jmilft^mHitmumufmimmitriiiiuJuiunuj^ 'liK SOC ! / 1 "•I .-it'-i /\i.,.ii5ir:> .^rp rt'KO pitnHmiitMilitiinuiiliiiiiumiirii;. J ^.l'•;llrtttmUtttBt^tro^^^^ BERKE uiRARY UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA iey\ iRY 1 rv Of I THE SOCIALISTS WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM PIe in homes that are either hired by the week or the month or mort- gaged. It is safe and conservative to say that at least 80 per cent, of all the wage-earners of America — and at least 90 per cent, of those who live in the cities — have no homes except 40 THE SOCIALISTS those that are hired by the week or the month. As they hire their homes so they themselves are hired by the day or by the week, and are without security of employment. An employ- er's whim, the introduction of a new industrial process, or an improved ma- chine, the success of a rival firm, a political change in some foreign land, — causes as impersonal as these will throw the average wage-worker into the ranks of the unemployed without an hour's warning. With wages bare- ly sufficient to provide the actual ne- cessities of life, a month's sickness suffices to reduce tens of thousands; of the wage-earning class to destitu- tion and pauperism. A prolonged sickness, or an accident, brings even the most favored and prudent of the workers to that deplorable condition. When, exhausted by excessive toil and the fierce struggle for existence, they are no longer able to keep pace with younger, more virile competitors, CONDITION OF THE WORKERS 4I and are cast aside as so much indus- trial waste, few are the workers who are able to rest in peaceful security upon the savings of their working years. In Europe it has been found that 90 per cent, of the working class families in which the breadwinners are injured need charitable relief, and though, as Mr. Robert Hunter sug- gests, the proportion would probably be less in this country, there can be no doubt whatever that industrial ac- cidents are responsible for a tremen- dous amount of poverty. There is no reliable record of the number of such accidents in the United States year by year, but Mr. Frederick L. Hoff- man, of the Prudential Insurance Company, has estimated that at least 1,664,000 persons are annually killed or more or less seriously injured in the United States.* That the great majority of these accidents occur *Cf. Poverty, by Robert Hunter, p. 344. 42 THE SOCIALISTS among members of the wage-earning class, and consequently involve hard- ship and poverty to those dependent on their earnings, is indisputable. So, too, w^ith sickness. The condi- tions under which the workers live and toil are responsible for an appal- ling amount of sickness. The ill- nourished, ill-clad, toil-worn bodies of the proletariat succumb most readily to the ravages of pneumonia, the dis- ease which has been aptly called "The Captain of the Men of Death." Tu- berculosis, also, is universally recog- nized by the medical profession to be a disease of the masses. Living in crowded, ill-ventilated tenements, working in the dust-laden atmosphere of factories and mines, toiling exces- sively and receiving insufficient nour- ishment and rest, the wage-working class furnishes the Great White Plague with a majority of its victims. These are but a few of the evils from which the workers suffer. No CONDITION OF THE WORKERS 43 wonder that so many of them seek the solace of forgetfulness in strong drink, as if responding to the Biblical injunction, "Let him drink, and for- get his poverty. And remember his misery no more/' No wonder, either, that in our richest and greatest city, where the money power of the world centers and Mammon's temples are thronged with eager votaries, one per- son out of every ten that die must lie in the grave of pauperism and failure in Potter's Field! 44 THE SOCIALISTS VIII. THE DIVISION OF WEALTH This poverty of the workers is not due to their failure as producers. There is no such a thing as a poverty problem in the sense that not enough wealth is produced to supply all the needs of the nation. The existence of a social class of excessive wealth, the members of which vie with one another in wanton display of luxury, is a sufficient living proof of this. While Mr. Rockefeller has an income of more than sixty million dollars a year — ^a sum far greater than the com- bined incomes of all the crowned heads of Europe and the presidents of the United States and France — and another man starves to death because he is unable to buy food enough to THE DIVISION OF WEALTH 4$ keep his body alive, it is evident that the problem must be one of unequal distribution rather than inadequate production. This inequality of distribution is too apparent not to be generally recog- nized. It is the one unquestioned and unquestionable fact of the mod- ern social problem. Some economists hare tried to justify the inequality, but none ever dreams of questioning its existence. Many attempts have been made to express scientifically, in statistical form, the measure of this inequality, but the subject is one v^hich bristles with difficulties. The late Charles B. Spahr, in his well- known work, The Present Distribu- tion of Wealth in the United States^ came to the conclusion that seven- eighths of the families of the United States owned no more than one- eighth of the national wealth, and that one per cent of the families held more of the national wealth than 46 THE SOCIALISTS the remaining ninety-nine per cent. The following diagram will make the significance of these figures ap- parent at a glance: Diagram Showing Distribution o^ W^ai^Th IN U. S. (Spahr's Estimate.) Seven-eighths of the families in the U.S. own only one-eighth of the wealth. Dr. Spahr's work was published in 1896 and his figures are therefore somewhat out of date. We may be quite sure, however, that the disparity in the distribution of the nation's wealth has not lessened since that time. The United States census au- THE DIVISION OF WEALTH 47 thorities do not publish any calcula- tions upon this subject as they once did, so we must depend upon the re- sults reached by independent statis- ticians who have taken the trouble to make such calculations from the mass of crude data contained in the census reports. Mr. Lucien Sanial, a com- petent statistical authority, has pub- lished some interesting calculations of this nature. He divides society into two great economic classes, the Capi- talist Class, consisting of "all the persons who own in some form any portion whatever of the natural and mechanical agencies required by hu- man labor for the production of wealth," and the Proletarian Class, consisting of those who own "nothing but their labor-power." The capitalist class Mr. Sanial di- vides into two classes, "mutually an- tagonistic, yet equally determined to maintain at all hazards the capitalist system" — the system of private prop- 48 THE SOCIALISTS erty in the means of production, and wage-paid labor. So that, according to Mr. SaniaFs division, we have three classes, made up as follows: (1) The Plutocracy, composed of wealthy bankers, railway magnates, corpora- tion directors, trust magnates, and the like; (2) The Middle Class, com- posed of farmers, small manufactur- ers, merchants, professional men, and so on; (3) The Proletariat, composed chiefly of wage-workers and a small proportion of the professional class. This division, il must be confessed^ is open to serious objections, as, in- deed, all such arbitrary groupings of economic interests must be. For ex- ample, a large and increasing num- ber of farmers and traders are in sub- stantially the same position as the wage-workers, and their political and economic interests are with these rather than with the capitalists. The^ tenant farmer who receives in return for the labor of himself and wife, and, THE DIVISION OF WEALTH 49 often, the other members of his fam- ily, less than the wages of his hired man, cannot well be considered as be- longing to a higher economic category than the man he employs. The same is true of the small storekeeper. In defense of Mr. Sanial's classification it may be said that, as yet, these farm- ers and small traders do not recognize the identity of their interests with those of the wage-workers, though here again it is necessary to recognize the fact that the farmers seem just as ready to ally themselves with the political movement of the working class, the Socialist Party, as the wage- earners of the cities. No one who has been privileged to compare the Socialist movement in the great agri- cultural communities of the United States with that of the industrial cen- ters can deny that a very large num- ber of farmer's do regard themselves as ^eing, in all ess'sntiaU, proletari- ans. so THE SOCIALISTS With these reservations in mind, let us return to Mr, Sanial's figures. He gives the number of the Pluto- cratic Class as 250,251, of the Middle Class as 8,429,845, and of the Prole- tariat, or v^orking class, as 20,393,137. The respective share of each of these classes in the total wrealth of the country, as compared with its num- ber of occupied persons, is show^n in the follow^ing diagram and explana- tory tabic: THE DIVISION OF WEALTH SI s 00 io ro (i Ca) vo o - 00 w CO ^ Ul sj 01 — NJ 10 O VO p - O VO 10 0) ^ ^ vi ^ 10 VI ^ Ol o 10 O) Ol Plutocratic Class S67,000,000,000 Middle Class $24,000,000,000 1 i 52 THE SOCIALISTS IX. THE CONFLICT OF CLASS INTERESTS It is this great inequality in the dis- tribution of wealth which gives rise to and inspires the conflict of the classes, the Class Struggle which forms such an important feature of the philosophy of Socialism and which so many earnest men and women find it difficult, if not altogether impos- sible, to accept. No other phase of the philosophy and propaganda of Socialism has been so much misun- derstood, or so vehemently denounced and misrepresented, as this idea that changes in the basic economic condi- tions of life create distinct class di- visions in society, and that the real social and political advances which mark the evolution of society are made through the urge and impulse CONFLICT OF CLASS INTERESTS 53 of the resulting inevitable struggles between these classes for mastery. Now, while it may be, and is- easily explainable, this is greatly to be de- plored. It is always regrettable when thoughtful men and women who are earnestly seeking the truth are preju- diced against an idea or a movement through some misconception of it. In the belief that many such persons are today opposing Socialism because of their total misconception of what it really means, this attempt is made to state plainly, honestly and without acrimony or offense what Socialists understand by the class struggle. In the first place, reverting for a moment to the unequal division of wealth already shown, it is obvious that the wealth producers who receive such a small share of the products of their toil have a certain community of interests as against the recipients of the larger share. The individual workers in a factory or mine may be 54 THE SOCIALISTS divided by a thousand different things. They may be of different races, they may have different religious beliefs, but they have one thing in common • — they have a common interest in securing as large a return for their labor, as big a share of their products, as possible. There will be a natural tendency, therefore, for them to unite upon that one question. It v^ould be impossible to get them to agree upon any question involving the merits of their respective nationalities; to at- tempt to unite them in any religious organization would be foredoomed to failure. But in general they will unite, more or less readily, upon the platform of their economic interests. In like manner, those wHo receive the larger share, so enormously dis- proportionate to their numbers, may al30 differ upon all other matters, but they will tend to agree as to the de- sirability of maintaining the present division of wealth, of increasing their CONFLICT OF CLASS INTERESTS 55 share if possible, and, at any rate, preventing its being lessened by any coercive action on the part of the w^orkers. They, too, may be of differ- ent races and have different religious beliefs, and because of these things they may belong to different clubs and social "sets," but they will find a basis for common agreement in their economic interests. In the foregoing proposition care has been taken to confine the state- ment to its necessary limitations. It is claimed merely that there v^ill be a tendency for this unity upon a basis of economic interests to occur. There may be individuals so constituted that they are not able or v^illing to unite with their fellows upon anything. There may be some who will not be able to recognize that they have com- mon interests with their fellows. There may be some who will regard racial or religious divisions as being vital to the extent of forbidding any 56 THE SOCIALISTS association with others of alien race or faith. Finally, there may be and in fact are, some members of the superior economic class who regard the system which gives them so dis- proportionate a share of the wealth of the world as wrong and unite with the workers instead of their natural allies. But all these are exceptions, and in general it may be said that men will unite according to their economic interests while preserving other natural divisions, because the economic question is fundamental. It is the bottom question of life — the question of food and clothes and shel- ter. That some rise superior to their environment does not invalidate the theory that life is in general condi- tioned by its environment. All this is very trite and obvious, but it goes to the roots of the prob- lem before us. Association for mu- tual protection is a law of nature which men everywhere, and most of CONFLICT OF CLASS INTERESTS 57 the lower animals, instinctively obey. When the individuals find themselves powerless to defend their interests they instinctively unite. Prince Kro- potkin in his wonderful book, Mu- tual Aid a Factor of Evolution, gives many interesting examples, human and other, of the observance of this law. The struggle of the classes, then, is a natural struggle, the work- ing out of a great universal natural law. It is imperative that this be remembered by those who would un- derstand Socialism and its propa- ganda. Many people make the seri- ous mistake of supposing that Social- ism is responsible for the class strug- gle, that the advocates of Socialism, by preaching bitterness and class hatred, make the class struggle. Be- cause they believe this they oppose Socialism and denounce its advocates with all their powers. This is unfair to the Socialists. They do not make the struggle which 58 THE SOCIALISTS exists between the classes, but it in- heres in the economic institutions of society. Long before the word So- cialism was ever spoken society was torn by a bitter class conflict. In fact, ever since in the evolution of the race private property first became recognized, class struggles have ex- isted. Their history is the history of human progress. Ancient society, based as it was upon slavery, was cer- tainly characterized by a definite class division. Slavery was in fact the be- ginning of the age-long universal class struggle between the disinherit- ed sons of earth and their masters. The ancient histories teem with rec- ords of the revolts of slaves against their masters. Likewise the history of the Middle Ages tells mainly the story of a great and bitterly-waged class struggle. No candid reader of the history of the period can fail to find abundant evidence of the responsibil- ity of conflicting class interests for CONFLICT OF CLASS INTERESTS 59 the wars of the Middle Ages. The medieval gilds, also, were the organ- ized expression of the struggle of the rising manufacturing class against the feudal barons. When Socialists are accused of creating class division and strife, the accusation is as absurd as it is unjust. Upon the walls of Pompeii — which seems, says Mr. Morrison Davidson, to have been in the midst of a muncipal election when it was buried in the year 79 A. D. — inscrip- tions have been found pointing to a definite organization of the working class at that time.* Here is one such inscription, interesting on account of the present discussion of the desirabil- ity of the labor unions going into pol- itics : "THE MEMBERS OF THE FISHERMEN'S UNION NOMINATE POPEDIUS RUFUS FOR MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF WORKS.*' *The Annals of Toil, by J. Morrison Davidson, p. 6. 6o THE SOCIALISTS X THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE CLASS Because the class struggle is a direct result of those economic divi- sions which are naturally developed in the course of social evolution, it follov^s that individuals are not re- sponsible for their part in that strug- gle in any great degree. The Social- ist IS often represented as a narrow, bitter, intolerant fanatic who believes that all capitalists are wicked and in- human, and that only workingmen are good. What the Socialist really does believe is that the class struggle is not a question of ethics at all, or only indirectly and incidentally so, and that, generally speaking, if the workers and the capitalists could change places each class would act in just the same manner as the other INDIVIDUAL VS. CLASS 6l now does. When, therefore, a great industrial war takes place, the Social- ist does not talk about the "w^icked capitalists," nor about the **good work- ingmen." He simply sees in the w^ar a natural result of conditions for w^hich neither side is directly responsible. Strange as it may seem, the Social- ists are forever seeking to end this class conflict, which they deplore as much as any of their critics. Even when to a superficial observer they seem to be doing their best to in- crease the intensity of the strife by calling upon the workers to more vig- orous warfare, they are in reality aim- ing at the ending of the struggle once and for all. At present the struggle is being waged upon the industrial field. There are large, well equipped organizations of employers and em- ployed constantly fighting each other. If the workers in a factory or mine are dissatisfied with their conditions, either because their pay is too little. 62 THE SOCIALISTS their hours of labor too mafay, or their surroundings unpleasant or un- safe, they realize that as individuals they have no power to enforce any demands they may make for better conditions, and that if they make such demands they are liable to dismissal. They make their demands, therefore, collectively, through the unions which they have formed as a result of their recognition of this individual help- lessness. Now, it is not always a question of goodwill with employers whether or not they will grant the demands of their employees. The maintenance of their business at what they consider to be a fair rate of profit may preclude them from pay- ing higher wages, lessening the hours of employment, or investing capital in improvements of their factories. In competitive industries, and especially when wages figure as the principal item in the total cost of production, the individual employer who has to INDIVIDUAL VS. CLASS 63 pay higher w^ages than his competi- tors is not infrequently ruined. In addition, there is always the fact that employers have a natural class inter- est in resisting the demands of the w^orkers. 64 THE SOCIALISTS IX PRESENT METHODS OF CLASS WARFARE In general, the methods of warfare resorted to may be summed up as fol- lows: The workers resort to the strike or the boycott and the employ- ers to the lockout or the blacklist — the latter being simply a boycott of unionism. Sometimes when the work- ers strike in one shop or factory the employers in that industry resort to a general lockout. Sometimes the em- ployers take the initiative and meet the demands of their employees, and their threats to strike, by instituting a general lockout beforehand, the unions retaliating by means of a more or less ineffective and futile boycott. It is essentially a guerilla warfare that is waged. A candid study of the facts as they METHODS OF WARFARE 65 are reported in the press, and the re- ports of the various unions, as well as the facts which appear to personal observation, forces the observer to the conclusion that in this warfare the burden of suffering and discom- fort invariably falls upon the work- ers. Whenever a prolonged strike occurs, even though they win, the workers suffer hardships and priva- tions that are entirely disproportion- ate to any inconvenience the employ- ers may feel. This is universally rec- ognized. There is, however, another party that is forced to suffer, despite the fact that it has neither part nor lot in the quarrel. The public suffers inconvenience, and often real hard- ship, as in the case of the great coal strike of 1902, even though it may not know the issues of the dispute, as sometimes happens, or knows them only imperfectly. Not only are the workers at a nat- ural disadvantage in this guerilla war- 66 THE SOCIALISTS fare against the owners of the machin- ery of wealth production, but the em- ployers have adopted a more scientific method of fighting which cannot be matched by strikes or boycotts. They have seized the machinery of govern- ment in all its branches, legislative, executive and judicial, to fight the workers. The executive and judicial powers especially have been suborned to these purposes. Laws proposed in the interests of the workers are fought in the legislative halls and de- feated wherever possible. When it is found to be impossible to do this, and laws favorable to labor are enacted, the judicial powers are resorted to for the purpose of defeating the inten- tions of the legislators by declaring the laws unconstitutional. The pre- vailing rate of wages law in New York, in 1901, the eight-hour law in Ohio, in 1902, and the ten-hour law as applied to bakeshops in New York, in 1905, are notable instances of what METHODS OF WARFARE 67 generally happens. It is nowadays regarded as being fairly certain that any law which may be passed favor- able to the workers in their struggle will be declared unconstitutional. Even more effective has been the use of the judicial injunction. The sinister phrase, "Government by In- junction," mocks the fine rhetorical phrases of the Declaration of Inde- pendence. When the judiciary of any country can forbid citizens to do what they have a perfect legal right to do, or to compel men to do what they have a perfect legal right to refrain from doing, Liberty is outraged and Justice is violated in the temple. Says Mr. John Mitchell: "No weapon has been used with such disastrous ef- fect against trade unions as the in- junction in labor disputes. By means of it trade unionists have been prohi- bited under severe penalties from do- ing what they had a legal right to do, and have been specifically directed to 68 THE SOCIALISTS do what they had a legal right not to do. It is difficult to speak In measur- ed language of the savagery and venom with which unions have been assailed by the injunction, and to the working classes, as to all fair-minded men, it seems little less than a crime to condone or tolerate it.'*'*' What could be more revolting to the American sense of justice and fairplay than the enjoining of men engaged in a great struggle involving a third party, in this case the public, powerful to help or hinder their cause, from publishing their side of the con- troversy and appealing for the sup- port of that powerful party? Yet this has been done time and again without effective protest. Finally, the organizations of th^ workers, the labor unions, have been attacked in a vital part — their treasur- ies. When the members of a British trade union, the Amalgamated Society ♦Organized Labor, by John Mitchell, p. 324. METHODS OF WARFARE 69 of Railway Servants, were compelled by the courts to pay to the Tafif Vale Railway Company, against which members of the society had waged a strike in the usual regular manner, $115,000 to compensate the company for losses sustained through the strike, it was not long before similar actions were begun in various parts of this country. The members of the local lodge of the Machinists' union in Rutland, Vermont, were ordered to pay $2,500 to an employer against whom they had conducted a strike, upon precisely the same gounds as the English union had to pay. Since then there have been many similar decisions given in the courts in var- ious parts of the country. Under these conditions it is practically im- possible for a union either to strike with any advantage to its members or to possess any funds. It is, mani- festly, of little use for workers to strike if they are to be compelled to 70 THE SOCIALISTS pay those against whom they strike for any damages they may inflict upon them by striking. When to the foregoing conditions is added the use of the police pow- ers — policemen and state and federal troops — against them in almost every industrial dispute, regardless of the merits of the struggle, the forces ar- rayed against the workers, the odds against which they are fighting, seem insurmountable. Disadvantaged econ- omically at the very start, they have to contend against the gigantic poli- tical odds consequent upon the con- trol of the agencies of government being in the hands of their enemies. TO END CLASS WARFARE ^\ XII. TO END CLASS WARFARE To end this class warfare is the conscious aim of the SociaHst move- ment. Socialists are not aiming, as many people suppose, to overthrow the rule of the master class merely to set up the rule of another class in its place. It is not a question of changing the position of the classes, but of destroying class rule once and for all. That is the ultimate aim, the goal, of the Socialist movement of the world. Socialists believe that the pre- sent guerilla warfare, which injures most of all the workers and their families, should give place to other and saner methods. They believe that we should aim at the permanent solution of the issue upon which the 72 THE SOCIALISTS classes divide in the only way that is possible, namely, the removal of the fundamental cause of the division and struggle. That, as v^e have seen, is the system of private ov^nership in the means of production and exchange and their use for profit. This sys- tem of capitalism has played its part — an important part — in the develop- ment of society. Now it is no longer necessary nor adapted to the needs of social development. Moreover, it is plainly and rapidly disintegrating, and it is, Socialists believe, possible to end it without bringing upon society any of the lamentable evils which follow upon attempts to abro- gate, or interfere with, the great uni- versal laws of evolution. The Socialist, then, advocates the organization of the workers political- ly for this purpose. The organiza- tion may be, and, most Socialists think, should be, economic as well as political. But the political organ- TO END CLASS WARFARE 73 izaMon is imperative. The strike and boycott need not be repudiated as weapons. They may be used in con- junction with the political weapon. They may still be mainly depended on for the immediate economic strug- gle, or they may be used to supple- ment the political attack. We may yet have mass strikes of the workers engaged in the staple industries for political purposes. Nor must the mis- take be made of supposing that this Socialist view of the position of the workers in the great class struggle affords no immediate hope to them, promising nothing now but everything ultimately through the solution of the whole problem of economic inequality and class divisions. Such political organization as the Socialists advo- cate must inevitably bring great im- mediate advantages to the workers. It is easy to see, for instance, that the control of the legislature would make it possible for them to enact 74 THE SOCIALISTS legislation for their immediate advan- tage. Even a partial control, the pos- session of a strong minority part)" in the legislature, v^ould enable theni to demand effectively important conces- sions as w^ell as to prevent many of the outrageous abuses to w^hich they are at present subjected. If they de- stroyed the capitalist control of the judiciary they w^ould be able to safe- guard their organizations against in- junctions, damage suits, and other in- sidious forms of capitalist aggression which are now rendering them impo- tent. There can be no qtjestion as to the political power of the working class whenever its members choose to ex- ert it. Their votes far outnumber the combined votes of the great so- called middle class and the small plu- tocratic class. If these class lines were closely drawn in politics, the workers uniting against the plutocrats and the middle class, their relative TO END CLASS WARFARE 75 strength would be about as shown in the following diagram : Diagram Showing RKiyATivE Voting Strength of the; Ci^assks (The long black portion represents the vote of the Workers.) Now that we have seen what the Socialist theory of the class struggle really means, let us see what position its opponents mu^t take if they are to refute it. They may contend: (1) That there is no class struggle in modern society; or (2) that the class struggle which exists is not the result of natural economic causes, but that individuals are responsible for it; (3) that the continuance of the present guerilla warfare of the classes is de- sirable, and that the Socialists are wrong in trying to end it; (4) that y6 THE SOCIALISTS the Socialist contention that the end of the class struggle is dependent on the end of the capitalist system is wrong. If any one of these four con- tentions could be established the Socialists would be compelled to change their position upon this funda- mental question. Up to the [^resent, however, no serious attempt has been made to maintain any of these posi- tions, those who have entered upon that field contributing unwittingly either to the propaganda of Socialism or to the amusement of mankind. SOCIAL VS. PRIVATE PROPERTY '^]^ XIII. SOCIAL VERSUS PRIVATE PROPERTY Socialism is frequently defined as *'the social ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange." The brief descrip- tions of the meanings of words which we call definitions are proverbially misleading, and this definition is no exception to the rule. As we have seen, Socialism is much more than a movement aiming at the socialization of the means of production, distribu- tion and exchange. It is a philsophy of history, a theory of social dynamics. In so far, however, as this definition is a rough-and-ready attempt to de- scribe the general economic aim of the Socialist movement and the Socialist conception of the economic structure of what they believe will be the next 78 THE SOCIALISTS stage in the evolution of society, it may be accepted, provided only that we understand the loose sense in v^hich the words "the means of pro- duction, distribution and exchange," are used. In certain cases jack- knives and spades are "means of pro- duction" and wheelbarrows and mar- ket-baskets are "means of distribu- tion," but Socialists do not contem- plate the socialization of spades and wheel-barrows. If they obtained com- plete control of the government in any state, or in the nation, it is ridi- culous to suppose that they would want to institute the public ownership and control of jack-knives and mar- ket-baskets. To avoid captious criti- cism, therefore, it is admitted that Socialism does not involve the owner- ship of all means of production, dis- tribution and exchange. If it were not that the qualifymg word would cause confusion to read- ers and hearers rather than prove en- SOCIAL VS. PRIVATE PROPERTY 79 lightening and helpful, since it would convey no exact meaning to their minds, it would be better to say that Socialism involves the social owner- ship and control of the principal means of production, distribution and exchange. Many critics first set up a straw man which they call "Social- ism" and then spend their time in gravely knocking it down. First they define Socialism as the destruction of all private property, and then proceed to attack the huge bureaucracy of their own creation. They point to the existence of hundreds of thous- ands of small farms and petty indus- tries and demand to know if the State is going to confiscate these and man- age them itself. Of course, the Social- ists contemplate nothing of the kind. It is inconceivable that the State will ever attempt to take away the artist's brushes, the small farmer's farm, or the tailor's needle and shears. These are all means of production, it 8o THE SOCIALISTS is true, but so are the housewife's sewing-machine, frying-pan, and a hundred other articles of daily use, the socialization of which would be impossible, and too absurd for any- thing but opera honffe if it were pos- sible. Tools and other necessities of production which are used by indivi- dual owners will, it is certain, never be taken away by the State. Only tools that are so complex as to re- quire associated use, industries in which there is division of labor, and ownership of the necessary agencies of production by others than the pro- ducers, will ever be socialized. The only conceivable exceptions to this would be cases in which the safety and well-being of the community ne- cessitated such a strict supervision of some individual's product as would only be possible under the state own- ership of the necessary agents for its production. The possibility of any product of individual labor being so SOCIAL VS. PRIVATE PROPERTY 8l vital to the life of the community and fulfilling these conditions is exceed- ingly remote. Clothes, for example, are absolutely necessary to the inhabitant of these latitudes, though "Down in Dahomey's sunny land, 'Mid social functions on the sand, A negro maid without a skirt May thrive as bride, or belle, or flirt." Clothes, then, are necessities of life. In a large sense they are socially nec- essary, but they are peculiarly per- sonal in their use, and properly the subject of private property. Social ov^nership of men's pants and ladies' shirt-waists is out of the question. Personal tastes, hygienic considera- tions, and the fact that they can be manufactured in any desired quantity, make the socialization of clothes an absurdity. Roads are quite as neces- sary to civilized . man, socially and individually, as clothes. We must have roads of some sort, and good 82 THE SOCIALISTS roads are desirable just as good clothes are desirable. But roads can- not be multiplied indefinitely. Land is too valuable and too limited to al- low every citizen to make his own roads. Besides that, it would be physi- cally impossible to have every citizen make and own private roads to every place he desired to visit. The idea of nobody owning his own clothes and the idea of everybody owning his own roads are equally fantastic. Just as a hat or a pocket handkerchief is a good illustration of private property, being something which the owner can use personally, and without injury or inconvenience to others, so the public street is a good illustration of social ownership and control — of active Socialism. Roads are a common necessity, must be used in common, and are, therefore, made, maintained and owned in common. The hum- blest and poorest child has just as much right to use the streets of a SOCIAL VS. PRIVATE PROPERTY 83 city, and just as big a share in them, as the wealthiest millionaire. So much for the principles w^hich distinguish private and social prop- erty. Now^ let us turn to the produc- tion of things. Shoes are today com- monly made in great factories which turn out thousands — and in some cases millions — of pairs every year. The workers in these factories do not make all these shoes for themselves; they do not make them for the use of the owners of the factories. The shoes are made to supply the common demand for shoes from those who while they must wear shoes cannot make them for themselves. What interest, then, have the owners of the shoe factories in the manufacture of so many shoes? Simply the desire to make profit out of the social need. They employ so many workers to make shoes and pay them wages. Then they sell the shoes to whoever wishes to buy them at a price greatly 84 THE SOCIALISTS in excess of the cost of the materials used and the wages paid to the work- ers who made them. Neither the makers of shoes nor the buyers of shoes have any interest in maintain- ing the system which exploits their labor and their needs for others'" pro- fit. They might unite, therefore, and bring about the socialization of the shoe-making industry. But if there should be some fastidious person who did not care to wear factory-made shoes, and some shoemaker of the old school who preferred to make shoes by hand in the old-fashioned way, there could be no possible ob- jection. The State would have no in- terest in taking away his tools. Such instances of private production will probably always exist, but in gen- eral private production will not be able to withstand the competition of the machinery and subdivision of labor of factory production. On the one hand, the consumer will not be SOCIAL VS. PRIVATE PROPERTY 85 willing to pay the cost of the slower, old-fashioned methods, and, on the other hand, the shoemaker will not be willing either to earn less or to work much harder and longer than his fel- lows employed in the socialized fac- tories. Socialism does not involve the absorption of countless small farms and industries by the State. It involves the social ownership and control of only such property as is socially necessary, and of such agen- cies of production, distribution and exchange as are socially operated but exploited for private gain. 86 THE SOCIALISTS XIV. THE RELATIONSHIP OF PUBLIC OWNER. SHIP TO SOCIALISM We come now to a most interesting question, one that is already of con- siderable importance and will become more and more important as the Socialist movement in this country- grows. With an increasing body of public ownership in our states and cities, brought about by non-Social- ists, the question of its relation to Socialism naturally arises. At first thought it would seem that there could be no possible difference of opinion upon such a matter. If the Socialist state is to be based upon the collective ownership of all the princi- pal means of production, distribution and exchange, must not the ownership of anything that is either a means of PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 87 production, of distribution, or of ex- change be regarded as an unquestion- ed step toward that end, an install- ment of the Socialist programme? That the non-Socialist advocates of public ownership should indignantly deny that proposals to make railroads, mines, telegraphs, banking, express service, and so on, state or national institutions are directly Socialistic is perfectly natural. They may not themselves be able to accept the full Socialist programme while believing entirely in the wisdom of socializing certain things; they may enter their denials to the charge of heading to- wards Socialism in the interest of the specific measures they advocate, know- j ing that a good deal of prejudice against Socialism exists. Their posi- tion is at least perfectly intelligible. The real difficulty arises when the Socialists themselves, instead of wel- coming with the enthusiasm which might be expected every extension of 88 THE SOCIALISTS the principle of public ownership, and co-operating with every movement for the extension of the principle, as a step toward Socialism, oppose it ac- tively or keep aloof from it and treat it with indifiference. Now it is very easy to impute nar- row, selfish motives to the Socialists and the charge is being constantly made that only political jealousy, or bigotry, or intolerance, leads them to adopt this attitude. The slightest ac- quaintance with the Socialist move- ment, however, should be sufficient to discredit such an impeachment of its integrity and sincerity. It is simply unthinkable that a great movement which has been built up by such tremendous self-sacrifices as fill the pages of Socialist history should place the great principles and ideals which inspired those sacrifices beneath party or personal consideration. The un- questionable sincerity of the Socialists, and the intellectual attainments of PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 89 their leading exponents, may be taken as a sufficient guarantee that there are serious and important reasons, well worthy of careful and earnest consid- eration, for their attitude toward all non-Socialist movements aiming at public ownership of various public utilities. The subject is too complicat- ed and too vast to be adequately dealt with in these pages, and what follows is merely a summary of some of the main reasons for the opposition of the Socialists to what seems to all other persons to be an advance in their direction. There are certain fundamental prin- ciples by which the Socialist State must of necessity be characterized. (1) It must be politically democratic, all its citizens having equal political powers, without regard to sex, color, race, or creed; (2) all those things upon which the life of the people de- pends must be socially owned and used for the common good, instead of 90 THE SOCIALISTS for the profit of a class. It is quite evident, therefore, that Socialists must of necessity favor the extension of the suffrage until the requirements of po- litical democracy have been fulfilled. In countries v^here the right to vote is a class privilege, denied to the work- ers, they may very properly concen- trate all their energies upon the task of securing popular enfranchisement. In so concentrating their energies upon a political issue, and subordinat- ing to it all other issues, they do not violate any of the logical or traditional principles of Socialist policy. On the other hand, though the political sys- tem might fall far short of their demo- cratic ideal, say by the exclusion of women, for instance, the Socialists could with perfect consistency refuse to concentrate their activities upon that one issue. While heartily in favor of it, they might reasonably re- fuse to give special predominance to the enfranchisement of women, and PUBLIC OWNERSHIP QI, even condemn any attempt to do so under certain circumstances. Still, in general, they would support any pro- posal which might be made to extend the franchise to women, even though the proposal emanated from other than Socialist sources. If, however, it should be proposed to give political power to some women instead of to all women, say upon a basis of property or tax-paying qualification, the Social- ists would vigorously oppose it. While it might be argued that the en- franchisement of some women would be a step toward the enfranchisement of all women, they could not let that consideration outweigh the fact that the proposal involved the extension of the anti-democratic principle of class privilege. The same general arguments apply to the collective ownership of means of production, distribution or ex- change. If some astute American statesman should successfully adopt 92 THE SOCIALISTS Bismarck's famous policy, and intro- duce government ownership of rail- ways and so-called State Socialism, for purposes similar to those of Bis- marck — the strengthening of militar- ism and the undermining of the Social- ist movement — the Socialists could hardly be expected to support the policy, no matter how many people might be deceived by superficial like- nesses, and the use of phrases and ar- guments speciously like those of the Socialist propaganda. Nothing in his- tory is more common than the emas- culation of great principles, either de- liberately by cunning foes, or uncon- sciously by unwise friends. Just as with Wordsworth's Peter Bell— "A primrose on the river's brim, A yellow primrose was to him" and nothing more than that, so, to a great many persons, Socialism is pub- lic ownership and nothing more. Yet, it must be perfectly obvious, one PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 93 would think, that Russia with her state railways and state monopoly of the liquor traffic is at least no nearer being Socialistic than the United States. The same applies to Germany with her state railways, insurance, banking, and other institutions public- ly owned instead of privately as in the United States. Externally similar, these examples of public ownership differ radically from the socialization advocated by Socialists. They bear the same relation to Socialism that a poor copy of a great painting bears to the original. 94 THE SOCIALISTS XV. THE MISSING SPIRIT What is it that is lacking in the public ownership with which we are familiar that it falls short of the Socialist aim ? It is a spiritual quality, not a mechanical one. We must hark back for answer to the class motive. Socialism is essentially a movement of the working class and the interest of that class is its vital principle. That principle is almost entirely absent from the public ownership which ex- ists within the capitalist state, or is proposed by defenders of the capitalist state. In the Bible story of the crea- tion of man, God first made a form out of red earth, but it was not until He breathed into its nostrils the breath of life that the Thing became a living soul. The public ownership THE MISSING SPIRIT 95 evolved within the capitahst state is just a soulless form, it has not receiv- ed the breath of life of Socialism, the spirit of the interest and inspiration of the working class. Of late there has been much agita- tion upon the question of the muni- cipal ownership of various public ser- vices. New political parties have arisen in various parts of the country, or old parties in new guise, with pro- grammes of municipal ownership, and it is safe to predict that there will be a widespread movement for municipal ownership in the near future. The Socialists are called upon to unite with the advocates of municipal own- ership, in order that Socialism may- be reached a "step at a time." That they will refuse to do this is certain, and they are in duty bound to make plain the reasons for that refusal. Socialists have always stood for municipal ownership. When those who now cry out for it were as vigor- 96 THE SOCIALISTS ously denouncing it, the Socialists were advocating and working for the municipalization of all public services. But they want municipal ownership in the interest of the working class. If it is proposed for the benefit of the capitalist class, either by giving them a still tighter clutch upon the throats of the workers through interest-bear- ing bonds, or through the reduction of their taxes, the Socialists feel that it should be resisted. The workers can best serve their class interests by voting for Socialism, which involves municipal ownership, since the Social- ist proposal is to use the foiunicipal ownership they advocate as a means of improving the conditions of life for the wealth producers, and, finally, as a step toward the complete overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of an Industrial Commonweakh. If they who so loudly cry out for ' munici- pal ownership want it in the interests of the workers, the despoiled ai*^ dis- THE MISSING SPIRIT 97 inherited victims of capitalist exploita- tion, they will work with the Socialist Party toward that end — they do not need new parties. If, on the contrary, they want it not in the interests of the workers but of the master-class, that is a full and sufficient reason why the workers should not support them. That, in a nutshell, is the Socialist ar- gument. Municipal ownership is not a new thing in history. In the Middle Ages the cities frequently carried on manu- facture and commerce upon an exten- sive scale. Further back than that, more than two thousand years ago, Athens, in the time of Clisthenes, adopted the principle of municipal ownership and carried it a great deal further than our present day Reform- ers propose to carry it. Let us try for a moment in imagination to recon- struct the Athens of that period. As the picture of the ancient city- state appears we get a vivid impres- 98 THE SOCIALISTS sion of its vast and far-reaching mu- nicipal genius. The citizens live in houses built and maintained by the city, their cattle is pastured outside the city upon the city's pastures. Much of the food they buy is produc- ed on the city's farms, and the city saves them from extortionate de- mands by private traders by fixing the prices of all other foodstuffs. The money they use is minted in the mu- nicipal mint and bears the city's im- print. The fuel they burn is supplied by the city. They enjoy municipal baths, parks, gymnasia, art galleries, concert halls and theaters; they can even worship in the municipal churches. The city owns its own markets, wharves, ships and ware- houses, and operates its own mines. Its tremendous revenues from these sources enables the city to assist its citizens in times of scarcity and high prices, to retail food at less than cost^ and to give freely to those unable to THE MISSING SPIRIT 99 pay. Even so, its treasury overflows at times and the city government has to order a division of the surplus equally among the citizens. From the SociaHst viewpoint this is an alluring picture, but it has another side. The wonderful and comprehen- sive system of municipal ownership which Athens enjoyed was not Social- ism any more than the municipal own- ership advocated by our present day Reformers would be. It was all in the interests of a ruling class. All the benefits were enjoyed by the citizens, or freemen, of whom there were lit- tle more than twenty thousand, as against two hundred thousand slaves who were exploited for their benefit and enjoyment. The Socialist sees in this a significant lesson for the wage- workers of today. Athens had munic- ipal ownership, but all the benefits were wrung from its slave class and enjoyed by its master class. And that is precisely what would result from IICX> THE SOCIALISTS the system of municipal ownership proposed today by those who do not aim at the liberation of labor from the thralldom of the capitalist sys- tem. The proposal to municipalize any public service unless for the benefit of the workers and as a step toward the socialization of all the means of the common life, must, the Socialist be- lieves, result in giving all the advan- tages to the comparatively small class of masters at the expense of the work- ers. Let us have municipal owner- ship, cries the Socialist, but not in the interest of the master class! Let us have municipal ownership in our own interest ! Let us have a government of city, state and nation by the wealth producers for the wealth producers ! Let us have Socialism ! Already, within the existing capital- ist system, private enterprise has fail- ed, and a system of public ownership has been evolved. Our postal system is a pertinent example. We are so THE MISSING SPIRIT lOI accustomed to regard public owner- ship as a new and untried thing that we are prone to forget that it al- ready operates to a very large extent. In almost all our cities the water sup- ply is municipally owned, in many cit- ies the lighting of public thorough- fares has ceased to be a private busi- ness. The citizen of New York who desires to go to Staten Island may ride in a municipally owned ferryboat, and the citizen of Chicago can read his paper by the aid of the publicly owned electric lights. We have pub- lic schools, hospitals, dispensaries, li- braries, museums, art galleries, parks, lodging houses, baths, and numerous other public conveniences, because private enterprise has failed in these directions. They do not satisfy the Socialist ; they are but the forms wait- ing for the breath of life to be breathed into them; but they represent a sig- nificant phase of our social develop- ment, the failure of the essential prin- I02 THE SOCIALISTS ciple of capitalism. Some day, sooner or later, the Socialist spirit will be breathed into these and all other pub- lic institutions which capitalism evolves in its vain struggle for life and against self-extinction. Socialism triumphant will inherit a host of such forms from capitalism, and many of them will need only the vitalizing principle of democracy to make them truly Socialistic in spirit as well as in form. In that narrow sense only can the public ownership movement be de- scribed as "making for the Socialist goal." SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED IO3 XVI. SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED In the foregoing pages the attempt has been made to give in plain, every- day language a concise explanation of the leading principles of the So- cialist movement. Nov^ let us con- sider, briefly, some of the more impor- tant objections to Socialism w^hich commonly present themselves to the candid mind, and which are not else- where touched upon. It is impossible to consider trivial objections, or even all the important ones, in the brief space at our disposal, but there is no lack of literature devoted to that pur- pose. I. It is urged that Socialism would lead to corruption and graft by mak- ing the spoils of political office much I04 THE SOCIALISTS greater than now. Graft, say these critics, flourishes now wherever elect- ed bodies are entrusted with the con- trol of large revenues, and to increase those revenues would be to place a premium upon corruption. Those who urge this objection fail to understand correctly either the na- ture of graft or of Socialism. Graft certainly flourishes now in all busi- ness, both private and public. That we hear more about graft in public business and less about graft in pri- vate business is natural, and it is, moreover, an encouraging fact, for it points to the preventative and cura- tive value of a widespread public in- terest and criticism. By the very na- ture of the business, graft in public busness is always more easily detect- ed, and therefore more easily ended, than in private business. That is an important point which is often lost sight of. Another point that is not generally SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED IO5 recognized is that graft in public busi- ness is almost invariably in the inter- est of some private business. Take, for instance, the postoffice; what is the nature of the graft in this impor- tant public service? Mr. Henry A. Castle, a former auditor for the post- office department, in an article* upon the deficit in that department, says: "In the United States last year (1904) the enormous sum of $46,000,- 000 v^as paid the railroads for trans- portation of the mails, of w^hich sum $5,000,000 represented that inexcus- able and scandalous graft, the rent of mail cars, under v^hich item more is paid annually for the bare use of the cars than the cars cost in the first place." The Detroit Journal has shown that with the elimination of this and simi- lar forms of graft the postal depart- ment would have had a surplus of $12,- 000,000 or $13,000,000 instead of a *In Harper's Weekly. I06 THE SOCIALISTS deficit of more than $14,000,000. It is clear, therefore, that the graft which fastens itself upon the post office de- partment, about which so much has been written, is an evil arising- out of predatory private business and not of public ownership. The remedy for the evil lies, not in making a private business of the postal service, but in extending the principle of public own- erdship to the railroads. Graft then would probably center in the business of supplying the publicly owned rail- roads with coal, rails, and other neces- sities, and the remedy again would be in the destruction of that predatory private business and the further ex- tension of public ownership and con- ■ trol. The objection that it would lead to graft applies to public ownership only when it is limited, static, and depend- ent upon private business for some essential thing. In general, the ob- jection applies to that kind of public SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED IO7 ownership which is advocated by Re- formers instead of Socialism. It does not apply to Socialism, which is not static but progressive and in no sense dependent upon private business. So- cialism implies (a) Widespread public interest and criticism, fatal to graft, 1(b) the overthrow of that class inter- est which produces graft, (c) the end of that private business which flour- ishes parasitically through the me- dium of graft and the plunder of pub- lic treasuries. II. It is feared by some that So- cialism will destroy individuality and reduce all men to a dull level of medi- ocre equality. This objection rests primarily upon the following grounds : First, it is believed that Socialism would destroy the greatest incentive man has, the desire for personal gain; and second, that Socialism must in- evitably take the form of a huge bureaucracy, governing everything from a central point, and imposing a I08 THE SOCIALISTS rigid uniformity upon the life of its citizens. Now, if Socialism involves the de- struction f)i individuality it is mani- festly undesirable; a thing to be avoided as long as possible, and to be accepted only as a necessary evil should it prove to be inevitable. Let us briefly consider the objection in the light of this agreement. In the first place, it is worthy of note that the Socialist is as a rule a man of marked individuality. It takes a man of some individuality to ally himself with an unpopular movement involving, as the Socialist movement still does, a cer- tain amount of social ostracism. If we take a list of the leaders of Socialist thought and activity and compare it with any similar list of leaders of thought in any other sphere, we shall not find the Socialists lacking in in- dividuality. Marx, the philosopher and economist; Lassalle, Liebknecht and Bebel, the political leade^r^; Ferri, SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED IO9 th€ scientist; Morris, the poet and artist, — where shall we find a group of men of more pronounced individu- ality than these? Strange indeed would it be if such men should give their aid to any movement calculated to destroy the opportunities for in- dividual development and expression. For a more direct argument, let us ask ourselves whether there is any- thing to justify the fear that the prin- ciple of public ownership is incompat- ible with individuality on the part of those who share its benefits and re- sponsibilities. Is there anything in history to warrant such a belief? For answer, let us turn back again to that page of Athenian history over which we have already pondered. Mr. W. D. P. Bliss has gathered together a list of the great Athenians whose names loom large in history's pages, all of them names of men who lived between the years 490 B. C. and 338 B. C, a period of 150 years during no ^ THE SOCIALISTS which public ownership flourished Says Mr. Bliss: "What a record it is! Socrates (469—399 B.C.), Plato (428—347 B.C.), Aristotle (384—322 B.C.) ; surely in the history of thought there are no greater names than these. In the drama, ^schylus (525—456 B.C.), Sophocles (495—406 B.C.), Euripides (480—406 B.C.)— here are the masters of the classic tragedy ; while Aristophanes (444 — 380 B.C.) is the unique founder of the world's comedy. In history, Thucydides (470 — 404 B.C.) has perhaps no rival, while Xeno- phon (43C^— 355 B.C.) has but few. In sculpture, Phidias (490 — 432 B.C.) and Praxiteles (390 B.C.) 5tand supreme, while Myron (480 B.C.) and Bcopas (370 B.C.) occupy high place. In archi- tecture, Ictinus and Callicrates, the architects of the Parthenon (438 b.c), and Mnesicles, the builder of the Propylaea (437 B.C.), produced works, of their period certainly the most beauti- ful, and of all periods the most perfect buildings in the world. In painting, Polygnotus (460 B.c) did work which cultured Athens placed on a par with her sculpture. In oratory, every school-boy knows of Demosthenes (385—322 B.C.), every col- lege boy of ^schines (389—314 B.C.) ; while their contemporaries compared Lysias (445 — ^378 B.C.) and Isocrates (436—338 B.C.) with these. In statesmanship, Pericles (495—429 B.C.), Cimon (504—449 B.c), and Temistocles (514—449 B.c.) are names that would stand out in any history; SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED III while in generalship, Miltiades (490 b.c), the hero of Marathon, and Nicias, the leader in the Spar- tan wars, can never be forgotten. Other names, among them Alcibiades (450—404 B.a), Cleon (422 B.C.), Thrasybulus (390 b.c), Lycurgus, the orator (395—323 B.C), and Myronides (457 B. C), belong to this period. Thirty one names! Where in history is there another city that can produce even an approximation to such a record?*** In modern times we have no such far-reaching system of public owner- ship to which we can turn. Taking such examples of the principle as we have, however, does anybody contend for a single moment that since the State has undertaken so many public services there is less individuality in consequence? Is there less individu- ality today, in any real sense, than there was in the days of privately con- trolled roads and toll-gates? Have we less individuality than our grand- fathers had because of our public schools, libraries, art galleries, mu- seums, baths, parks, and the like? Is ♦From The Outlook, Nov. 11, 1905. 112 THE SOCIALISTS our individuality lessened because we drink municipally supplied water, and depend upon municipal fire-fighting forces to protect us from fire? Is any man robbed of his individual free- dom because he pays only two cents to send a letter from Maine to Cali- fornia and the same amount to send a letter to an address in the next street? No man is compelled to use any municipal or state service if he can possibly do without it, or if he finds it more profitable to do so. If any citizen should prefer to send his letters by private messenger, the government would not try to stop him. All that the government does is to provide a letter-carrying service upon a plan infinitely more econom- ical than any which private enterprise could possibly devisCo It does not at- tempt to compel any person to use that service. If the municipality pro- vides us with water it does not inter- fere with our personal liberties any SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED II3 more than the private corporation which supplies our gas does. That frightful bugbear of so many timorous souls, the great bureaucracy which they fear extensive public ownership would involve, has no justification in fact The question of incentive is one that merits serious consideration. If it is true that Socialism would de- stroy the only incentive, or the main incentive, to progress, the chief motor impelling mankind onward, then it is undesirable. But are we sure as to the facts? Is it true that love of gain is the great incentive of progress it is supposed to be? The early Chris- tian fathers held a very different view. They believed and taught that it was the root of all the evil in the world. Which view is right? That love of gain, or, to name it plainly, greed, is responsible for a vast amount of crime is unquestionable. It causes wars, murders, thefts, and countless other 114 THE SOCIALISTS crimes: as an incentive to evil and wrongdoing its influence can hardly be overestimated. If v^e reckon all the evils of the world, all the crimes and ill deeds which stain and besmirch history's pages, it appears as the most important cause. Greed is, and ever has been, a prolific producer of deeds of shame. When, however, we turn to the brighter, nobler pages of history; to the deeds that glow with splendor and thrill our souls with glory and enthusiasm, we do not find greed present as the inspiring cause. We pause before a great picture with feelings akin to reverence, knowing that something nobler and greater than mere love of gain filled the art- ist's soul and guided his brush. Moved by some great poem, we know that it must have been inspired by something else than the hope of personal gain. Greed may inspire a United States Senator to graft and fraud, but some- SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED II 5 thing else inspired William Lloyd Garrison, whose memory is being honored while these pages are being written. Greed may inspire a min- ister of the poor Christ of Nazareth to compromise the gospel of his Master with Mammon's, but it was not greed which led the saintly Father Damien forth to his noble mission. Greed may have been powerful enough to inspire the slave-hunter, but it was some nobler passion which inspired John Brown. Greed, the lure of thirty pieces of silver, inspired Judas, but it was not greed which in- spired Jesus to endure the agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha. The love of gain never produced a great picture, a great poem, or a great play or opera; it never won a great battle, it is probably safe to say that it never led to a great invention or discovery. For love of art men have painted great pictures, and written books and poems, that made their Il6 THE SOCIALISTS names immortal; for love of science men have made discoveries which revolutionized the thought of the world; for love of battle men have performed deeds of heroism cele- brated in song and story. For love of fame, the desire to win the applause of their fellows, all these things have been done; and they have been done for love of country, or love of a great cause. Milton, it is said, received only $40 for writing Paradise Lost, Whether he wrote because he loved his art or because he yearned for fame, may not be known, but it is certain that he did not write for love of money. If love of money is the great inspirer, why is it that the far greater prizes of the modern literary world do not produce more Miltons and Shakespeares? Karl Marx, recog- nized all over the world now as one of the greatest thinkers of his age, turned away contemptuously from the offer of comparative wealth made SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED II7 by Bismarck to write "Das Kapital" while he toiled and starved in London. A year or two ago, a great surgeon came to this country from Vienna. He came, it was understood, to per- form an operation upon a little girl, the daughter of one of our multimil- lionaires. While he was in the coun- try he performed many other opera- tions, some of them upon little chil- dren whose parents were too poor to pay him anything at all, yet nobody believes that he tried less earnestly to help his poorest patients than to help ^he child of the multimillionaire. A few years ago, a great German physi- cian and teacher of physicians made an important discovery with regard to the nature of that awful scourge of our race, tuberculosis, a discovery which has revolutionized the method of its treatment by the medical pro- fession. The name of Dr. Koch is today universally honored as that of a great benefacttjr to the rox^. But Il8 THE SOCIALISTS supf>ose that Dr. Koch had made a secret of his discovery, or demanded a big price for it, commensurate with what he felt to be its value, would he not have been execrated and regarded as a moral monster? Had that other gresit physician, Professor von Beh- riag, demanded a big price for the s«ecret of his anti-toxin for diphtheria, or should he do so in the event of his discovering a similar method of treat- ing tuberculosis, he, too, would be uni- versally execrated. Yet, that is precise- ly what we ought to expect them to do, according to this theory that love of gain is the great incentive and motor force of progress. No, greed is the main incentive to crime and wrongdoing, but other in- centives move men and women to the nobler deeds that make for progress, for sweetness and light in the world. These incentives, love of art, of knowledge, of fame, of country, of mankind, will not be stamped out by SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED II9 Socialism: on the contrary, they may be expected to flourish the more when they are not retarded and held in check by the poisoned atmosphere of commercialism. Socialism does not involve the equal reward of all men, regardless of the quality of their ser- vice. It will give every man an op- portunity to earn the necessities of life without degradation or undue discom- fort; beyond that it will hold out re- wards for services of distinction, for brave deeds, great discoveries and in- ventions, which men will strive after more earnestly than they could strive for gold. III. Socialism is often opposed be- cause of a supposed connection be- tween it and anarchism. Nothing is more common, especially in times of national agitation consequent upon some outrageous deed, such as the as- sassination of President McKinley, for example, than this confusion of the two tiieories one with another. Yet 120 THE SOCIALISTS the fact remains that the organized Socialist movement is the greatest op- posing force to Anarchism in the world today. Socialism is the anti- thesis of Anarchism ; the two are quite irreconcilable. To save society from the Anarchist peril is no small part of the mission of the Socialist movement. In justice to the Anarchists it must be said that there is nothing in An- archism itself which necessitates a propaganda of deeds of violence. While it is true that many Anarchists have resorted to violence, there are many others, and among them some of the greatest leaders of Anarchist thought, who hold all life sacred and believe that violence and assassination, like war and conquest, are fundamen- tally opposed to the Anarchist ideal. So much must be said in justice to the Anarchists, Now, if we examine the two sys- tems of thought, we shall find that Socialism and Anarchism are as op- SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 121 posite as the poles. While there may- be many points of similarity in their criticisms of existing social conditions, the Socialist and the Anarchist are separated by a wide, impassable gulf. Socialism, as the word implies, is based on the idea of social interest and re- sponsibility, while Anarchism is based on the opposite idea of individual in- terest and responsibility. Anarchism negatives the idea of social responsi- bility. It regards the individual as supreme. Society, according to the Anarchist, is merely an aggregation of individuals, from which principle he reasons that what is wrong for an individual is wrong for society, and, since no individual can rightly control the actions of another, society cannot rightly do so. To this the Socialist replies that just as a watch is some- thing more than a collection of wheels, or a house is more than an aggrega- tion of bricks and mortar, so society is something more than an aggregation 122 THE SOCIALISTS of individuals; it is a corporate whole with distinct rights and duties. The difference in Anarchism and Socialism, therefore, consists in this, and not, as is often supposed, in the fact that the Socialists do not believe in physical force as the Anarchists are popularly supposed to do. It is not a question of Socialism being a milder, less advanced, and less dan- gerous form of the same ideas as An- archism. The two theories have no relationship whatever. It is not a difference of method, but of ultimate aim. Not all Anarchists, nor most of them, believe in physical force meth- ods, and Socialists, while abhorring the very idea of bloodshed, would, under certain conditions, have to re- sort to it. Where political power, or other peaceable means are denied to a people 'Vightly strugglitig to be free," force is permissible and right. Of such rebellious uses of force, in- deed, have the most glorious pages SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 123 of history been written. From such a rising rose this great republic itself. But where other, peaceful means are open to them, the Socialists will never choose violence, regarding force not as the **Midwife of Progress," but as "The deadly abortionist strangling the new society in the womb of the old/' The Socialist seeks to establish so- cial paramountcy through legislative action. And this social paramountcy is but an extension of the same active principle which we find expressed in our sanitary laws, our educational sys- tem, and other similar manifestations of the collective will and law. From the point of view of the Anarchist, who, after all, merely carries individu- alism to its logical extreme, sanitary laws, education acts, factory acts, and all other such social legislation, are so many "outrageous interferences" with individual liberty. All legislation is equally condemned. As the Prohibi- tionist would scorn the classification of 1^4 THE SOCIALISTS whiskey as good or bad, declaring that all whiskey is bad and there cannot be such a thing as *^good whiskey," so the Anarchist denies that there can be such a thing as **good legislation/' When we say that Socialism seeks to establish the interests of society as paramount, it is not meant by that that Socialism is opposed to the individual liberty which the Anarchists desire; that it involves a huge, octopus-like bureaucracy governing all men's ac- tions, crushing out all individuality, and placing all the relations of life under a vast network of laws and regu- lations. The Socialist ideal is not, as its enemies would have us believe, law backed by a policeman. It does not propose to encompass life with legal enactments and restrictions. On the contrary, its aim is to secure to every individual the greatest possible free- dom. Social control in the Socialist regime would be reduced to the mini- mum necessary to protect the equal SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED I25 liberties of all ; it would take the form of a protection of the essentials of personal freedom by denying the right of any man to be master of another's bread. Personal liberty is only pos- sible as the blossoming of common liberty. The conflict between Socialism and Anarchism is, therefore, susceptible of no truce. The history of the Socialist movement is in large part the history of a struggle with Anarchism. The result is seen today in the fact that wherever Socialism is strong, as in Germany, for example. Anarchism is a negligible force, and wherever, as in Spain, Socialism is weak, Anarchism prevails. Socialism is not only the j greatest force in the world opposed to Anarchism, it is the only remedy for the conditions which makes Anarch- ists. To sweep away the hideous an- omaly of extreme misery side by side with wanton extravagance and colos- sal wealth is the only effectual means 126 THE SOCIALISTS of Staying the perilous tide of Anarch- ism. Neither repressive measures nor tinkering with the immigration laws will accomplish that end, which is part of the purpose and mission of Social- ism. IV. Socialism is opposed by some because it is believed to be antagon- istic to religion and to the institution of marriage. These objections are thus coupled because they are com- monly associated in a certain form of attack on Socialism. The usual method is to present a long string of quotations from Socialists of more or less prominence in which anti-religi- ous views are expressed. Often these quotations are so garbled or dishonest- ly torn from their contexts as to mis- represent the views of their authors. This despicable and dishonest method of attack has been resorted to by a section of the "religious" press for many years. The method is just as dishonest and mean as that of the in- SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 127 fidel lecturer who said that Christ was an advocate of suicide, and, to prove his case, read the two passages, "And he (Judas) went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5) and "Go and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:37), as one passage! Robert Ingersoll, the great free- thinker, was a Republican. Suppose that some Socialist should take the trouble of compiling a list of quota- tions from his writings, and the writ- ings of other noted freethinkers who have been Republicans, would it be fair to argue from that list that the Re- publican party is opposed to religion? Would it be fair to compile such a list from the writings of Jefferson and other Democrats who have been ag- nostics and free thinkers, and by means of it seek to brand the Demo- cratic party as an anti-religious party? Would it not be equally possible to compile a list of Catholics, or of Spir- itualists, belonging to either party, 128 THE SOCIALISTS and from it to argue that the party is a Catholic or Spiritualist party? Such cowardly and dishonest methods of at- tack are unworthy of serious consid- eration. But many people have honestly op- posed Socialism because they have be- lieved it to be anti-religious. They have made the not unnatural mistake of confusing the Socialist theory of the economic interpretation of history, sometimes called the "materialistic conception'' of history, with philo- sophic materialism as opposed to the- ism. They have concluded that So- cialism must be based upon a theory fundamentally opposed to the religi- ous view of the great primary First Cause. Once it is understood, how- ever, that this is not the case; that historic materialism is not a theory relating to the primary cause of the cosmic process, this argument loses its weight. Theist and atheist, monist, agnostic ^nd materialist, may each ac- SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED I29 cept the Socialist theory of historic materialism without doing violence to religious beliefs or doubts. True, the atheist may not be able to see how it is possible for the theist to reconcile his theism with historic ma- terialism; and the theist may be un- able to understand the process of rea- soning by which the atheist finds in historic materialism an argument for his views of the universe which he deems unanswerable. Just as when the Darwinian theory was first pro- pounded many people said that it was atheistic, while good Christians on the other hand accepted it, so it has been with Socialism. Today the Socialist movement is made up of men and women of all shades of religious belief and doubt; adherents of all the sects and creeds which have arisen in the development of religious thought and life. All the Socialist parties of the world declare religion to be a matter of private judgment and conscience. 130 THE SOCIALISTS The last objection with which we shall deal in these pages is that Social- ism is opposed to the institution of marriage and to the family tie. This objection is generally put forward in the same manner and spirit as the one concerning religion. Because certain individual Socialists have also enter- tained theories affecting the marriage relation, unscrupulous opponents of Socialism have used that as an argu- ment against Socialism, quite regard- less of the fact that the great mass of Socialists never entertained such views; and the further fact that the anti-marriage, "free love" theories in question have been even more fre- quently and vigorously advocated by non-Socialists. Every time an account appears in the press of marital in- felicity among Socialists the event is hailed as another "proof" that "Social- ism will destroy the family and the home," notwithstanding that the causes of the trouble may be entirely SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED I3I disassociated from Socialism, and that there are millions of Socialist homes in which love reigns supreme. Once again, the question arises, if such arguments may be used against Socialists, why may they not be used by Socialists against their opponents? If some one should compile a list of, say, a thousand divorces, the parties to which were all Christians of more or less prominence, would it justify the conclusion that Christianity is an at- tack on the marriage relation and on the family? Could the same rule be ap- plied to Republicans and Democrats? This is, of course, the reductio ad ab- surdurri of the methods of attack adopted by the opponents of Social- ism. So far as Socialism will affect the conjugal relations at all, it may be safely predicted that it will tend to pre- serve and strengthen them. By secur- ing to women their economic indepen- dence, a blow would be struck at the 132 THE SOCIALISTS hideous commercialization of marriage so common at present. Tens of thous- ands of women, afraid to encounter the cruel struggle for existence, marry for homes and security of a livelihood without the sanction of love, the only sanction for the marriage relation. The records of our divorce courts abound with instances of matrimonial failure due to this cause. As Professor Richard T. Ely says : "The causes for divorce have been shown by the Nation- al Department of Labor to be largely economic, it is the pressure of economic wants in the lower middle class which is most fruitful of divorce.''* Lower still in the social scale, the problem of the desertion of wives and families ap- pears. Investigations of this problem by Charity Organization Societies, bodies not prone to exaggerating econ- omic causes, have, without exception, shown economic causes, such as low wages and unemployment, to be prime causes of this evil of wife desertion. ♦Political Economy, p. 261. CONCLUSION 133 Socialism would remove these causes. Finally, there is the great evil of prostitution, due also in very large measure to environmental and econ- omic causes which Socialism would re- move. The moral perils attendant upon child labor; low wages which make decent marriages impossible for thousands of men and women, and the resultant creation of *'she towns" on the one hand and "he towns" on the other ; the low wages paid to working girls and women, and the conditions of employment so vividly described in that impressive book. The Long Day^ are all important factors in the creation of the Social Evil. It is not claimed that Socialism will perfect hu- man nature so that under it marital troubles and sexual vices will disap- pear, but it is confidently claimed that Socialism will remove some of the most fruitful causes of these evils. Socialism comes as the Emancipator of Woman and the Protector of the Home. 134 THE SOCIALISTS XVII. CONCLUSION The sole aim of the writer of this little volume has been to present the claims of Socialism candidly and in simple language. If it serves to help its readers to a clearer understanding of the aims of the Socialist move- ment its purpose will have been abundantly served and 5ts exis- tence justified. There are many important subjects which have been only briefly touched upon in these pages for a fuller treatment of which the reader is referred to the many ex- cellent books devoted to them, a brief list of which will be found at the end of this volume. In conclusion, it may be w^l to answer briefly the quiestion CONCLUSION 135 which must present itself to the mind of every one who feels the justice and reasonableness of the Socialist posi- tion, "What can I do to help onward the great movement?" Many years ago, the good quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, advised the young men of his day to *'seek for some just and despised cause and at- tach themselves to it." Today we call upon all men and women, young and old alike, who believe that the Social- ist cause is just, to attach themselves to it. By voting for Socialism if they have votes, by urging others to vote for it if they have no votes themselves; by carefully studying its literature and equipping themselves to plead its cause •successfully, either in private or in public, and to defend it whenever the need arises, it is possible for every man and woman who believes in Socialism to identify himself or herself with it. That is the minimum of ser- vice to be expected from the earnest 136 THE SOCIALISTS man or woman who believes that the Socialist cause is just and true. A still greater service is possible by joining the Socialist Party, the organ- ized effort of thousands of devoted men and women of all races and creeds to develop the Socialist movement in America along intelligent lines. The Socialist Party exists primarily for the purpose of making Socialists. By carefully organized propaganda it is possible for people to accomplish much more in the way of creating Socialist sentiment than the same people could accomplish by acting individually. Not only so, but by having a well organized political party to carry on political campaigns it is rendered possible to keep the Socialist cause from being trailed in the dirt by freaks on the one hand, or by charlatans on the other. Organized in every state and territory, the Socialist Party is open to every man or woman desiring to join it, pro- vided that they renounce all connec- CONCLUSION 137 tion with any and every other political party, and accept the principles set forth in the Socialist Party Platform and the rules of the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party differs in many important respects from every other political party. In the first place, all its members pay "dues," a small monthly sum, for the support of the party. This unusual practice is observ- ed for the reason that it is a v^orking- class party; it is the safeguard of the party against corruption and betrayal. The other great political parties have no such system. They get their funds, as the current insurance investigations in New York have shown, through grafting upon great corporations. In reality these great corporate interests buy up the political parties and, because they own them, control them in all essential particulars. The Socialist Party does not get its funds that way, but from the month- ly payments of its members, and their 138 THE SOCIALISTS voluntary contributions. It is the only party in the country which publishes regularly a full account of all its ex- penditures, including its campaign funds. The Socialist Party is not run by "bosses/' either good or bad, but by its members, the rank and file. Every member has an equal voice and vote in the management of the party's affairs and the organization is the most demo- cratic possible. If, reader, you feel it to be your duty to unite w^ith this great movement for the freedom of the working-class from its present thralldom and bondage, join the Socialist Party in your locality. If you do not know the address of the nearest branch, write to the National Secretary of the party for information. If there is a local organization of the party in your neighborhood he will give you the address. If there is none, he will tell you bow to become a "mem- ber-at-large" of the party, and, better still, how to form a local organi;fation. CONCLUSION 139 "Come, then, since all things call us, the living and the dead. And o'er the weltering tangle a glimmering light is shed. Come, then, let us cast off fooling, and put by ease and rest. For the Cause alone is worthy till the good days bring the rest. Come, join in the only battle wherein no man can fail, Where whoso fadeth and dieth, yet his deed shall still prevail. Ah ! come, cast off all fooling, for this at least we know: That the Dawn and the Day is coming, and forth the Banners go." 140 THE SOCIALISTS APPENDICES. A DREAM WHICH MUST COME TRUE. A profound faith in the ultimate realization of human brotherhood and comradeship is im- plied by the very name we Social-Democrats* bear. Good old Bronterre O'Brien, who in the rich mint of his powerful mind coined the phrase we now so proudly write for name upon our banners, sounded the very depths of our philo- sophy and scaled the heights of our faith when he declared, more than sixty years ago, that Brotherhood could never be realized in the world until Liberty reigned in the world; and that Liberty could never reign in the world until the system permitting private ownership of socially necessary things is destroyed. So when we today declare for the social ownership of all socially necessary things; when we denounce the system which makes private property master of the common life; when we urge our demands that the means of the common life, produced as they are by the common labor and experience of the world, be owned in com- *Iu Europe the Socialists are most often called Social Democrats — That is. Socialists who believe in Democratic Socialism as opposed to State Socialism. APPENDICES 141 mon, we are more than a mere political party aiming at political supremacy. We are the apostles of the great universal re- ligious impulse, the faith of Humanity that the Brotherhood of Man shall yet be universally recognized. Thus we proclaim our faith in the highways and the byways of the world and sing it in our song. We are the heralds of the Golden Age of Peace. "The day is coming/' we cry, "when the cannon's roar will be silenced by the Peace-Song of a free and gladsome world. The day is com- ing, its dawning is at hand, when Socialism tri- umphant will break down the last barrier that keeps a single child from the fullest enjoyment of the vast heritage prepared for it through long centuries of pain and toil. The day is at hand when there shall be no man master of another's- bread and life; when the words "master" and "slave" and all their hypocritical latter-day equiv- alents shall pass from human speech and mem- ory. The day is nearer than most of us think or know when the ghoulish coining of little child lives into dividends shall cease and the tender babes be given their natural fellowship with bird and flower." "Dreams ! Dreams ! Only dreams !" you say. Yes, we are dreamers and this is our great and glorious dream. But before you sneer at the dreamers or the dream, look at the great army of dreamers. Yonder peasant on Russian steppe, bowed with 142 THE SOCIALISTS Oppressing toil, dreams that dream, sees that vision of a redeemed and revivified world, and the load of his life is lightened. And that poor mother in Siberian exile, torn from the home where she was the love-crowned queen, could not bear the anguish of her lone exile but for the same vision. In German workshop and garrison tired work- ers and pallid prisoners dream the same dream and their faces are lit by the same hope-light. From the vineyards of France and from her cities comes sound of glad songs : They are sing- ing of the same hope. And Italy and Spain join in the strain. From England's industrial hells and from the abysses of her great cities, those frightful dens of misery and squalor, a shout of increasing vol- ume tells that they have seen the same vision and dreamed the same dream as that which in- spires the workers of our own land from the crowded tenements of New York to the crowded tenements of San Francisco; on the small New England farm and the great prairie wheat farm; in the coal mines that lie in the heart of the Alleghenies, and the metaliferous mines of the Rockies. In far off Australia tens of thousands of toil- ers, gathered from all climes and speaking all tongues, find inspiration in the same dream. It is life itself to them. And where Africa's millions gather in mine or factory, upon the cities' streets or the great karoo, the dream unites APPENDICES 143 Boer and Briton, Kaffir and White in one strong brotherhood. And even 'mid the battle's din where Russ slave and Jap slave fight till their blood mingles in one red stream at the bidding of their mas- ters, the vision appears and hatred, ignorant, blind hatred, is banished from many a heart. How vast the army of dreamers ! Time was when only the lone prophet in Israel dreamed such a dream or saw such a vision. He saw through the centuries the time to be "when the swords shall be beaten into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks." He told of his vision, but men derided and cried ^ut, "Dreamer of vain dreams !" The number of the prophets grew but slowly. The lonely Nazarene, homeless and poor; Campanella the Italian monk; Sir Thomas More, Saint Simon and Fourier, Robert Owen and the brave German tailor, Wilhelm Weitling. So the line of the "dreamers" grew and spanned the centuries. But not till the clarion call of the great twin spirits, Marx and Engels, called upon the work- ers of the world to unite did we realize that the power to make the vision real rested entirely with ourselves. Now how the army of dreamers has grown ! And how it grows! It is no longer the dream' of the lone prophet or the poet. It is the dream now of millions in all lands^ of^all creeds, of all tongues. It is the dream of nations now. And as Lowell truly sings: "The dreams that nations dream come truer' 144 THE SOCIALISTS Aye, such dreams "come true." No powet- can prevent the fulfillment of the dream of the world's brain and heart. Our red flag, symbolizing as it does our world-kinship and fraternity and the seas of martyr blood shed for the cause, shall yet float in triumph from every state cap- itol in the land. Aye, and from the Capitol at Washington it shall proudly fly — to be answered from across seas by like emblems of the Socialist triumph of our comrades in Europe and Asia, Africa and Australasia. *'Softly sweet as living springs Mighty hopes are blowing wide: Passionate prefigurings Of a world revivified, Dawning thoughts that ere they set Shall possess the Ages yet!" II. A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING FOR STUDENTS OF SOCIALISM. In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to state briefly, in popular language, the leading principles of Scientific Socialism. Much has been barely touched upon, and much else left unmentioned. It has been thought best, there- fore, to include this suggested course of study, in the form of a list of books easily accessible, and requiring no special training on the part of the reader, for those who after reading this little volume may desire to study the subject APPENDICES 14s mDfe thoroughly. No attempt is made to pro- vide a bibliography of Socialism, but a brief list of useful works upon various aspects of Social- ism. (A) History of Socialism. The History of Socialism, by Thomas Kirkup. (The Macmillan Co., $1.50.) French and German Socialism in Modern Times, by Richard T. Ely. (Harper Brothers, 75 cents.) Socialism: Its Growth and Outcome, by William Morris and E. Belfort Bax. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.25.) German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle, by W. H. Dawson. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.00.) Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer, by Eduard Bernstein. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.00.) The History of Socialism in the United States, by Morris Hillquit. (Funk & Wagnalls Co., $175.) The article on "Socialism" in the New Interna- tional Encyclopedia, by Prof. R. T. Ely, is worthy of special attention. (J5) Philosophy of Socialism, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by Friederich Engels. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., cloth 50 cents, paper 10 cents.) The Quintessence of Socialism, by Prof. A. E. Schaffle. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.00.) This 146 THE SOCIALISTS is a fair and lucid statement of Socialism by an opponent. Socialism and Modern Science, by Enrico Ferri. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.00.) The Economic Interpretation of History, by Prof. E. R. A. Seligman. (The Macmillan Co., $1.25.) Mass and Class, by W. J. Ghent. (The Macmil- lan Co., cloth $1.25, paper 25 cents.) The World's Revolutions, by Ernest Untermann. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 50 cents.) (C) Economics of Socialism. Wage Labor and Capital, by Karl Marx. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 5 cents.) Value, Price and Profit, by Karl Marx. (New York Labor News Co., 50 cents.) The Economics of Socialism, by Henry M. Hynd- man. (London: The Twentieth Century Press, $1.00.) Principles of Scientific Socialism, by Chas. H. Vail. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., $1.00.) CD) The Trust Problem. Collectivism, by Emile Vandervelde. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 50 cents.) . The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, by John A. Hobson. Monopolies and Trusts and Studies in the Evo- lution of Industrial Society, by Richard T. Ely. (The Macmillan Co., each $1.25. These volumes are very suggestive and useful, though not definitely Socialist in aim or conception. APPENDICES 147 The American Farmer, by A. M. Simons. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 50 cents.) Deals with concen- tration in agriculture; a most suggestive and important little work. (E) Other Subjects. (j) Anarchism: Socialism and Anarchism, by George Plechanoff. (London : The Twentieth Century Press, 25 cents.) Anarchism, its History and Theory, by E. V. Zenker. (G. P. Putnam's Sons, $1.50.) A critique of Anarchism from a bourgeous view- point, but suggestive. (2) Poverty: American Pauperism, by Isador Ladoff. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 50 cents.) Poverty, by Robert Hunter. (The Macmillan Co., $1.50 and 25 cents.) The Bitter Cry of the Children, by John Spargo. (The Macmillan Co., $1.50.) Deals with pov- erty in its relation to children. (3) Application of Socialist Principles: Social- ists in French Municipalities, compiled by Er- nest Untermann. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 5 cents.) Underfed School Children: The Problem and the Remedy, by John Spargo. (Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 10 cents.) What the Socialists Would Do if Elected in This City, by A. M. Simons. (CThas. H. Kerr & Co., 5 cents.) [It should be observed that Charles H. Kerr and Companf do NOT fill orders for books issued by other publishers.] Charles H. Kerr & Company's Books ARRANGED BY TITLES Descriptive Catalogue Free on Request After Capitalism, What? By William Thurs- ton Brov/n. Paper $0.05 American Communities and Co-operative Col- onies. By William Alfred Hinds. Cloth, 1.50 American Esperanto Book. By Arthur Baker. Cloth 1.00 American Farmer, The. By A. M. Simons. Cloth 50 American Pauperism and the Aholition of Poverty. By Isador Ladoff. Cloth 50 Anarchism and Socialism. By George Ple- chanoff. Cloth 50 Ancient Lowly, The. Vol I. By C. Osborne Ward. Cloth 2.00 Ancient Lowly, The. Vol. II. By C. Osborne Ward. Cloth 2.00 Ancient Society. By Lewis H. Morgan. Cloth, 1.50 Appeal to the "SToung", An. By Peter Kropotkin. Paper 05 Art of Lecturing", Tlio. Arthur M. Lewis. Paper 25 Axe at the Boot, The. Rev. William Thurston Brown. Paper 05 Beyond the Black Ocean. By Rev. T. Mc- Grady. Cloth 1.00 Paper 50 Better- World .Philosophy. By J. Howard Moore. Cloth 1.00 Britain for the British. By Robert Blatch- ford. Cloth 50 Capital, a Critictue of Political Bconomy. By Karl Marx. Complete in three volumes. L The Process of Capitalist Production. Cloth 2.00 IL The Process of Circulation of Capital. Cloth 2.00 IIL The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole. Cloth 2.00 Capital and Lahor. By a Blacklisted Machin- ist. Paper 25 Capitalist and Laborer. By John Sparge. Cloth 50 1 2 CHAELES H. KEER & COMPANY'S BOOKS Changres in tlie Theory and Tactics of the (German) Social-Democracy. By Paul Kampffmeyer. Cloth 50 Changing" Order, The. By Oscar Lovell Triggs, Ph. D. Cloth 1.00 Civic Evils; or. The Relation of Money to Social Ethics. By Dr .C. H. Reed. Paper, .05 Class Strug-g-les in America. By A. M. Simons. Cloth 50 Paper 10 Collectivism and Industriam Evolution. By Emile Vandervelde. Cloth 50 Common Sense of Socialism, The. By John Sparg-o. Cloth, $1.00; paper . . .• 25 Confessions of a Drone. By Joseph Medill Patterson. Paper 05 Crime and Criminals. By Clarence Darrow. Paper 10 Easy Iiessons in Socialism. By William H. Leffing-well. Paper 05 Economic Evolution. By Paul Laf argue. Pa- per 05 Economic Foundation of Art, The. By A. M. Simons. Paper . . 05 Economic Foundations of Society. By Achille Loria. Cloth 1.25 Eig'hteenth Brumaire of Iiouis Bonaparte. By Karl Marx. Paper 25 End of the World, The. Dr. M. Wilhelm Mey- er. Cloth 50 Essays on the Materialistic Conception of History. By Antonio Labriola. Cloth... 1.00 Ethics and the Materialistic Conception of History. By Karl Kautsky. Cloth 50 Evolution of Man, The. By Wilhelm Boelsche. Cloth 50 Evolution of the Class Strugrg-le, The. By William H. Noyes. Paper 05 Evolution, Social and Org-anic. By Arthur M. Lewis. Cloth 50 Feuerhach: The Roots of the Socialist Philos- ophy. By Frederick Engels. Cloth 50 Folly of Beingf "Good," The. By Charles H. Kerr. Paper 05 Forces That Make for Socialism in America. By John Spargo. Paper.. 05 From Revolution to Revolution. By George D. Herron. Paper 05 Germs of Mind in Flants. By R. H. Prance. Cloth 50 Ck>d and My Neig'hhor. By Robert Blatchf ord. Cloth 1.00 CHARLES H. KEBR & COMPANY^S BOOKS 3 God's Children. By James Allman. Cloth 50 Goethe's Paust, a Fragment of Socialist Criti- cism. By Marcus Hitch. Cloth.. 50 Sistory and Economics. By J. E, Sinclair. Paper 05 How I Acquired My Millions. By a Big- Capi- talist. Paper 05 Human, All Too Human. By Friedrich Niet- zsche. Cloth 50 Human Aptitudes. By C. Osborne Ward. Cloth 1.50 Imprudent Marriag-es. By Robert Blatchford. Paper 05 Industrial Democracy. By J. W. Kelley. Paper 05 Industrial Unionism: Its Economic Neces- sity. By William E. Trautman. Paper. . .05 Industry and Democracy. By Lewis J. Dun- can. Paper 05 Intemperance and Poverty. By T. Twining. Paper 05 King-dom of God and Socialism, The. By Rev. Robert M. Webster. Paper 05 l^abor Catechism of Political Economy, A. By C. Osborne Ward. Cloth 1.00 Iiandmarks of Scientific Socialism. (Anti- Duehring). By Frederick Engels. Cloth 1.00 Iiast Days of the Buskin Co-operative Asso- ciation, The. By Isaac Broome. Cloth.. .50 Life and Death. By Dr. E. Teichmann. Cloth .50 Life of Frederick Eng-els. By Karl Kautsky. Paper 10 Looking* Forward. By Philip Rappaport. Cloth 1.00 Love's Coming" of Ag-e. By Edward Carpenter. Cloth 1.00 Making of the World, The. By Dr. M. Wil- helm Meyer. Cloth 50 Manifesto de la Komunista Partio. English and Esperanto. Cloth 50 Manifesto of the Communist Party. By Marx and Engels. Cloth, 50 cents; paper, 10 Man Under the Machine, The. By A. M. Si* mons. Paper 05 Marxian Economics. By Ernest Untermann. Cloth 1.00 Marx on Cheapness. Translated by Robert Rives LaMonte. Paper 05 Memoirs of Karl Marx. By Wilhelm Lieb- knecht. Cloth 50 Merrie England. By Robert Blatchford. Pa- per 10 4 CHARLES H. KEEE & COMPANY'S BOOKS Mission of the Working Class, The. By Rev. Charles H. Vail. Paper 05 Modem Socialism. By Charles H. Vail. Cloth .75 Paper 25 Morals and Socialism. By Kerr; also The Odd Trick. By Bax. Paper 05 Origfin of the Pamily, Private Property and the State. By Frederick Engels. Cloth.. .50 Our Bourgeois Iiiterature: Tlie Reason and the Remedy. By Upton Sinclair. Paper. . .05 Fackingtown: A Study of the Chicago Stock Yards. By A. M. Simons. Paper 05 Passing of Capitalism, The. By Isador La- doff. Cloth, 50 cents; paper 25 Perfecting the Earth. By Dr. C. W. Woold- ridge. Cloth 1.00 Philosophy of Socialism, The. By A. M. Sim- ons. Paper 05 Physical Basis of Mind and Morals. By M. H. Pitch. Cloth 1.00 Plutocracy or Nationalism, Which? By Ed- ward Bellamy. Paper 05 Positive Outcome of Philosophy. By Joseph Dietzgen. Cloth 1.00 Positive School of Criminology, The. By En- rico Ferri.. Cloth 50 Principles of Scientific Socialism. By Rev. Charles H. Vail. Cloth, $1.00; paper 35 Pride of Intellect, The. By Franklin H. Went- worth. Paper 05 Pullman Strike, The. By W. H. Carwardine. Paper 25 Rational Prohibition. By Walter L. Young. Paper 05 Real Religion of Today, The. By Rev. Wil- liam Thurston Brown. Paper 05 Recent Progress of the Socialist Movement. By Morris Hillquit. Paper 10 Realism in Literature and Art. By Clarence S. Darrow. Paper 05 Rebel at Large, The. By May Beals. Cloth. . . .50 Rebels of the New South. By Walter Marion Raymond. Cloth 1.00 Recording Angel, The. By Edwin Arnold Brenholtz. Cloth 1.00 Relation of Religion to Social Bthics, The. By William Thurston Brown. Paper 05 Republic of Plato. Translated by Alexander Kerr. Books I, II, III, IV, V and VI. Each, paper 15 Republic, The. By N. P. Andresen. Cloth... 1.00 CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY^S BOOKS 5 Revolution and Counter-Bevolution. By Karl Marx. Cloth 50 Bigrlit to Be Iiazy, and Other Studies. By Paul Lafargue. Cloth 50 Revolutionary Essays in Socialist Faith and Fancy. By Peter E. Burrowes. Cloth... 1.00 Rise of the American Proletarian. By Austin Lewis. Cloth 1.00 Root of All Kinds of Evil. By Rev. Stewart Sheldon. Paper ; .10 Russian Bastile, The. By Simon O. Pollock. Cloth 50 Sale of an Appetite, The. By Paul Lafargue. Cloth 50 Scab, The. By Jack London. Paper 05 Science and Revolution. By Ernest Unter- mann. Cloth 50 Science and Socialism. By Robert Rives La- Monte. Paper 05 Science and the Workingfman. By Ferdinand Lassalle. Paper 25 Shoes, Pigfs and Problems. By Evelyn Gladys. Paper 05 Single Tax Versus Socialism. By A. M. Sim- ons. Paper 05 Sketch of Social Evolution, A. By H. W, Boyd Mackay. Paper 05 Social and Philosophical Studies. By Paul Lafarg-ue. Cloth 50 Social Revolution, The. By Karl Kautsky. Cloth 50 Socialism and Farmers. By A. M. Simons. Paper 05 Socialism and Philosophy. By Antonio Lab- riola. Cloth 1.00 Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman. Paper 05 Socialism and the Home. By May Walden. Paper 05 Socialism and the Org-anized l^abor Move- ments. By May Wood Simons. Paper... .05 Socialist and Trade Unionism. By Daniel Lynch and Max S. Hayes. Paper „05 Socialism in French Municipalities. Trans- lated from Official Reports. Paper 05 Socialism, Positive and Neg'ative. By Robert Rives La Monte. Cloth 50 Socialism, Revolution and Internationalism. By Gabriel Deville. Paper 10 Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. By Freder- ick Engels. Cloth, 50 cents; paper 10 6 CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY^S BOOKS Socialism vs. Anarchy. By A. M. Simons. Paper 05 Socialism vs. Singfle Tax. A Debate. Paper.. .25 Socialism, What It Is and What It Seeks to Accomplish. By Wilhelm Liebknecht. Pa- per 10 Socialist Catechism. By Charles E. Cline. Pa- per 05 Socialist Movement, The. By Rev. Charles H. Vail. Paper 10 Socialist Party of America, Platform, Meth- ods, etc. The. Paper 05 Socialist Songs. By William Morris and others. Paper 05 Socialist Songs with Music. Compiled by Charles H. Kerr. Paper 10 Socialist Song's, Dialogfues and Recitations. Compiled by Josephine R. Cole. Paper. . , .25 Socialist View of Mr. Rockefeller, A. By John Spargo. Paper 05 Socialists, The. By John Spargo. Cloth 50 Paper 10 Socialization of Humanity, The. By Charles Kendall Franklin. Cloth 2.00 Some of the Philosophical Essays of Joseph Dietzgen. Cloth 1.00 State and Socialism, The. By Gabriel Deville. Paper 10 stories of the Struggle. By Morris Winchev- sky. Cloth 50 Ten Blind I^eaders of the Blind. By Arthur M. Lewis. Cloth 50 Theoretical System of Karl Marz, The. By Louis B. Boudin. Cloth 50 Thoughts of a Pool. By Evelyn Gladys. Cloth 1.00 Triumph of Life, The. By Wilhelm Boelsche. Cloth 50 Trust Question, The. By Rev. Charles H. Vail. Paper 05 Trusts and Imperialism. By H. Gaylord Wil- shire. Paper 05 Underfed School Children. By John Spargo. Paper 10 Under the Lash. A Drama in five acts. By C. F. Quinn. Paper 25 Universal Kinship, The. By J. Howard Moore. Cloth 1.00 Useful Work Versus Useless Toil. By Wil- liam Morris. Paper 05 ▼alue, Price and Profit. By Karl Marx. Cloth .50 Paper 10 CHAfiLBS H. KEKE & COMPANY'S BOOKS 7 Wage iMSibov and Capital. By Karl Marx. Pa- per 05 Walt Whitman: A Study. By Mila Tupper Maynard. Cloth 1.00 What Are We Here Por? By F. Dundas Todd. Paper 50 What's So and What Isn't. By John M. Work. Cloth 50 What Socialists Think. By Charles H. Kerr. Paper 05 What the Socialists Would Do If They Won in This City. By A. M. Simons. Paper. . . .05 When Thing's Were Doing". By C. A. Steere. Cloth 1.00 Where We Stand, American Socialism Ex- plained. By John Spargo. Paper 05 Why a Working-man Should Be a Socialist. By Gaylord Wilshire. Paper 05 Why I Am a Socialist. By George D. Herron. Paper 05 Wolves, The. By Robert A. Wason. Paper.. .10 Woman and Socialism. By May Walden. Pa- per .05 Woman and the Social Problem. By May Wood Simons. Paper 05 Woman Under Socialism. By August Bebel. Cloth 1.00 World's Revolutions, The. By Ernest Unter- mann. Cloth 50 Any book In this list mailed promptly on re- ceipt of price. We do not allow credit; we do not sell books of other publishers; we do not re- ceive subscriptions for any periodical except the International Socialist Review. This is an 80- page monthly, every page intensely interesting* to active socialists. A Study Course in Socialism, conducted by Joseph E. Cohen, started in the issue for November, 1908. Ten cents a copy, 25 cents for 3 months; 50 cents for 6 months; $1.00 a year. Address CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY (Co-operative) 153 EAST KINZIE STREET CHICAGO Lafargue's Books Paul Lafargue is one of the ablest and beyond doubt the most charming of the socialist writers of Europe. Charles H. Kerr has translated three of his books. Social and Philosophical Studies shows how people's ideas of religion, justice and goodness are definitely related to the mode of production by which their ma- terial wants are satisfied. The Right to Be Lazy and Other Stud- ies contains six clear, strong essays ap- pealing to the self-interest and the com- mon sense of the wage-workers exploited under capitalism. The Sale of an Appetite, illustrated with original drawings by Dorothy Deene, is a powerful, realistic story of a typical wage-worker. Each volume sold separately in cloth at 50 cents, postpaid. CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY 153 East Kinzie St., Chicago THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM A Series of Letters Addressed to Jonathan Edwards, of Pittsburg By JOHJ^ SPARGO TpHIS is Mr. Spargo's latest and best book, and it is just the thing for a busy man or woman who wants the case for socialism plainly and pleasantly stated in a volume of moderate size. It is scientific, yet easy and readable. It is fearless, yet good-tempered. It will make votes that will stick. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 25 cents; postpaid. CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY 153 KINZIE STREET CHICAQO »f "~ 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 5#^ REC D LD 5laB*6*B NOV 13 1957 -^1^ i^X REC*D40 RECEIV ^Ec-p e:d iWAri3^^gS3 Z7Mar'59JT HAY 27 '6^ PM :^^ EPT. #^ 5~^ Lm ^»ii^ ' ?-••' ^-^uila^ ISS^ s^ Mr mTT ^ ^ ■ V LD 21A-50m-8,'57 (C8481sl0)476B <^ ^ General Librar University of Cali Berkeley : .:^-i