911 and on file in the office of the United States District Attorney in Chicago, Foster said:

"I am satisfied from my observation that the only way for an I. W. W. to have the workers adopt and practice the principles of revolutionary unionism, which I take it is its mission, is to give up the attempt to create a new labor movement, turn itself into a propaganda league, get into the organized labor movement, and by building up better fighting machinery within the old unions than these possessed by our reactionary enemies, revolutionize these unions, even as our French syndicalist fellow-workers have so successfully done."

This letter, showing Foster's plan of "boring from within" the A. F. of L., was signed, "Yours for the revolution."

As late as 1915 Foster brought out a book entitled, "Trade Unionism, the Road to Freedom." Several excerpts taken from the sixth chapter show the true frame of mind of this leader, who has recently gained such a following in the A. F. of L.:

"Under the new order as pictured above, government, such as we know it, would gradually disappear. In an era of science and justice this makeshift institution, having lost its usefulness, would shrivel and die....

"Criminal courts, police, jails and the like would go also. Crime is due almost wholly to poverty. In a reign of plenty for all, it would practically disappear.... People would no longer have to wrangle over property rights. The industries now in the hands of national, state and municipal governments would be given over completely into the care of the workers engaged in them.... With war, crime, class antagonisms and property squabbles obliterated, and the management of industry taken from its care, little or no excuse would exist for government."

The November 8, 1919, report of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, in its investigation of the nation-wide steel strike, commented as follows on Foster:

"Such men are dangerous to the country and they are dangerous to the cause of union labor. It is unfair to men who may be struggling for their rights to be represented by such leaders. It prevents them from securing proper hearing for their cause. If Mr. Foster has the real interest of the laboring man at heart he should remove himself from any leadership. His leadership injures instead of helping. If he will not remove himself from leadership the American Federation of Labor should purge itself of such leadership in order to sustain the confidence which the country has had in it under the leadership of Mr. Gompers."



The success or failure of the Marxian movement will, to a great extent, depend upon the ability of the revolutionists to gain control of the schools, colleges and universities of the United States. That they have been long active in spreading their pernicious doctrines among the young is evident to all who are closely in touch with Socialist activities.

In our country there exist what are known as Socialist Sunday schools. The revolutionists themselves tell us that the aim and purpose of these schools is the destructive work of tearing down old superstitious ideas of territorial patriotism, and that such schools should be founded in as many places as possible, to counteract the influences of churches, synagogues and public schools.

Page 68 of the "Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," clearly indicates the exceptional importance which Marxians attach to their training of the young:

"Among the special fields of Socialistic propaganda the education of our boys and girls to an understanding of the Socialist philosophy is one of the most important. The ultimate battles of Socialism will largely be fought by the growing generation, and we must begin early to train the latter for its part. The Socialists of Europe have long appreciated the importance of the task, and in almost every country they have built up a strong organization of young people. The Socialists of America are just beginning to turn their attention to the problem....

"The teaching of infants is a task which requires a good deal of professional training, and no Socialist 'Sunday schools' for very young children should be established where we do not have experienced and reliable teachers to conduct them....

"It is quite otherwise with children of the maturer age of, say, fourteen years and upward. Young people of that age normally possess sufficient strength of mind to grasp the main philosophy and aims of our movement intelligently, and their training into the Socialist mode of thought and action cannot be conducted with too much zeal and energy. Young people's clubs, societies for the study of Socialism should be formed all over the country as regular adjuncts to our party organization, and very serious consideration should be given to them by the adult Socialists. But they should remain primarily study clubs, and should not be encouraged to engage in practical political activity, which can do but little good to our movement, and may tend to arrest the intelligent growth of the youthful enthusiasts. When they will reach a maturer age they will be better and more efficient workers in the movement for having made a more thorough study of its theory and methods."

"The Call," New York, March 30, 1913, commenting on teaching Socialism to the young, adds: "Up to the present time only men vote in most of the states, and they do not use the ballot until they are 21 years of age. It stands to reason that for the intelligent use of the ballot there must be proper preparation and education. We cannot expect people to vote right unless they are trained right....

"If you want or expect men and women to be good and intelligent voters at the age of 21, then something most vital must be done with them before they reach that age. From 5 to 21, that's a long road. That's the impressionable period. That's the time at which the people are prepared to become good Socialists or good opponents of Socialism. And the latter quite as readily as the former....

"Catch them young! That's it. But how? In lots of ways. Get them coming our way. Let them lose their fear of us. Have them come to a dance and find out that we are human. It surprises them sometimes. When they realize that, they are partly won.

"Educating the young to Socialism is a matter of 'indirect' action rather than 'direct' action. It would be the height of folly to try to cram Karl Marx down these new young throats. That will come in time. Start them on something easier, something less drastic. Sugar coat your bitter pills a little."

It is possible, in conformity with this last suggestion, that after the parade of Socialist children of New York City, on May Day, 1913, they were to be treated, as we are informed in "The Call" on the same day, to a feast of ice cream and cake and a series of thrilling moving pictures of the struggles between the police and the strikers at Lawrence and Little Falls.

With this short diversion, we shall return to the article in "The Call" of March 30, 1913, which goes on to say that "the young people should be gradually educated to rebellion and revolution. Songs will help. Plays will help. Casual talk here and there will aid. It must soak in. You can't flood them with stuff in two days. Rebels that are made in two days may stick in a crisis, but I don't believe they will."

It certainly is interesting to read "Lesson 24," taken from the "Socialist Primer," a little book which a man named Klein has prepared for the use of children attending the Socialist Sunday schools:

"Here is a man with a gun; he is in the troop. You see he has a nice suit on. Does he work? No, the man with the gun does no work. His work is to shoot men who do work. Is it nice to shoot men? Would you like to shoot a man? This man eats, drinks, wears clothes, but does no work. Do you think that is nice? Yes, this is nice for the fat man, but bad for the thin; so he owns the man with the gun. When the thin man will have the law on his side, there will be no more men with guns. Who makes the gun? The man who works. Who makes the nice suit? The man who works. Who gets shot with the gun? The man who works. Who gets the bad clothes? The man who works. Is this right? No, this is wrong!"

In "The Call," New York, April 17, 1919, there appeared the following advertisement of a coming entertainment to be given by a Socialist Sunday school of the Brownsville section of Brooklyn:

"Sunday School Gives Concert in Brownsville

"The annual entertainment and concert of the Brownsville Socialist Sunday school will take place tomorrow evening at the Brownsville Labor Lyceum. The capitalist press has lately discovered that there are Socialist Sunday schools in the city. They even send their reporters to discover what awful things Socialist children are taught there. The American Defence Society has just undertaken a vigorous nation-wide fight against Bolshevism in general and Socialist Sunday schools in particular. All school children and the parochial schools are to be enlisted in this glorious work. The Protestant churches, not to be outdone, are also organizing to save the children from Socialism. The growth of the Socialist schools is throwing fear into the hearts of the capitalists. Brownsville parents can do no better than to help make this school, now one of the largest in the country, even better and stronger than it is. A splendid musical program has been arranged and, in addition, the children will sing, dance and recite. Tickets may be bought at the Lyceum."

Every parent will understand the subtle, insidious poison of rebellion against parental authority and guidance instilled into young minds by such items as the following, from the "New York Call" of July 16, 1919:

"Independence is one of the finest qualities of youth. In an inspiring postal card to her mother (copies of which might well be put into the hands of young children everywhere), Hilda Stydocker, 14, of 3 Washington Avenue, West Orange, states that she is going to 'earn her own living and take care of herself.' Previously gossip had been circulated to the effect that Hilda had been kidnapped."

In a previous issue of "The Call," April 4, 1919, part of a speech given by H. B. Shaen, president of the Brooklyn Sunday School Union, is quoted:

"It is a question of great moment," President Shaen said yesterday. "It must be dealt with drastically, effectively and immediately. Bolshevism is a greater menace than we like to believe. The proposed establishment of 3,000 so-called Socialist schools in this city will be a blow at religion, at government, at decency. It might be a fatal error to underestimate the pernicious influence of this organization that seeks to sow disquieting seeds by deceiving young America with false beliefs."

Mr. Woodworth Clum, of the Greater Iowa Association, in volume 4, number 1, of "The Iowa Magazine," gives the following shocking account of Socialistic propaganda among school children carried on in the northwest by Townley's Non-Partisan League:

"The Non-Partisan League, under direction of Townley and Le Seur, has taken possession of the schools of North Dakota--and may get control of the schools of Minnesota.... Radical doctrines are becoming part of the regular curricula. I have a statement from O. B. Burtness, representative in the North Dakota Legislature from Grand Forks. Here it is:

"'The board of administration has placed in charge of the state library, to select the reading for our schools, C. E. Strangeland. He is telling our school children what to read. I found in our state library, the other day, a bundle of books, all ready to be sent to one of our country schools--a circulating library. If the farmers of North Dakota could have seen what I saw, they would have come to Bismarck and cleaned out the whole Socialist gang. Here are the titles of some of those books I saw:

"'"Socialism and Modern Science," Ferri.

"'"Evolution and Property," La Farge.

"'"Not Guilty," Blatchford.

"'"Love and Marriage," Ellen Key.

"'"Love and Ethics," Ellen Key.

"'"The Bolshevik and World Peace," Leon Trotzky.

"'"The History of the Supreme Court," Meyers.

"'"The Profits of Religion," Sinclair.

"'"Anarchism and Socialism," Harris.'

"Ellen Key is a pronounced advocate of free-love and the dissolution of marriage."

In high schools, especially those of New York City, many teachers have been using every opportunity for advocating Socialism and other radical doctrines in the classroom and out of it. Students, in order to win favor with some of these teachers, at times show zeal for Socialistic tenets both in oral and written composition. Quite a number of the teachers are Socialists themselves, have become known as such throughout the schools and use their influence to win over others. Many books given by these teachers for outside reading are by Socialist or radical authors.

On the editorial page of "The New York Times," April 9, 1919, there is an article against the "Teachers' Union," a Socialist and radical organization of many of the teachers of New York City. Under the title, "Forbidden to Preach Sedition," we read:

"There will be, presumably, much excited denunciation of the Board of Education for closing the public schools to meetings of the Teachers' Union. The familiar complaints about infringing the right of free speech will be heard, and--well, the complaints will be as ill-based as they usually are.

"In the first place, while speech is free in this country, it is not, any more than it is or can be, anywhere, free to the extent that anybody is free to say anything at any time and any place. Restrictions of several kinds there are and must be, including those by which decency and the safety of our institutions are protected. On the other hand, the members of the Teachers' Union have not been reduced--as yet--to silence. They have simply been told that they cannot use the city's property in the campaign which they have undertaken against an important branch of the City Government. They are still privileged to hire as many halls as they please in which to accuse the Board of Education of tyranny, and to protest against the enforcement of discipline against teachers with a leaning toward Bolshevism, and a tendency to mingle Socialistic and pro-German propaganda with instruction in the three R's.

"In this instance, as in so many others, the use of schoolhouses for meetings of adults with opinions to express and doctrines to preach has resulted unhappily. The adults who gather seem always, or almost always, to be, not average, well-disposed citizens, but a more or less incendiary minority who want to change things--and to change them a lot and very quickly. That aspiration is not wholly indefensible, for a good many things would be the better for changing, but real light and leading have not often been found on top at meetings in schoolhouses, and experience has proved that the Teachers' Union has neither to offer."

The following is from the "New York World" of November 20, 1919:

"Fifteen teachers in city schools will appear before Deputy Attorney General Berger tomorrow afternoon to be questioned to determine if they are dangerous radicals. Examination of the records of the Communist Party seized in recent raids has resulted in evidence indicating that each of the teachers is a member of that organization....

"Superintendent of Schools Ettinger revoked the license, yesterday, of Sonia Ginsberg, a teacher in School No. 170 in Brooklyn, who admitted she would like to see the United States Government displaced by one similar to the Bolshevist regime in Russia. Miss Ginsberg, born in Russia, was naturalized as a citizen last June."

For many years the Intercollegiate Socialist Society has been winning college and university students to the doctrines of the Social Revolution through the medium of the various branches that it establishes in such institutions. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society sometime ago had, in the different colleges and universities of our country, between 60 and 70 chapters, or Socialist local societies, with Socialist libraries, and lecturers in frequent attendance. Every year chapter-delegates are sent to an intercollegiate convention from nearly all the important American universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Barnard, Amherst, Brown, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, and Chicago. Even Vassar, which had 86 members in the first year in which the Intercollegiate was organized, is included in the long list. Harry W. Laidler, organizer of the Socialist chapters and secretary of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, claims that all the universities now throw open their large assembly rooms for addresses by the visiting lecturers, give quarters in the college buildings to the Socialist chapters, and permit the use of the college publications in the dissemination of propagandist literature, if it is written by bona fide students.

We shall reproduce a letter which shows what is going on in our colleges and universities. The identification of the writer, person addressed, and others mentioned in the letter, is made on the authority of Mr. Woodworth Clum, of the Greater Iowa Association, Davenport, Iowa.

The letter was written July 29, 1919, by Arthur W. Calhoun, then instructor in sociology and political economy at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. It was written to Professor Zeuch, then instructor at the University of Minnesota, now an instructor at Cornell University. "Gras," mentioned in the letter, is Professor N. S. B. Gras, a member of the Faculty of the University of Minnesota. The letter also mentions E. C. Hayes, who is professor of sociology at the University of Illinois, President Grose of DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, and E. A. Ross, professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin and Advisory Editor of the American Journal of Sociology. The "Beals" mentioned in the letter, says Mr. Clum, "was formerly a university professor and old friend of Calhoun's. He is now openly advocating Bolshevism." Toward the end of the letter, Calhoun says: "Greencastle is too small to do much with the co-op." This "co-op" is the Tri-State Co-operative Society of Pittsburg, and, says Mr. Clum, "the society's business is the production and distribution of vicious 'red' propaganda." Calhoun is or was one of its directors.

The letter, copied from a fac-simile of the original in volume 4, number 1, of "The Iowa Magazine," Davenport, Iowa, is as follows:

"55 E. Norwich Av., Columbus, O., July 29.

"Dear Zeuch:--

"I think I accept all you say about the condition of the proletariat and the impossibility of the immediate revolution. But I am less interested in the verbiage of the Left Wing than in the idea of keeping ultimates everlastingly in the center of attention to the exclusion of mere puttering reforms. One of the things that will hasten the revolution is to spread the notion that it can come soon. If the Left Wing adopts impossibilist methods of campaign, I shall stand aloof, but if they push for Confiscation, Equality of Economic Status, and the speedy elimination of class privilege, and keep their heads, I shall go with them rather than the yellows.

"If Gras is doing what he says and I am doing what he says, he is right in saying that he is doing the better job. I wonder, however, how many of his students draw the 'necessary' conclusions: and I wonder whether I do all my students' thinking for them.

"Ellery is feeling at Columbus and also at Illinois. I had a letter from Hayes about him.

"I have accepted the professorship of Sociology at De Pauw University. The job pays $2200 this year with assurance of $2400 if I stay a second year. The president has been here three times and had long interviews with me. Besides we have written a lot. I told him I belong to the radical Socialists. I expounded my general principles on all important points. He knows also of the circumstances of my leaving Clark and Kentucky. He says he is in substantial agreement with most of what I have said and that he sees no reason why I can not get along at De Pauw. He says he feels confident it will be a permanency. Ross had some hand in the game. Pres. Grose interviewed him at Madison last week and Ross wrote encouraging me to take the place. I did not make any great effort. Grose knew that I did not care much one way or the other. He took the initiative almost from the start and I sat back and waited. I'm afraid Greencastle is too small to do much with the co-op. Population 4000, 30 miles north of Bloomington. 800 students, mostly in college, a few in School of Music, a few graduate students. Hudson is prof. of Ec. there.

"Beals was here last week. He is pushing the 'Nation.' Says the circulation has quadrupled since they became Bolshevist.

"As ever,


The Rand School, in New York City, is known as the University of Socialism and is said to have had 5,000 attending its lectures in the year 1918. The purpose of the school, as originally conceived, and as adhered to throughout, is twofold, first, to offer to the general public facilities for the study of Socialism and related subjects. This is done by its reference library and reading-room and by its large book store, in which are sold not only Socialist books, but books on atheism as well; not only the more conservative Socialist papers, but ultra revolutionary papers such as "The Revolutionary Age," "The Proletarian," many Bolshevist publications, and "The Rebel Worker" and "The New Solidarity," the latter two being I. W. W. papers.

The last time the author of "The Red Conspiracy" visited the Rand School book store, there was on sale a pile of Birth Control Reviews several feet high, "The One Big Union Monthly," the I. W. W. organ, and enough foul and revolutionary matter to satisfy the filthiest or most blood-thirsty wretch in the United States.

The second purpose of the Rand School is to offer to Socialists such instruction and training as may make them more efficient workers for the Socialist movement. This is done by means of lectures, some 5,000 students attending, on an average, 20 lectures each in the year 1918. The school also directs extension classes in outlying parts of the city and neighboring places and correspondence courses for study classes and individual students in all parts of the country. It conducts a bureau to provide lectures on Socialism for clubs, trade unions, forums and other organizations not otherwise connected with the school. For years this school, which was raided under the direction of the Lusk Committee, has been sowing the seeds of class hatred and class discrimination, now everywhere springing up round about us. The laws have been too tolerant, and it has been permitted to go on without interference far too long. In referring to documents seized in the raids in the summer of 1919, Deputy Attorney General Conklin said that the papers "are so carefully and cleverly phrased" that no single sentence can be picked out as in violation of the law. "Yet," he adds, "taken as a whole, the documents are seditious, in my opinion." They were made a matter of record, awaiting the disposition of the District Attorney of New York.

These facts speak for themselves. It scarcely need be said that unless this propaganda is checked, the power and strength of the Socialist Party will soon assume tremendous proportions, imperilling the existence of our nation.

Another field of work to which the enemies of our country have been devoting special attention is the propagation of revolutionary doctrines among the non-English speaking residents of the United States. Page 69 of the "Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party" informs us that "the American people are, after all, a nation of immigrants. We count our Americanism by a very few generations, and the foreign population has always played an important part in the industrial and political life of the country. At this time there are over ten million foreign born persons in the United States. Most of them are workers, and most of them still speak, write and read in their native tongues.

"The powers of capital, through their political and so-called educational agencies, and often with the aid of the churches, are constantly at work prejudicing them against Socialism and arraying them against organized labor.

"The Socialists must make energetic efforts to counteract these baneful influences and to reach the foreign workers with their propaganda.

"The Socialist Party has branch organizations among all, or almost all, of these nationalities, and a few of these organizations have reached a high degree of strength and a large measure of influence among the people of their nationalities....

"These organizations work under conditions different from those of the party as a whole. In each case they deal with a special type of persons, of a psychology and of economic conditions peculiarly their own, and they are the most competent judges of the methods of propaganda best suitable to their own countrymen. The party should allow such non-English speaking organizations the greatest freedom of action, and should assist them in every way in their special work of Socialist propaganda."

It may interest the reader to learn that the Socialist Party is so much concerned with its propaganda among foreigners, that in its 1913 May Day parade in New York City pink leaflets headed "WOMEN, BECOME CITIZENS," were distributed. They read:

"If you hope to be a voter, remember that you must be a citizen! Don't delay! Come to the NATURALIZATION BUREAU of the SOCIALIST PARTY next Tuesday evening, and let us help you to become naturalized." It was, of course, an understood fact that the Socialist Party would, besides helping such women to become naturalized, also help them to become Revolutionists.

On May 18, 1912, May Wood-Simons reported to the National Convention of the Socialist Party the recommendations of the Woman's National Committee, urging the carrying of the propaganda of Socialism to the housewife, the woman on the farm, to teachers, foreign speaking women and women in industry. ("The Call," New York, May 19, 1912.)

Though the zeal of the national foe in its propaganda of revolutionary principles is manifested in many other ways, only a few more illustrations will be given. Many thousands of copies of the "Appeal to Reason," when it was the foremost American Socialist paper, found their way into the camps and upon the battleships of our country.

At the Socialist National Convention of 1912, held in Indianapolis, Delegate Kate Sadler pointed out how Socialist locals had been organized on various battleships in the navy and how she was accustomed to hold meetings on Sunday afternoons on the men-of-war at the navy yard, Bremerton, Washington. "We'll get the boys organized into the Socialist Party," she declared, and the Socialist Convention voted to adopt the resolution. ("The Call," New York, May 17, 1912.)

During recent years no one who has carefully read the public press could have failed to notice that the Socialists have been carrying on an active campaign of lies and deceptions in the form of letters which they have sent to the editors of the daily papers, with the request that the same be published for the enlightenment of the public regarding the general excellency of the Socialist movement.

In "The Call," New York, March 23, 1913, it is said that "the man or woman who can convey the message of Socialism through speaking is fortunate, and when it can be done through speaking and writing, the Comrade is doubly lucky. But Ryan Walker can do it through speaking and writing and the cartoon that makes you laugh or makes you mad.... The cartoons that Walker has been putting over in 'The Call,' 'The Coming Nation' and the 'Appeal to Reason' have been copied in Socialist papers all over the world, in England, Scotland, Germany, Australia, and they are doing their work in these countries the same as they do it here. The Socialist cartoonists have been accomplishing some of the biggest propaganda work that is done by any one of our active members, and while they are getting the laugh on capitalism, and getting the laugh on the fool workingman, they are arousing the worker to cast aside his foolishness, and at the same time cast aside the foolishness of the capitalist. Getting the laugh on the capitalist, showing how ridiculous and weak he is, is a great preliminary to getting rid of him."

The Socialists are inspired with such an ardent desire for the success of their movement, that they have written theatrical plays and have even had moving picture films made, so that by representing in a most vivid manner the evils and abuses of our day, they may persuade the unwary that Socialism would mean the absence of sufferings and wrongs of every description.

We elsewhere have called attention to I. W. W. effort to organize the negroes of America. The work of making rebels of the negroes is also carried on assiduously by the Socialist Party of America. Says "The National Civic Federation Review," July 30, 1919:

"Among the propaganda material found on sale by agents of the Lusk Committee in the Rand School book store were copies of 'The Messenger,' on the front page of which it is called, 'The Only Radical Negro Magazine in America,' of which Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph are editors....

"Both of the editors of this magazine, who are negroes, are instructors at the Rand School of Social Science."

In "The Open Forum" of the September, 1919, issue of "The Messenger" three letters are given as follows:

"Dear Comrade Owen:

"I enclose a check for $25.00 as a contribution to the organization fund being raised by 'The Messenger.' I know of no more important and vital work in the field of American Socialism and Labor today than the effort of your group to incorporate the large masses of Negro workers in the ranks of the advanced and class-conscious white workers in the industrial and political fields.

"My heartiest wishes for the success of your movement.

"Sincerely and fraternally yours,

"Morris Hillquit."

"To the Editors of 'The Messenger':

"Dear Comrades.--The work which you are doing is vital. Your people constitute more than a tenth of the total population of the United States. We are all native born Americans. If there is to be progress made, particularly in the great Southland, by the Socialist Movement, it must be made by and through colored people. Enclosed is my check for Five Dollars, for the first share of stock in 'The Messenger.' With it goes my heart good wishes for the success of your work.

"Yours truly,

"Scott Nearing."

"Dear Sir and Brother:

"Enclosed please find check for the amount of $100.00 in reply to the appeal presented by you at the last meeting of our Board of Directors for support to enable you to continue the noble work you have undertaken to enlighten the colored worker in this country upon his being exploited by the master class.

"We wish you success in the work you are conducting on this field and you can rely upon the assurance of our organization for all possible assistance in the future.

"Fraternally yours,

"P. Monat."

In view of the frightful character of the very active propaganda that is being carried on by the enemies of our country, does it not behoove every loyal and patriotic American to rise in his power and wipe out the Red plague that is rapidly disseminating its destructive germs throughout the United States?



It remains to be shown that the rapid spread of Socialism, besides being due to the extraordinary zeal of the Revolutionists, is largely the result of artful deception.

The Marxians, who are fond of being called "scientific" Socialists, may very aptly be compared to little boys who might try to prove to their teacher that the solution of a certain problem in mathematics was correct, because that of another problem of an entirely different nature was wrong. Or, better still, they may be likened to an egg dealer who would attempt to prove to a customer that every egg in one crate was good, because a few in another were unfit for use. The appropriateness of comparing the "scientific" Socialists to the amusing youngsters, or to the illogical egg dealer, will be evident to the reader when he reflects that the revolutionists, north, south, east and west, from the first day of January till the last of December, condemn the present system of government and industry, endeavoring thereby to persuade the people that Socialism is the only remedy for the evils from which they are suffering.

Most of the speeches and writings of the "Knights of the Red Flag" consist in severely criticising prevalent evils. By attacking the present system of government and industry they hope to have the workingmen conclude that the Socialist Party alone can save mankind from complete ruin. This, then, is the way in which "scientific" Socialism leads unreflecting laborers to believe that the contemplated state would be the most perfect institution under heaven, replete with countless blessings and free from every evil.

It often happens that the revolutionists dazzle the eyes of the weary with the vivid pictures that they draw of intolerable civil and economic conditions, whether these be true, false or imaginary. The result is that the poor people frequently brood over the wrongs from which they happen to be suffering. They become so thoroughly discontented and blinded with class hatred that they are no longer able to see the advantage of reforming the present system by constitutional and lawful methods. Finally, when they have almost lost their reason and can no longer realize that the drug offered them has never been proven capable of remedying the evils that weigh heavily upon them, they accept and swallow the poisonous dose of Socialism and become a thousand times more wretched than they were before. The very potion they drink, with a view to being cured, makes them most unhappy for the rest of their lives, and in many cases for all eternity. If there is anything that non-Socialists should be on their guard against it is this base form of tactics by which the revolutionists have been eminently successful in gaining new recruits.

If those whose party emblem is a flaming torch could even prove that everything without exception in the present system of industry is worthy of condemnation, and that the entire government is corrupt to its very core, it would no more follow from this that Socialism was the remedy than it would follow that the solution of one problem in mathematics must be correct because another solution of an entirely different nature was wrong, or that all the eggs in one crate must be good because there were some in a second crate unfit for use.

It is very common for Socialists to assume that certain fundamental principles have been proven to be true, whereas the fact is that these very premises, from which they draw their conclusions, are often false and without the slightest foundation. An excellent illustration of this has already been given in preceding pages, where it was shown that the Socialists incorrectly assumed that there would be no poverty in their state, and argued from this that there would be very little prostitution. It is evident, therefore, that unless those who listen to the Marxians are on their guard and demand that the premises be proven the Socialists may deduce from incorrect premises conclusions which will make it appear that their intended state will bestow heaven's choicest blessings upon mankind.

Though examples of deceit have already been given, the attention of the reader will be called to the testimony of no less an authority than Eugene V. Debs, who in the following article, published in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, January, 1911, will be seen to substantiate our charge:

"The truth is that we have not a few members who regard vote getting as a supreme importance, no matter by what methods the votes may be secured, and this leads them to hold out inducements, and make representations which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncomprising principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give offence--to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for votes, rather than as a means for education, and votes thus secured do not properly belong to us."

It is not unfrequently that we hear Socialists appealing to this or that plank of their party platform as proof sufficient that their organization favors or opposes a certain policy. An argument of this sort should have very little weight with careful thinking men, once their attention has been called to the fact that the Socialists have been proven guilty of a base lie by stating in their 1908 platform that the party is not concerned with matters of religious belief. But even if the revolutionists had never inserted in their platform a statement that was untrue, nevertheless the following facts show that their platform planks are very far from being reliable.

The delegates of the party assembled in national convention on May 15, 1908, by a vote of 102 to 33 passed a plank declaring for the collective ownership of all the land. ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 186.)

It was on September 7, 1909, less than a year and four months after the adjournment of the convention of 1908, that the words declaring for the collective ownership of all the land were, by a referendum, stricken from the party platform, while by another referendum it was decided to insert among the principles of the platform that the party was not opposed to the occupation and possession of land by those using it in a useful and bona fide manner without exploitation. ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 25.)

About eight months after the adoption of this substitute plank, a bitter contest concerning the ownership of "all" the land took place in the National Congress of the party, which was held in Chicago from May 15, 1910, till May 21, 1910. ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," pages 220 to 235.) Thus, during the 1910 Congress, notwithstanding the fact that there existed at that time a plank in the party platform guaranteeing the possession of land to persons who would use it in a bona fide manner, the representatives of the party in national congress assembled, being unable to decide whether or not it was to the best interests of the party to abide by this plank, referred the matter to the next convention. ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 235.)

Then, when the 1912 Convention met, it made another change, and declared for the collective ownership of land wherever practicable. ("The 1912 Platform of the Socialist Party"--Cf. "The Call," May 19, 1912.) In addition to this, it stated that occupancy and use shall be the sole title to land. ("The 1912 Platform of the Socialist Party"--Cf. "The Call," May 19, 1912.)

It is noteworthy that the Convention of 1908 had previously voted down this proposition to make occupancy and use the sole title to land, after the proposition had been denounced as being anarchistic, unsocialistic, nonsensical, foolish, and a dream ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," pages 188, 189 and 191.) One of the foremost opponents of the proposition was Delegate Morris Hillquit, who asked:

"What does the amendment mean? Occupancy and use the basis of title to land. How do we know whether the co-operative commonwealth will infer and arrange it in that way? Aren't we taking a long excursion into the domain of the future and into the domain of speculation? It may be true that the dream of the dreamer may become a reality, if this dream is the dream of the nation. But we have not come here to dream dreams and leave it to the future to realize them or to show them to be just mere pipe dreams.... The Socialist state may just as well decide on an entirely different basis for the distribution of land. It may not at all be bound to our resolution here today that occupation forms a title." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 189.)

When the Marxians are brought face to face with the charge of adopting a program today, rejecting it tomorrow, hesitating about it on the next day and compromising it on the fourth, as they did in respect to the collective ownership of "all" the land, let them not argue that such changes are to be expected in the evolution of Socialism. They should be forced to confess that they acted in such a way solely to gain votes. Confront them with the speeches delivered in their National Convention of 1908 and in their National Congress of 1910, both by the delegates who advocated the collective ownership of "all" the land and by those who opposed it. For the convenience of the reader passages from some of these speeches will now be given:

Delegate Cannon of Arizona: "I contend that the public ownership of all machinery and land is one of the things for which the Socialist Party is working. If some of the Comrades get up and tell us in Germany they are not working for that, I move that we inform the German Comrades that they are behind the times. The idea of not including the land is nothing more or less than political expediency." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 175.)

Delegate Payne of Texas: "I want to know if this convention of this movement which we call the great revolutionary movement is going to go down in history as catering to a small middle class of land owners, or are you going to stand for the great proletarian farming class?" ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention on the Socialist Party," page 181.)

Delegate Morrison of Arizona: "Is it possible that we have so far forgotten ourselves, that we will attempt to curry favor with a few capitalist farmers? Why is this resolution here? What is the object of it? What is the purpose of it? Is it to secure votes? Do you hope to deceive some one as to the actual, real program of scientific Socialism? Or are you, in other words, going to lie to the farmers of this country in order to secure their suffrage? Are you going to present something to them that you know is not contained in the Socialist program? Can you afford, as representatives of this great revolutionary party, to do that which in a few years you will be ashamed of? I say no." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 184.)

Delegate Goaziou of Pennsylvania: "I know we have in this country a growing movement among Socialists who are wanting votes no matter how they will get them. They are willing to put in appeals to the farmers, appeals to the middle class and appeals to everybody, so that they can get votes." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 209.)

Delegate Thompson of Wisconsin: "We know that there is a very large portion of votes of this country on the farm, under agricultural conditions and environment, over forty per cent. Less than thirty per cent of the votes of this country are under industrial conditions. When we get to the point where we want to do something, we must have some way or other of getting these two forces welded together. We can never win out with thirty per cent of the vote. We will have to have at least a substantial majority, and that we cannot have without the farmers." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 185.)

Delegate Victor Berger of Wisconsin: "We cannot have Socialism in this country, if we don't get the farmers in some way. If you try to take away the farms of twelve millions of farmers of this country, you will have a big job on your hands. You might as well try to reach down the moon.... You remember how much effort and how many men it cost England to conquer 30,000 farmers, Boers--Boers, mind you--and now try to take the farms from these 12,000,000 American farmers and you will have about a million times harder job. Besides, they don't need to fight. All they have to do is to stop bringing food to Chicago for six weeks, and Comrade Morgan and the rest of Chicago would be knocked out." ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 230.)

Delegate Simmons of Illinois: "There is just one thing on earth that I will toady to and that is a fact. And when I meet a fact so big as the farmer question in America, a fact that has in it the future of 12,000,000 of people of the producing classes, without whom we stand no more chance of a Socialist victory in this country than we do of changing the orbit of a comet, and when I face a fact as big as that, I don't try to stand in front of it, and howl empty phrases, in the hope that the fact will get out of the way." ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 231.)

Since the revolutionists, to win votes, frequently point to the reforms they have proposed or in some cases accomplished, we should all be on our guard lest, being allured by these reforms, we be led into the Socialist camp, and later on suffer the dreadful evils that have been shown would result from the adoption of the Marxian system of government.

Those who vote the Socialist ticket insist on calling the attention of non-Socialists to the immediate demands enumerated in their party platform, many of which are excellent. Workingmen, however, should remember, first, that many of them are only meant for the time our present Government is still in power; moreover, that a crime-ridden, anarchical and bankrupt state could not grant them, and, furthermore, that there is no reason why our Government, in its present form, could not grant all the Marxian demands that are really advantageous.

The Socialists often argue from some successful results in government ownership of public utilities to the success of Socialism itself. Though it cannot be denied that government ownership of public utilities has in some instances been a success, still anti-Socialists can just as well argue the failure of Socialism from failures in government ownership, which are entirely too numerous to require comment. If in the future it should become evident that great benefits would accrue from the national, state, or municipal ownership of certain public utilities, which are now privately owned, our present form of government, without becoming Socialistic, could take them over, just as many of our cities have already taken over water, gas and power plants. But the number would have to be limited, for it has already been shown in Chapter XVII what terrible consequences would follow from adopting the scheme of Socialism, whereby the people would collectively own and manage all the principle means of production, transportation and communication. Public ownership on such a large scale, so as to conform with the plans of the revolutionists, implies that the vast majority of workingmen would be government employees. The result, as has been shown, would be a terrible reign of discontent, strife, crime, revolution and chaos; whereas the prudent purchase of a small number of public utilities, under the present system of government, would entail none of these evils, since most workingmen could refuse positions that they did not care for or where the wages would not satisfy them, and do this without injuring the government.

The Socialists, especially when they appeal to the less educated, frequently argue that since their party platform says nothing concerning the teaching of a certain doctrine, for instance free-love, it is evident that the party does not advocate it. Such a method of reasoning is, of course, absurd and utterly unworthy of men who style themselves scientific; for by arguing in exactly the same way, it would follow that their flag is not the red flag because there is no plank in their party platform stating that it is.

Although many Socialists have written an abundance of anti-religious literature, other members of the party have composed books, pamphlets and articles that in no way attack the church. Some of the revolutionists, in their endeavors to make their movement attractive to Christians, go so far as to claim that even Christ was a Socialist. Since, therefore, the enemies of our country have at their disposal writings which attack religion, as well as those that are in no way hostile to it, they are well able to supply with attractive reading matter not only atheists who are opposed to all forms of religion, but Christians, no matter to what denomination they may chance to belong.

In like manner there are to be found within the Socialist Party writers who advocate free-love and others who are opposed to its propagation, either through a personal repugnance to legalized sin, or else because they think that by teaching loose morals the party would alienate many prospective members. Hence, the Socialists can satisfy the depraved by recommending to them the different works on free-love, and at the same time they can give satisfaction to those who are opposed to the base doctrine by referring them to books which not only do not advocate it but even condemn it in the most emphatic way.

In this double-dealing party there is a very strong faction whose members advocate direct action, in other words, violence, as a means for bringing about the downfall of our Government and of the entire industrial system. Opposed to these men, who are frequently termed the "Reds," there is a rapidly disappearing faction of so-called "Yellows," who rely upon the use of the ballot, and decry direct action, either through personal repugnance to violence, or, as seems most likely, because they deem peaceful methods more prolific of votes, and consequently of future political advantage to themselves. The direct actionists by their inflammatory speeches and writings are especially successful in gaining recruits from among the more disorderly elements of society, whereas the political actionists appeal rather to those persons who are opposed to the destruction of life and property.

It is by no means uncommon for the revolutionists to avoid as far as possible the discussion of knotty problems relative to the working details of their contemplated state. They often do this by telling us that the people of the future will be the ones to solve the problem in question. In illustration two examples will be given, the first of which is taken from the "Appeal to Reason," January 6, 1912:

"Do Socialists think all men should be paid alike--the man with the pick the same wages as the lawyer or doctor?"

"Socialists differ on this proposition. Whatever a majority of the people may decide will prevail."

Again we read, in the April 6, 1912, edition of the same paper:

"Will producers get paid for the number of hours worked, or for the amount of production?"

"No one knows just how the returns will be regulated, for the reason that they are to be regulated according to the will of the whole people and not according to the scheme of the 'Appeal to Reason.' It is possible that both methods may be tried, and the best prevail."

A subterfuge that often meets with success, and which for this very reason is a favorite one among the revolutionists when they are on the point of being defeated in an argument, consists in this, that they do their best to dodge the question at issue by leading their opponents off on some side topic, such as the evils and abuses of the present day. Every anti-Socialist ought, therefore, to be on his guard, and as soon as he notices the national enemy trying to draw him off on a tangent, he should steadfastly refuse to take up the new line of argumentation, but should compel the evader to stick to the question at issue.

It happens, too, and not unfrequently, that in the course of a dispute, when a Socialist is being defeated, he will ask the non-Socialist to prove that the present system is superior to that which is pictured in such beautiful colors by the followers of Karl Marx. Now, in the first place, the burden of proof rests with the Socialist, for if he wishes to lead another into his camp, it is his task to prove to him that everything there is congenial and attractive. The non-Socialist would indeed act very imprudently if he should attempt to prove that the present system offers more attractions than the Socialist Utopia whose perfections exist only in the imaginations of the revolutionists. What he might do, however, would be to show that the present system of government and industry, even in its unreformed state, is far superior to the condition of affairs that would actually exist if our constitutional government should ever have to give way to the regime of the revolutionists.

On reading Socialist literature or listening to the speeches of the revolutionists one is impressed with all the wonderful benefits that the party proposes to confer upon our citizens if it should ever rule the land. Of course very many of the proposals are made solely on the authority of the speaker or writer. But even if they have the approval of the Party, we must not forget that it is one thing to propose to grant a favor and quite another thing actually to grant it. There are lots of things that men say they propose to do, without ever intending to do them. And it frequently happens that after having had the best intentions, they change their minds or else are utterly unable to carry out their plans.

Karl Marx about half a century ago taught the absurd doctrine that as all wealth is produced by labor, to the laborers all wealth is due. He held, on the one hand, that all the profits arising from the sale of goods should accrue to the workingmen in virtue of the labor required for their production, and, on the other, that the capitalists who had not performed any work should not be entitled to a share in the profits.

This old doctrine, unreasonable as it is, is still taught at the present day not only by European Socialists but also by the revolutionists of our own country. During the May Day parade in New York City on May 1, 1912, when some 50,000 men marched behind red flags, great numbers of leaflets, entitled, "The Issue," were distributed among the spectators. These leaflets had been published by the Socialist Party of New York City and openly advocated the old doctrine of Karl Marx, the Father of modern Socialism, for on the third page appeared "A Parable," from which we quote the following:

"A man was once engaged in making bricks just outside the wall of a lunatic asylum. Presently a lunatic looked over the fence and asked:

"'What are you doing?'

"'Making bricks.'

"'What are the bricks for?'

"'I don't know. What does it matter to me?'

"'But why do you make them, if you don't intend to use them for anything?'

"'Why? Well it's my work.'

"'But I don't see why you should work for no object. If you don't use the bricks, who will?'

"'How should I know? It's nothing to do with me.'

"'Don't know what you are going to do with your own bricks?'

"'They are not my bricks. They belong to the boss.'

"'But didn't you make them?'


"'Then how comes it that the boss owns them?'

"'It's his brick kiln and his clay hole.'

"'Oh, didn't he make the kiln?'

"'No; the bricklayers built them.'

"'Did he dig the clay hole?'

"'No; those men over there dug it.'

"'Why do they dig clay holes?'

"'It's their work. The boss pays them to do it.'

"'Oh! does he pay you, too, to make these bricks?'


"'But where does he get the money to pay you with?'

"'He sells bricks.'

"'And you made those bricks he sold?'


"'Don't you think you'd better come inside?...

"'But I say, how much will the boss sell those bricks for?'

"'Oh! about $500.'

"'How long will it take you to make them?'

"'About ten weeks.'

"'How much does the boss pay you for working so hard?'

"'Two dollars and fifty cents a day.'

"'That will be $150 in ten weeks. Ha! ha! ha! aha! he! he! he!'

"'I don't see (wiping the sweat from his brow) the joke, you confounded ass.'

"'You must come inside. He! he! he!!!'"

American Socialists, therefore, as well as the early German revolutionists, teach that to the laborer all wealth is due.

Though the low wages that many workingmen receive is a disgrace to our civilization and an abuse that cries to heaven for vengeance, still it is absurd to hold that wages should be so much increased as to leave nothing for the capitalists. For, in the first place, if the workingmen should enjoy the entire profits of their firms or industries all the owners would soon become bankrupt and fail, and, in the upheavals due to unemployment and the impossibility of supplying the necessaries of life, the present system of our Government would certainly fall a prey to revolution, the Socialists would come into power and then would follow the terrible disturbances shown in Chapter XVII, "Socialism, a Peril to Workingmen."

We have no defence whatsoever to offer for dishonest capitalists, but maintain that honest capitalists are entitled to a reasonable share in the profits arising from their investments. For, in the first place, if it were not for the capital in the possession of honest capitalists, millions of workingmen would be terribly handicapped in earning a living. If this fact is not immediately evident to the reader it will become so when he reflects that many farm, mill and factory workers, and the employes of many big business houses would have to seek other positions if the capital required for the industries was not supplied by the owners. The buildings, machinery, raw materials, etc., in most cases are not and cannot be supplied by the laborers and workingmen, but are furnished by the capitalists who, if they wished, could sell them and spend the money obtained from the sale for their own personal enjoyment. For this reason, and also because the capitalists referred to are subject to many financial worries, assume great responsibilities, run the risk of incurring serious losses of one kind or another, including business failure and bankruptcy, it is only just that they should receive a reasonable recompense for their share in the production of the goods.

From what has been said regarding the falsity of the Marxian doctrine, that to the laborer all wealth is due, it follows that the Socialists, by teaching this false principle, have been misleading the laborers and workingmen for over half a century.

Some of the best known American Socialists, when confronted with the evident fallacy of the Marxian doctrine concede that Marx was mistaken and that they do not approve of his teachings on this subject. Now, if these leaders and their followers are in the majority, they should long ago have compelled the minority in the party to stop deceiving the uneducated. On the other hand, if they themselves constitute the minority, their own personal opinions amount to little, since the majority of the members of the Socialist Party would in that case be guilty of advocating foolish and absurd doctrine.

The attractive and popular motto, "Workingmen of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains," has moved many a poor workingman to enlist in the revolutionary cause. Very little reflection, however, is needed to expose the absurdity that is found in the second part of the motto. For no matter how badly off men may be financially, it has been shown that they not only would not lose their chains by uniting under the red flag of Karl Marx but would be completely crushed by the much heavier ones of bloody revolution and a wretched form of government which would bring with it a religious prosecution and widespread lawlessness, crime and chaos.

Realizing that the police would do much to help the revolutionary movement, if they could be made friendly to it, some Socialists have been extremely anxious to win them over. To certify this statement we shall quote part of an article which appeared in "The Call," New York, April 25, 1911, urging Socialists to get control of the police force:

"A policeman's vote, like any other person's vote, counts one. Policemen are wage-earners, who, like other wage-earners, are eager to improve their circumstances. Policemen will vote the Socialist ticket when they realize that the Socialists in office will insist upon their receiving more pay, more leisure, more sick and old age benefits, more privileges.... Adopt constructive resolutions demanding that constables be paid higher wages, that they be granted shorter hours, that they be given more days off each week, that they be exempted from paying part of their wages into the superannuation fund, that they be accorded the right of combination, that a more generous system of sick benefits be drawn up, that they have the right of appeal against dismissal and abuse to a representative committee of citizens."

The revolutionists are leaving nothing undone in their extraordinary efforts to gain recruits for the overthrow of our National Government. This is evidenced by the appearance in their papers of articles like the following, entitled, "The Pure Water Problem," which was published in "The Call," April 30, 1912:

"As a political organization, the Socialist Party must address itself to every question that interests the electorate. And in each case it must offer the public a carefully thought out solution instead of mere generalities and hackneyed phrases. Otherwise it will not succeed in winning the confidence of the majority of voters. Now almost every city in America is confronted with a pure water and sewage disposal problem.... If the Socialist Party steps into the arena with clear-cut proposals that deal in a radical, constructive and common sense way with this problem, it will not only help to secure pure drinking water for citizens, but it will break down considerable prejudice against the Socialist movement, and cause people to study the more revolutionary features of our own official platform."

Information comes to us that on account of recent Government raids the Red organizations are assuming a variety of aliases. The Communist Party has taken the innocuous title of "The International Publishing Company," alias "The International League of Defense." The I. W. W. operates under any local name which comes handy. Individual Reds often spread their doctrines, and incite workingmen to take part in outlaw strikes, while professing to be members of no radical organization.

The Young People's Socialist League, closely affiliated with the Socialist Party, planned to use disguises, if necessary, after the Socialist Party adopted its anti-war program in 1917. Thus in "Outlines of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of New York," pages 608-9, appears a letter of William F. Kruse, National Secretary of the Young People's Socialist League, written to the secretaries of its different branches, in which he urged them to have an "unofficial emergency committee," have "several copies of your most important records and especially your mailing list stowed away in various safe and secluded places," and have "three trustworthy officers broken in for each important job." "At least one of these officers should be a girl," he continued, "so that if our boys are jailed for refusal to serve, the girls can keep the League going." He added: "If ever the Y. P. S. L. is suppressed you will immediately get together all its members as quietly as possible under the name of some athletic club, dance society or pleasure club. The name of this organization should have nothing in common with Socialism."

In concluding this chapter the attention of the reader is called to the fact that the Socialists are trying their best to make it appear that the interests of the American workingmen in general are jeopardized when a member of their party is put in jail or is on trial. This is rank hypocrisy. Even if the Socialist Party was a real workingman's party, this fact would not give it the right to set up its justly condemned bomb throwers, its preachers of Bolshevist revolution, its teachers of race suicide, etc., as working-class martyrs and protagonists of free speech, which they claim is no longer allowed in our country.

There are millions of workingmen in the great Republican, Democratic, and other American parties who don't need and don't want bomb-throwers, imported Marxian revolutionists, race suiciders, free-lovers, atheists, hypocrites, professional liars and deceivers to petition the Government in their name for the release of imprisoned Socialists on the plea that these are being prosecuted because they are leaders of the working-class. First of all, Debs, Haywood and their crews are leaders of blood-thirsty revolutionists, and not the leaders of the law-abiding workingmen who maintain the Democratic and Republican parties. They are the enemies of the latter, and the real object of the Socialists is to stir up trouble in our country by endeavoring to procure amnesty for a set of scoundrels who, after their release, would, by their subversive and dangerous doctrines, try to plunge the country we love and all honest labor into a much more terrible abyss than that into which the Bolsheviki have plunged Socialist Russia.



It has been shown in the preceding chapters that the base doctrines propagated on every side by the revolutionists are among the gravest evils threatening the welfare of our nation. No doubt the reader perceives that unless this conspiracy against our country, religion and family is checked, the Socialists will soon overwhelm us with a bloody rebellion and establish a government that will mean nothing less than a reign of terror and a widespread prevalence of discontent, strife and crime, finally terminating in chaos or anarchy.

Provisions must, therefore, be made for averting the dire calamities that would attend the unfurling of the red flag over Washington in place of the Star-Spangled Banner. Measures of defense must quickly be taken and an army of attack must immediately be set in motion. In this way alone can we hope to prevent the success of the revolutionary propaganda that is characterized by a marvelous activity and an ever-increasing popularity among the unwary and uneducated. The country we love and the Government which has bestowed upon us innumerable blessings, notwithstanding abuses, call upon us for help in the hour of need. True patriotism bids us take up suitable weapons and wage relentless war against that which would destroy our present constitutional form of government.

Who can turn a deaf ear to the call? In our heroic work we shall be helped by millions of patriotic citizens whose devotion to their country has already rallied them to the defense of the Stars and Stripes. All that we need do, to fan into flame the fire of patriotism already glowing in their hearts, is to arouse them to a full realization of the dangers that threaten the very existence of our nation. Now is the time to act, before we hear the cry "Too late!" The great weapon must be education and the ones to be enlightened on the evils of Socialism are not merely scholars, professors and teachers, but the great masses of the people.

If we wish to bring home to the American people a clear realization of the threatening calamity, we ourselves must not only be thoroughly equipped with knowledge of the Socialistic teachings and their evil consequences, but must also be able to refute the alluring and deceptive arguments of the revolutionists. We must acquire a thorough knowledge of Socialism. But to do this, it almost goes without saying that we should carefully read and study the excellent and thoroughly up-to-date anti-Socialistic works that can be had at a moderate price or readily obtained in the public libraries.

Among the best anti-Socialistic books in the English language may be mentioned "Socialism, the Nation of Fatherless Children," edited by Goldstein and Avery. This book, whose authors were once Socialists, contains hundreds of very strong and useful quotations and is of the highest value to every student who is studying the evils and dangers of the revolutionary movement. Published by T. J. Flynn & Co., 62 Essex Street, Boston, Mass.

"Socialism," by Cathrein and Gettelman, a very scholarly and learned work, admirably explains and refutes the various Marxian doctrines. It is published by Benziger Bros., New York City.

A third book of recent publication, and of great value to the anti-Socialist student is "The World Problem," by Rev. Joseph Husslein, S. J., published by The America Press, 175 East 83rd Street, New York, N. Y.

One who is truly interested in the fight against the national enemy should not content himself with the reading of anti-Socialist literature, but should pass the matter on to others who may become interested in the battle against the enemies of our country.

Business men and persons of wealth should not only urge their friends to read anti-Socialist works that have appealed to themselves, but should show their patriotism and generosity by extensively purchasing anti-Socialist literature, whether in the form of books, pamphlets or leaflets, to be sent to public libraries, clubs, high schools, colleges and universities, and reading-rooms, and placed within easy reach of their employes and customers.

The workingmen of our country, to whom the Socialists are especially appealing, often fall an easy prey to the deceptive arguments of the "Reds." Many of them do not weigh matters carefully and do not realize how far the acceptance of radical doctrines may lead them. The men who started the Russian revolution did not know how far it would go. The party of Lvoff and Miliukoff did not foresee Kerensky. The followers of Kerensky did not foresee Lenine and Trotzky; and probably few of the followers of Lenine and Trotzky dreamed of the abyss of barbarism into which they in turn have plunged bleeding Russia. The Socialists of the United States use pamphlets and leaflets, much more than books, in appealing to workingmen. Books are more expensive and require more time to read. Leaflets are attractive, short, to the point, easily remembered and almost costless. Anti-Socialist leaflets, distributed by the millions, would do untold good and would soon start a tremendous opposition among laborers to the Red Flag movement.

Since the foreigners in our country, especially Russians, Italians and Jews, take to Socialism very readily, something should be done to protect them by native Americans who are especially able to do so. Patriotic persons and organizations should have immense numbers of anti-Socialist books, pamphlets and leaflets published in the different languages and distributed free of charge to foreigners who are not yet acquainted with English.

Socialism has made terrible inroads among the Jews. To give one example, "The Forward," a Yiddish daily of New York City, has a circulation of about 150,000 copies. This paper should be watched very carefully by the government, for it has been doing some very dangerous work in the line of revolutionary propaganda without English-speaking people being aware of the doctrines it is advocating.

In order to counteract Socialist propaganda among girls and boys, a simple and limited knowledge of the evil plottings of the "Reds" ought to be imparted in all the grammar and high schools of our country. With a view to this, text-books should be prepared. The boards of education in the different cities should see to it that anti-Socialist instruction be given to the children.

Editors who have a good understanding of the evil consequences of Socialism have a fine field rapidly opening up to them. Since the Marxian principles are spreading, there is a rapidly growing demand for articles to refute and combat them; yet many on the editorial staffs seem to have little definite knowledge concerning the teachings of the revolutionists.

All patriotic citizens who understand Socialism and the tactics of the "Knights of the Red Flag" should expose them, violently attacking them in their conversations with others, so that it may no longer be said that the revolutionaries are more zealous in trying to ruin our country and overthrow out government than loyal Americans are to save them.

Attention should be paid to the men who are advocating Socialism in the mills, factories, shops, stores, mines, etc. A thorough exposure of their unsound doctrines will be prolific of much good. The ardor and zeal of the anti-Socialist should go still further, and the illogical revolutionary orators should be driven from their soap boxes, not by violence nor by physical force--for this would only give them another opportunity for complaining and enable them to win the support of sympathizers--but by arguments with them so effective as to compel them to step down and walk off in disgrace under the jeers of their audiences. In arguing with the visionaries, proofs for the truth of their statements should be demanded and the fact ought always to be insisted upon that, even if they could show that the present system of government and industry was corrupt and useless, it would in no way follow from this that the Socialists' regime--however magnificently pictured by an unbridled imagination--would provide a true remedy for any of the evils and abuses of our day.

The letters that Socialists send to the daily papers for publication, to further their cause, can, as a rule, easily be refuted. All that is required, in most instances, after a brief introduction of the question at issue, is to connect, by a few short sentences, several of the damaging quotations that can be found, for example, in the present volume.

Men who have talent for public speaking can make good use of their eloquence in the warfare against our nation's foes by giving lectures and delivering speeches. Good writers should devote their talents to the preparation of books, pamphlets and leaflets against the revolutionists, and should furnish suitable articles for the newspapers and magazines. The follies of Socialism also afford an abundance of suggestions for dramatists and cartoonists.

Socialist school teachers and principals, because of the revolutionary doctrines that they gradually instill into the minds of the young, should be eliminated from the school-room. Students of colleges and universities, in which the Intercollegiate Socialist Society is organized, could give a noble example of patriotism and loyalty to our country by forming clubs to oppose the influence of the Socialist chapters and offset the great harm they are doing.

Patriotic members of the American Federation of Labor should attend as many of its meetings as possible in order to prevent the Marxians and radicals from gaining the upper hand in the organization, endorsing the Socialist Party, or adopting revolutionary principles of any kind.

As Socialist women are trying to destroy our Federal Government, the women who are opposed to Socialism should give ample proofs of their loyalty and devotion by taking an active part in the defense of their country.

Anti-Socialist clubs should be formed throughout the country to study Socialism and to devise means for combating the zealous propaganda carried on by the thousands of Socialist locals and branches. Influential members of the anti-Socialist clubs should see to it that the public libraries were well stocked with anti-Socialist literature and that Socialist publications are kept only for legitimate purposes of reference.

Several very important works of defence remain to be undertaken by our National Government, if the conspirators are to be prevented from destroying it. Socialism has already struck deep roots into the soil of America. Consequently, the Government of the United States, in leaving to individuals the defence of the nation against the well organized forces of the revolutionists, is running a risk almost as great as if it were to entrust the suppression of an armed insurrection to individual action. The Socialists availing themselves of every opportunity for spreading their propaganda among foreigners, have already gained many recruits from the immigrant class. With this serious condition of affairs confronting it, the National Government should employ strenuous measures to break the grip that Socialism already has on the nation, and to prevent the immigrants who are landing on our shores from becoming a menace.

A law should be passed by Congress forbidding the publication or circulation of any paper, magazine or book which advocates the unlawful destruction of our present form of government. The officers of the army and navy should take precautions for preventing the spread of such publications among soldiers and sailors.

So far we have spoken only of the negative measures that the United States Government should adopt for its defence. It remains to add a few words concerning a positive campaign against the conspirators. If the Government neglects to stem the rising tide of Socialism it will not be long before a disastrous insurrections23 will be upon us. Millions of dollars a day would then be spent in defraying the expenses of what might turn out to be an unsuccessful campaign. Congress should now appropriate the sums of money necessary to suppress the Marxian uprising and entirely uproot Socialism out of the United States.

The American people as a body will never tolerate Socialism, once they have been made to realize its full meaning and ruinous consequences. This knowledge could be brought home to them most effectively by means of anti-Socialist information issued periodically under the direction of one of the departments of the Government and furnished to the press of the country. Such material should also be distributed to all labor organizations and every public library in the country, and to clubs, societies, clergymen, legislators, judges, and men and women of influence. If such a plan were adopted, the forces arrayed in the line of battle against the Socialists would become tremendously strong and the danger now seriously threatening our nation would presently disappear. Surely the Government could afford to spend a few million dollars a year against revolutionists who are already undermining its very foundations and whose activities, if unopposed, will bring upon us evils incomparably greater than those coming from a foreign foe.

Orators attacking Socialism could be recruited by the Government to speak all over the country for five or ten minutes at a time, after the fashion of the Four Minute Men.

Those who have read this book have seen that the principles of the revolutionists are logically unsound and would deluge the land we love with rivers of blood and plunge us into an abyss of discontent, strife, crime and chaos. It has been shown that the Socialist Party is an organization controlled by bosses and politicians with the avowed object of gaining votes by the most unscrupulous methods. Notwithstanding their pretentions to honesty and sincerity, evidence has been cited time and again of the deceitfulness of their propaganda, and of their plottings to overthrow our constitutional form of government, destroy religion and ruin family life.

We, however, who sincerely love America, will never tear down the Star-Spangled Banner and in its place fling to the breezes the blood-stained flag of Karl Marx.



Absolutism in Russia, 281-2, 286, 290.

Action, See Direct Action and Mass Action.

A. E. F. ridiculed by N. Y. "Call," 208-9.

Albany Trial, See N.Y. State Socialist Assemblymen.

Aliases of "Reds," 376.

Allaben, Frank, 258.

Alvarado, 96, 298-9.

American Federation of Labor, 381;
    against Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism, 283-4;
    "Boring in," 346-9;
    Opposed by Socialists, 126, 219.

American Flag, 118.

American Soldiers ridiculed, 207-9.

Amnesty, Agitations for, 347, 376.

Anarchy, Danger of, 279.

Andreiev's S. O. S., 168-9.

Anti-"Red" Campaign among foreign-born, 379.

Anti-Socialist authorities, 378;
    Letters, 380380;
    Literature, 378-9;
    Speeches, 380.

"Appeal to Reason," 343, 359.

Argentina, Socialism in, 11, 12.

Aristocracy in Bolshevist Russia, 280-1.

Assemblymen, Socialist, on trial, See N. Y. State Socialist Assemblymen.

Atheism of Socialists, 293, 301-16;
    in Austria, 295;
    Belgium, 295-6;
    Canada, 298;
    England, 296-8;
    France, 295;
    Germany, 294;
    Italy, 295;
    Mexico, 298-9, 300;
    United States, 292-3, 297.

Atheistic Catechism, 308-9;
    Poems, 302-4;
    Works on sale, 297, 305, 307.

Austria-Hungary, Socialism in, 5.

Aveling, 8.


Bavaria, Socialism in, 4, 178-9.

Basle Manifesto, 18.

Bax, Ernest Belfort, 297, 321-3.

Bebel, August, 2, 198, 200, 294, 324.

Bela Kun, 75, 178, 180, 190.

Belgium, Socialism in, 10.

Berger, Victor L., 13, 15, 51, 54, 56, 62, 67, 69, 70-1, 89, 201-2, 220-1, 232-3, 242-3, 290, 313, 322, 368;
    "We must shoot," 201;
    "rifles" and "bullets," 202.

Berne Conference, 9, 18-21, 25, 46, 61, 68.

Bernstein, 3.

Bible, attacked by Socialists, 297, 303.

Blasphemies of Socialists, 296-7, 303-5, 307-9.

Blatchford, 8, 296.

Bolsheviki, Russian, Advocacy of rebellion in other lands, 171-2;
    Criticised by Catherine Breshkovsky, 139;
    Disperse parliament, 4, 138;
    Educational System, 151;
    Freeing of criminals, 161;
    Murder women, 158;
    Opposed to liberty, 145;
    Rise to power, 4, 138;
    Shooting of children, 155-7;
    Uprisings against, 161;
    Victories, 5.

Bolshevism, Advocated by American Socialist Party, 59, 60-2, 68, 70, 72, 74-5, 77, 142, 168, 171-3, 184-5, 187-94, 198, 205, 234-6, 238, 248, 250, 255;
    identical with Socialism, 291;
    in America, 185;
    in Russia, Against freedom of speech, of the press and of voting, 145, 155;
    Against justice, 146, 154;
    liberty, 145;
    religion, 146-51;
    An economic failure, 174-5;
    Starvation under, 282-3, 286.

Bolshevist Constitution, 139-40;
    propaganda, 256.

Bolshevist reign of terror, 141, 143, 145-8, 153, 154-63.

Bomb plot, 118-19.

Bonds, under Socialism, 273.

Books, anti-Socialist, 378.

"Boring in," 348-9.

Bossism in Socialist Party, 14, 15.

Bourgeoisie, 30.

Branting, Hjalmar, 11.

Breshkovsky, Catherine, 139, 170.

Bulgaria, Socialism in, 12.

Bureau, International Socialist, 17.

Business under Socialism, 83, 272-3.


Cadets of Russia, 4.

Calhoun, Arthur W., 356-7.

Call for Moscow International, 31-3.

Call for Proletarian International, 247.

Campaign against the Reds, 377-82.

Canada, Socialism in, 12.

Capital invited back by Socialist Russia, 288.

Capitalism, 76, 106, 174, 373.

Carillo, Felipe, 299.

Cartoons, Socialist, 360;
    anti-Socialist, 380.

Children, anti-Socialist instruction for, 379;
    Deprived of religious education under Socialism, 302;
    shot in Bolshevist Russia, 155-7.

Chinese and the I. W. W., 120.

Christ ridiculed by Socialists, 303-5, 307-8.

Christian Socialists, 292, 310, 315, 322.

Christianity attacked by Socialists, 292-316.

Citizenship tags, 99.

Civil discord under Socialism, 269-79.

Class consciousness, 265.

Class hatred, 63, 107, 346, 348, 352, 363-4, 372-3.

Class struggle explained, 30, 107-8, 265.

Clubs, anti-Socialist, 381.

Committee against Socialism, Publicity, 257-8.

Compensation, I. W. W. plan, 111.

Commune, Paris, 200-1.

Communism, in Bavaria, 4, 178-9;
    in Russia, See Bolshevism and Bolshevist reign of terror.

Communist, the name, 59.

Communist Labor Party of America, Chicago Convention, 55-8;
    Conspiracy against U. S. Government, 214-19;
    Origin, 52-3, 64;
    Principles, 53-4, 58, 74, 218-19, 225;
    Socialist Party's attitude toward, 74-5.

Communist Labor Party of Germany, See Spartacans.

Communist Manifesto, 1, 46, 198, 321.

Communist Party of America, Chicago Convention, 55-8;
    Conspiracy against U. S. Government, 214-19;
    Origin, 52-3;
    Plan to organize Negroes, 217-18;
    Principles, 53-4, 58, 74-5, 217-19, 224;
    Socialist Party's attitude toward, 74-5, 225.

Communist Propaganda League, 25, 64.

Communists of Hungary, 180-91;
    Favored by American Socialists, 180, 186, 188-93.

Conscription of labor in Socialist Russia, 281-5.

Conspiracy against our country, 212-67;
    against the family, 317-29;
    against the race, 330-41;
    against religion, 292-316.

Constituent Assembly, Russia, 4.

Convention, Socialist Party, 75, 91-3.

Co-operative organizations, Russian and Siberian, 162-3.

Corruption, political, among Socialists, 97, 277-8.

Criminals freed in Bolshevist Russia, 161.

Czecho-Slovakia, Socialism in, 10-11.


Debs, Eugene V., 59, 81, 92, 105, 126-7, 194-7, 203-4, 210-11, 239-45, 264, 290, 315-16, 336.

De Leon, Daniel, 13, 105.

Demands of Socialist Platforms, Immediate, 368.

Determinism, Economic, 293.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 4, 47, 49-50, 53-4, 128, 145, 189, 220.

Direct action, 24, 31, 98, 124-5, 201, 370.

Discontent, Socialist apostles of, 343, 346-8.

Divorce in Bolshevist Russia, 164, 167, 329.

"Dope" of "Scientific Socialists," 96-102, 363-4.

"Down with the Stars and Stripes," 210.

"Drunk with man," a Socialist masterpiece, 87.

Dynamite, use advocated, 299-300


Ebert, 3, 177, 179, 187-90.

Economic conditions in Bolshevist Russia, 174-5.

Economic determinism, 293.

Education in Bolshevist Russia, 151.

Eisner, Kurt, 4, 7, 178, 187.

Emergency Convention, Socialist Party, 242.

Employment schemes in Socialist state, 273.

Engels, Frederick, 1-2, 294, 325-6.

Ettor, Jos. J., 105-6.

Exploitation, 49-50, 83, 106, 110, 272, 365.

Expropriation, 49, 50, 53, 98-9, 108, 123, 143, 179-80, 189-90, 270-1.

Expulsion, Michigan organization, from Socialist Party, 42.

"Eye Opener, The," 192.

Eyre, Lincoln, interview with Lenine, 173-174;
    with Trotzky, 174-6;
    with Zinovieff, 253-5;
    on Bolshevist Russia, 253-6, 279-84, 286-90.


Fabian Society, 8.

Failure of Socialism, in Mexico, 101-2;
    in Bolshevist Russia, 2, 279-90;
    in Yucatan, 101-2.

Farming under Socialism, 32, 49, 83, 271-2.

Ferguson, I. E., 133-4.

Fighting the "Reds," 377-382.

Financial conditions in Socialist Russia, 287-8.

"Flag, to hell with the," 210.

Foreign language papers of Socialist Party, 343.

Foster, William Z., 348-9.

Fraina, Louis C., 26, 55, 214-15.

France, Socialism in, 5, 7-8.

Freedom of Speech, 114, 242, 354;
    in Bolshevist Russia, 145.

Free love, advocated by Socialists, 317-29;
    Hypocricy of Socialists regarding, 370;
    in Socialist Russia, 164, 166, 329;
    Socialist books on, 317, 321-26, 329.


Gale, Linn A. E., 339-340.

Germany, Socialism in, 2, 3.

Germer, Adolph, letter to "Appeal," 92-3.

Giovannitti, Arturo, 108-9, 111, 308.

Government ownership of public utilities, 368-9.

"Grandmother of the Russian Revolution," See Breshkovsky, Catherine.

Great Britain, Socialism in, 8-9.

Guesde, Jules, 6, 321.


Haase, Hugo, 3.

Hardie, J. Keir, 8.

Haywood, William D., 123-4, 127, 199, 241, 248.

Herron, George D., 302;
    day dream of, 94, 95.

High Schools, Socialism taught in, 354.

Hillquit, Morris, 13, 17, 23, 34, 40-1, 50-1, 54, 62-3, 73-5, 79, 81, 85, 89, 184, 188, 220-1, 224-6, 232-4, 236-7, 239-40, 243-5, 248-53, 255, 259-60, 263-6, 274-5, 290, 311, 313-14, 328, 337, 361, 366.

Hoan, Mayor of Milwaukee, 69, 202.

Holland, Socialism in, 10.

Hostages in Bolshevist Russia, 154, 159.

Hypocrisy of the I. W. W., 246.

Hypocrisy of Socialists, 204-5, 210, 219-21, 225, 233-6, 239-40, 246, 252-4, 266, 363-71, 375-6;
    On religion, 292, 309-16, 326;
    On free love, 317, 319-20,