THE A B C OF SOCIALISM (INCLUDING THE A B C OF ECONOMICS) BY I. G. SAVOY (Editor New England Socialist^ Official Organ of Massachusetts Socialist Party) AUTHOR OF "SOCIALISM AND YOUTH." "THE DISHONOR OF BESSY." ETC. AND M. O. TECK AUTHOR OF "FOOD ADULTERATION." "PATRIOTISM AND PROFIT," ETC. "THE A B C OF SOCIALISM MEANS * THE X Y Z OF CAPITALISM" BOSTON: RICHARD G. BADGER TORONTO: COFP CLARK CO.. LIMITED Copyright, 1915, by Richard G. Badger All rights reserved *s BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION The authors of this little book, which is a frank piece of Socialist propaganda, lay no great stress on the originality of what they say. That would be quite impossible at this date for any elementary book on Socialism. If there be any originality at all, then, it is in the manner of presenting the subject, in including an A B C of Economics, and in giving an easily constructed, but firmly founded argument to- gether with the material for making it intelligible. The book is so written that it touches upon much material more than once, but each time from a dif- ferent standpoint. This kind of repetition amplifies the reader's knowledge, impresses the point and re- lieves the monotony so characteristic of many good books on the subject. There is no reason why a conscientious reading of Part One alone should not give the reader all the es- sentials of modem Socialism. Part Two is well cal- culated to lead the interested student into the de- tailed aspects of the subject. / This book is dedicated to all those slaves whom it would earnestly help to free, not through enthusiasm that results only in fine phrases, but through knowl- edge that leads to intelligent action. The Authors. / 329339 Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2007 witii funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation littp://www.arcliive.org/details/abcofsocialisminOOsavoricli CONTENTS CHAPTER VAOB PART ONE — THE A B C OF SOCIALISM I Introductory — The Extent and Growth of Modern Socialism — Method of Approaching the Subject — Socialism in Its Four Phfises 9 II Socialism as a Study of Human Progress — Elements of Economic Determinism — Class Struggles of the Past 23 III The Modern Class Struggle — Present Economic Classes — Modern Government — Economic Basis of War 37 IV Socialism as a Criticism of Modem Society — Wide- spread Evil Conditions — Capitalist and Socialist Efficiency 54 V Ideal Aspects of Socialism — "Utopias" — Socialism Distinguished from Communism — Socialism, Uto- pian and Scientific — Origin of Some Mistaken Objections to Socialism 66 VI The Socialist Party — What It Stands for and How It Operates — Difference Between Government Ownership and Socialism — Socialist Influence on Legislation — Socialism and War 81 VII Objections to Socialism — Their Assumptions and Errors 96 PART TWO — THE A B C OF ECONOMICS The Labor Theory of Value — Value of Labor — Surplus Value — Price — Profit, Interest, Rent — Capital — Price of Labor-Power 115 PART ONE THE A B C OF SOCIALISM THE A B C OF SOCIALISM CHAPTER I Introductory — The Extent and Growth of Modem Socialism — Method of Approaching the Subject — Socialism In Its Four Phases. IF you are a millionaire, or a million-heiress, this little book is not intended especially for you, al- though you may profit a good deal from reading it. If, on the other hand, you are a workingman or a workingwoman (for to Socialists the woman is the man's equal), then you know what it is to be worried on all sides by the troubles of making a living — you know what it is to work long hours for small pay — to lay awake nights wondering how you may improve your condition. You know, too, what it is to become discouraged so often, and to wonder whether after all there is a way out of your plight. You have lis- tened to reformers with silk hats upon their heads and frock coats upon their backs, and have felt that their big words served only to cover small ideas. It is for you, then, that this book is written, and as you turn to the pages that follow no silk-hat reform- ers will greet you, but rather the opposite to their methods will be employed : big ideas in small words. Above all, in considering your own troubles — and you know them better than we can tell — do not ac- cept any explanation which does not fit into your every day experience and your common sense. What is the use of a nicely-worded proof that times are .1^; ..: :';... •» A B C OF SOCIALISM good, when wife and children are hungry, and father is out of work? Where is the value of smug procla- mations of boundless prosperity, when on every hand you find your fellow-workers no better off than your- self? How can you be deceived about the annual hoax called " bumper crops " when even the farm- ers, who raise the crops, complain that they do not receive the benefits of the crop increase, any more than you receive the full benefit of your daily and nightly toil? Is it not peculiar that it is only the rich who have no fault to find with modern condi- tions, except that the " lower classes " are becoming too dissatisfied? If this is so, and the only people who are content with the way things are run to-day are the rich, it must be because the rich find them- selves growing richer, while your own experience teaches you that your position is every day growing less bearable. Not only are we of America suffering in this man- ner. Take strikes like the miners' revolt in Colo- rado, in Michigan, in Arkansas, during the year of 1914. In Colorado men and women were shot down in cold blood by the mine owners and their hirelings. According to subsequent government verdict, the burning of an entire miners' community (which had been forced to live in tents after being evicted from their homes by the company) was charged to the owners of the mines. For every strike of this nature here there are an ever increasing number of dupli- cates abroad. In other words, the suff^ering of the working-class extends beyond national boundaries; their cry arises from the entire face of the globe; their misery is international. In this particular country we have been told that the cause of this misery was the tariff, the trusts, the VmAT IS THE MATTER? . 11 c^ lU--^ T> ,.-.-,. ,. :.: - '--^^ :.< extravagance of the poor, and what not else, accord- ing to which politician you heard first. But we have had high tariff and low tariff — we have had " trust- busting " and trust " regulation " — we have our- selves been as thrifty and sparing as we possibly could. Yet trusts flourish to-day more than ever, and we are a bit worse off than before. As a matter of cold government statistics, in twelve years the cost of living has increased 50%, and in seventeen years it has increased 80%, while wages and salaries have increased only 20%. It is plainly to be seen from this official information that the workers are going positively backwards. What is the matter.? Why is this so.? You did not really need the figures to tell you that affairs are so bad; you did not really need to be re- minded of the terrible strikes occurring all over the world, inspired by intolerable conditions among the laborers; nor do you, if you have thought the least bit about it, need to be told that the churches are unable to cope with the numerous social problems that have arisen, especially wide-spread poverty and prostitution. Before the ever-increasing wretched- ness of the poor, organized charity stands helpless. You see all this around you. You are only too fa- miliar with the facts themselves. But who, or what, is the cause of these conditions? Why is all this, anyway? If it were a person who caused such untold and untellable sorrow to such a large part of the world's population, he or she would long ago have been as- sassinated. Never would toilers undergo all this misery and degradation if they could end it by killing a ruler or a magnate. Indeed, the history of the past shows that such assassinations have been at- 12 A B C OF SOCIALISM tempted and many successfully carried out, by men and women who mistakenly thought that a particular individual was at fault. But suppose, instead of being a person, it is a cer- tain SYSTEM of government and industry which causes all the trouble — a system of false ideas, long since past their stage of usefulness to the world? In this case, why not assassinate the system? It is here that we place our finger upon modem society's sore spot, and we must not be surprised if society cries out in pain and indignation. It is here, too, that we come to the real purpose of this little book — yoiir little book, we should say, for it is in your interest and for your political and industrial salvation that every line within it is written. The assassination of individuals in the past, for the purpose of bettering the condition of oppressed classes, was a failure because the root of the evil had not been touched. Rulers merely are symbols of underlying systems^ and when one ruler disappears there is another to take his place and defend the par- ticular system of that place and epoch. The history of Russia bears striking testimony to this claim. In the United States this error of believing rulers to blame occurs in different forms. We often hear peo- ple say that such and such a president will bring pros- perity, while another will cause ruin to the country. But presidents, so far as the working-class is con- cerned, can do little to make things better or worse, de- spite what politicians say in their anxiety to deceive the people into casting votes for particular candidates. Presidents, just as rulers of monarchies, stand for certain systems of government and industrial policies. They are the servants, not the cause of the system. At best, the opposition between the various candi- HOW TO APPROACH SUBJECT 13 dates for presidency (outside of the Socialist party) represents different views as to the same system under which our country is at present conducted, but the candidates all agree on the fundamental propositions of the system itself. This particular point will be- come clearer as we progress in these pages ; for the present, the chief idea to retain is, that individuals cannot in themselves cause or remedy world-wide con- ditions such as the working-class to-day faces. This holds true whether those individuals are kings or presidents, whether the countries are republics or monarchies. In order to reach the root of the trou- ble we must penetrate into the system for which such individuals stand. We have seen, then, that reform remedies proposed have done little good — that even the drastic resort to assassination has accomplished nothing. In both cases, that of tariff-tinkering, regulation of trusts and railroads, and the rest of the reform program, and in the personal revenge upon ruling individuals, the attempt at betterment failed because the core of the system remained untouched. What is that system? And why can Socialism alone remedy the evils the system has caused.'* For a proper understanding of the relation of Socialism to the system, we must wait until we have read this entire book ; that is indeed asking little when we con- sider what enormous ills such an understanding will help to remedy. It is only the unscrupulous poli- tician who will deliberately mislead his hearers into thinking that the workingman's ills are to be reme- died by the enactment of a little law here and the repeal of a little law there. The matter demands far more effort and a better cooperation from the worker, who must think his way in, as well as think 14 ABC OF SOCIALISM Tus way out. In other words, in order to apply the cure, we must understand the disease. You may have heard the word Socialism before. You may not know what it stands for, but you know the word. You may think you know what it stands for, but perhaps you are misinformed, especially if, being a member of the working-class, you feel at pres- ent against it the moment you read or hear the word. It is our claim that Socialism is the way out of the workers' troubles; it is furthermore our claim that you have no moral right to say " No " to this propo- sition until you understand modem conditions, both as they surround you and in the light of the past — until you have heard our solution and given it your most earnest thought. That is all that Socialism asks : for all mankind, and especially the workers, to learn its claim and then think. But perhaps even now you are skeptical and ask, " Why should I bother with this particular attempt to remedy my woes? There have been so many at- tempts and each has proved a false illusion. What guarantee have I that this is any different ? " To which we reply, " Although yours is not a strictly logical way of determining the worth of any propo- sition, still, we shall take you at your word and invite you to witness the growth of our idea since its be- ginning. Surely an idea that has grown so rapidly, that has roused such determined opposition and such self-sacrificing devotion, merits your impartial in- vestigation." For in truth the growth of Socialism has been re- markable, and to-day it constitutes the largest sin- gle political party in the world. Here follow the official figures for 1912-1914 as compiled by the Na- tional Office of the Socialist Party of America : HOW TO APPROACH SUBJECT 16 THE SOCIALIST PARTY. Membership, Vote and Parliamentary Representation of the World — 1912-1914 Parliament Comitry Membership Vote Socialist Total Argentine 4,000 48,000 10 120 Australia 200,000 678,012 66 111 Austria 289,524 1,053,627 82 516 Belgium 269,830 483,241 40 186 Bulgaria 6,000 85,489 20 211 Canada 6,180 15,857 Denmark 52,000 107,412 36 114 Finland 51,798 310,503 90 200 France 63,358 1,398,771 101 597 Germany 982,850 4,250,399 110 397 Great Britain ... 100,000 378,839 42 670 Greece 1,000 12,000 ... 181 Hungary* 100,000 Italy 40,000 997,000 79 508 Luxembourg 4,000 7 53 Netherlands 20,623 145,588 18 100 New Zealand .... 52,000 44,960 4 80 Norway 43,557 124,594 23 123 Portugal 3,500 3,308 1 164 Roumania 2,057 Russia 168,000 200,000 14 442 Servia 3,000 25,000 2 166 South Africa 26,098 f 7 121 Spain 40,000 40,791 1 406 Sweden 70,000 229,339 73 230 Switzerland 31,384 105,000 15 189 United States ... 118,045 931,406 ... 531 Totals 2,716,649 11,701,291 841 6,416 In addition to the vote and membership figures as ^ven above, there are also Socialist movements in Armenia, Bolivia, Chile, China, Cuba, Iceland, Japan, Newfoundland, Persia, Turkey and Uruguay. In Australia, New Zealand and South Africa the figures given include the vote of the Labor parties, as well as the Socialist parties. These Labor parties are not in all respects in accord with the International Socialist organ- ization, but for practical purposes may be considered Socialist. * Most of the Socialists are disfranchised in Hungary on account of property qualifications, t In Transvaal only. 16 ABC OF SOCIALISM Let us stop for a moment to assimilate the full significance of these figures. If the Socialist vote of the world were concentrated in the United States, it could control, by an overwhelming majority, the national elections. Taking a year like 1908 as an average year, the Democrats polled about six and a half million, while the Republicans polled a little over seven and a half million. Where would these parties ever stand any kind of chance with Socialism's eleven and three-quarters millions? Especially if some Bull- Moose party appeared to split them up further ? The German votes alone would be sufficient to make a good-sized state like Massachusetts, with enough left over for a first-class city like Boston. All except about ten countries in the above list contain more Socialist voters than there are troops in the United States' standing army. The above table shows clearly that Socialism is an mternational movement; that with its 11,701,^91 votes it is (as we have called it) the largest political parti/ in the world. A message that has engaged the devotion of such an immense number of men and women (for the Socialist party was the first to recog- nize woman's right and duty to vote) not only mer- its your closest attention, but it must have an intense economic, political and intellectual significance. So- cialism, indeed, permeates all the advanced thought of the world. Although its immediate methods and purposes must be adapted to the particular country in which it seeks to operate, underneath all the dif- ferent movements there are certain fundamental, uni- fying principles. These principles, it may be added, are the rock-bottom test of what Socialism is — no matter what it may be called in this place or that. Without these principles, which we shall learn in GROWTH OF SOCIALISM 17 the course of the book, you may call a movement So- cialism but it will have no legitimate claim to the name. Socialism in the United States, The growth of Socialism in the United States has been no less re- markable than abroad. The following table goes as far as 1912; according to estimates made for 1914 the vote has risen throughout the nation.^ Growth of Socialist Vote in United States Year. Soc. Party S. L. P. Total. 1888 2,068 2,068 1890 13,704 13,704 1892 21,512 21,512 1894 30,020 30,020 1896 36,275 36,275 1898 82,204 82,204 1900 96,931 33,405 130,336 1902 223,494 53,763 277,257 1904 408,230 33,546 441,776 1906 331,043 20,265 351,308 1908 424,488 14,021 438,509 1910 607,674 34,115 641,789 1912 901,062 30,344 931,406 1 The following, from Morris Hillquitt's " Socialism Summed Up," pp. 98-99, helps to explain the presence of two different party votes after 1898 in the above table: "The dawn of the present century found a considerable Socialist and semi-Socialist sentiment among several sections of the American population, and also the rudiments of a Socialist political organization. The latter were represented by two separate factions of the " Socialist Labor Party," the old-time organization of the Socialists in America, the *' Social Demo- cratic Party," which had then been recently organized, and several minor Socialist organizations. Dissensions and an- tagonism, so characteristic of the formative stages of the So- cialist movement in every coimtry, were the principal feature of the American Socialist organizations until the middle of 1901, when all organizations with one exception (that of the more irreconcilable faction of the Socialist Labor Party) united. The formal unification was accomplished at a joint national convention, which was held in Indianapolis on July 29, 1901, and which created the present Socialist Party." 18 A B C OF SOCIALISM It is instructive, too, in connection with the table just cited, to compare the figures of some of the states of the Union with that of some of the foreign countries in the previous list. According to returns for 1914, Texas has more Socialist votes than the entire Argentine Republic. The state of New York, following the same returns, has more than Spain and South Africa put together. Ohio, in 1912, cast more Socialistic votes than the whole of Bulgaria possessed at that time. Pennsyl- vania did likewise. Authority of the Party. A party which is fast attaining such authority in the civilized world must be founded on some inner authority of its own. A proper appreciation of the basis of that authority is necessary to the best understanding of Socialism. The supreme authority of the Catholic Church, for instance, is the Pope. The supreme authority of a monarchy is a King. The supreme authority of a republic such as the United States is, in name at least, the citizens, as represented by their elected of- ficers. In like manner, the supreme authority for the principles of the Socialist Party is the official utter- ance of its bodies, which are chosen by popular vote of the party membership. Not alone this, but what- ever such bodies pass must afterwards be accepted and ratified by the party membership, in a referen- dum vote. The Socialist system, then, has this advantage over the methods of this country : not only are officers chosen by the voters, but whatever these bodies perform must be accepted or rejected by the same voters. It may thus be seen that as far as the Socialist Party is concerned, the real veto power lies in the membership as a whole. The Socialist Party, as we have shown, is inter- PARTY AUTHORITY 19 national in scope and organization. This organiza- tion is supported solely by the dues-paying member- ship which constitutes its ranks. Every member, of course, is a Socialist and votes the Socialist ticket, but that does not mean that any person who votes the Socialist ticket is therefore a member of the party. Thus, while Germany had, just before the war with the Allies broke out, 4,250,399 votes for Socialism, the dues-paying membership of the party was 982,850. It may be noticed in this connection that Socialists generally regard the dues-paying membership as the nucleus around which will be built up a strong body of scientifically grounded voters; men and women who vote Socialism because they know it, not through temporary enthusiasm which at the next election is just as likely to shift in another direction. Socialists do not necessarily expect, then, that in time they will win a majority of a country's voters into their dues-paying ranks ; the latter, how- ever, is necessary as a means of financing the educa- tional purposes of Socialist activity and forming a strongly developed center from which to radiate into the entire community. The organization of the party will be the subject of a different chapter; what we now wish to impress is the fact that the only authoritative sources to which you can go for information as to what truly is modern Socialism are the official party utterances. A man may tell you, for instance, that in order to be a Socialist you must be also an atheist. He will then proceed, in the well-known method of certain anti-Socialists, to show you that certain of its lead- ers were godless creatures. Granting that all this is true, it proves absolutely nothing, for Socialism^ being a movement concerned with the political and aO A B C OF SOCIALISM economic problems of the workers of the world, does not attempt to prescribe a man's religious or anti- religious views. If it did, how could it rightly claim to be a world-wide, democratic movement? Did not atheists exist long before modem Socialism was ever dreamt of? Have not leaders of all the older parties of this country been atheists, agnostics and what not? Is it not a personal privilege for any man or woman to believe in and worship any deity, or none at all? The only way to prove that Socialism is against religion is to point out an official document, accepted by the membership as above explained. The rock- bottom basis on which Socialism stands is interna- tional, because the ills which it wishes to cure are international, and not confined to any particular country ; any proof that Socialism is against religion must therefore point to some accepted international document so stating. Needless to say this cannot be done. And quite a& needless to add. Socialism does not claim the right to force any member to be religious if his own conscience leads him to different attitudes. We may take it, then, as a requirement of logic and sincerity, that every opponent owes it to Truth to combat Socialism as the Socialists accept it, as the Socialists define it in their official literature^ not as some enemy misrepresents it, or some misunder- stander garbles it. If you wish to fight Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism or any other creed, fight it as it is authoritatively defined, not with half-baked opin- ions as to what it is. The same applies to Socialism, whether yoii are spreadmg it or opposing it. Four Phases of Socialism. The Socialist Party is founded for the purpose of achieving its aims by the PHASES OF SOCIALISM ai use of the ballot. The conception of what is to be achieved rests upon certain facts, which may be looked upon and defined in four phases, of which the party itself is one. It should be remembered that these phases are not the only ways of looking upon Socialism; they represent convenient divisions, for the purpose of better remembering and assimilating the ideas and the facts. They are not necessarily independent of each other, but are rather different angles from which the same general symptoms may be treated. First. Socialism may he looked upon as an m- y^^ terpretation of history. In this field the pioneer (/ / work which resulted in the final upbuilding of the party was due mainly to Frederick Engels and Karl Marx, whose writings first made clear the historical interpretation which is discussed at length in Chap- ter Two. Second. Socialism may he viewed as a criticism of present conditions. In all ages many wrongs and social evils have been manifest. People cried out against them, not understanding that at bottom / "0 )] certain systems of social organization, rather than individuals, were at fault. Not until the interpreta- tion of history out of which Socialism evolved did people begin to understand this important social fact. This phase will be treated in Chapter Four. Third. Socialism may he looked upon as a world- ideal. When people see wrongs in society, and have not yet discovered in scientific manner the underlying causes, they take refuge in pictures of the imagina- tion. Seeking to escape from the world as it is, they invent worlds as they ought to be. But these pic- tures of ideal Utopias have left their impress upon social history, and are not without effect upon the ^ A B C OF SOCIALISM minds of men. Hence a knowledge of them is needed for a fuller appreciation of modem scientific Social- ism. This phase will be treated in Chapter Five. Fourth. Socialism may he taken, and generally is, in the sense of a political Party, whose aims inter- pret, and are more or less colored by, the facts and aspirations of the foregoing phases. We have now given in fragmentary outline the material which we shall presently explain in full. In order to call one's self a Socialist it is not necessary to believe all that these several phases say and im- ply; for such a purpose one need only believe in the ultimate program of the political party. But of this more later ; enough for the moment to insist that to know the question with a thoroughness which makes your belief or opposition worthy, you must view the question in its fourfold aspect: historical, critical, ideal and political. CHAPTER II Socialism as a Study of Human Progress — Elements of Economic Determinism — Class Struggles of the Past BEFORE any constructive criticism of any eco- nomic system can be made, it is not enough to understand the effects of that system. The de- velopment of that system and the causes of that development must be understood in order to appre- ciate the soundness of its structure. And while it may be philosophically interesting to invent eco- nomic systems, it is ridiculous to attempt to guide social development unless the laws underlying that development are understood. Socialism would never rise above an impractical metaphysical Utopia un- less this knowledge of human development was un- derstood. This knowledge is to be obtained by a critical study of history, and only when the knowl- edge thus obtained is applied to present conditions does Socialism become scientific. History as ordinarily written gives the reader the impression that the growth of civilization is the re- sult of the efforts of great men. Institutions of all kinds appear to be the inventions of specially gifted individuals. If this is true, then we must look to our great men for a solution of our present day trou- bles. Concerted action by the mass thus appears to be wasted effort; apparently what is needed is to " elect good men " who will give the masses what is best for them. The above interpretation of history is individualistic; carried to its logical conclusion it points to anarchism as an ideal. 23 «4j ABC OF SOCIALISM A thorough examination of facts shows that most written history suffers from the limited knowledge and viewpoint of historians. In recording history they deal with superficialities, usually being una- ware of powerful hidden forces which are acting on the human race. Consequently they deal with effects rather than with causes. Similar mistakes were made in other branches of knowledge. For thou- sands of years people regarded illusions as facts. Thus they believed that the sun moved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Certain chemical phenomena which puzzled them led them to believe that gold could be transformed from baser metals. The development of science showed the emptiness of these views. Physics and chemistry, and their off- shoots, taught us how to interpret nature correctly. Geology and biology, and their developments, re- vealed to us the unwritten history of millions of years, and gave us the means of learning what his- torians had omitted. We were now able, for the first time, to separate written history into two parts — valuable and trivial. We now know that man first lived like the animals, wandering around in search of food. Economic ne- cessity soon taught him what it has taught many animals: the advantages of grouping together. Thus from economic conditions resulted the first human institutions — the family and the tribe. Along with these changes there developed the use of primitive tools and the division of labor. The men devised tools to facilitate the catching of fish, and weapons for hunting animals. The women prepared food, made baskets or other utilities, and brought up the children. What little private property existed was the common property of the tribe, there being HOW TO VIEW HISTORY 26 practically no claims of individual ownership. In other words, the tribe was conducted on a corrmmnistic basis. When prehistoric man hunted and fished he could not claim anything until it was in his possession. He had no interest in preventing others from hunting animals or catching fish. The tribe regarded the cave which served as home and the direct products of labor as private property. But at best, the institu- tion of private property was in its earliest stages. Later the tribesmen learned to herd cattle and finally to till the soil. This economic change gave rise to the institution of private property of land. The tribe now paid particular attention to see that its herds were protected from other tribes and that its lands were respected as private property. We see, then, that even in early periods of our race the various institutions were the results of eco- nomic conditions. As these conditions changed there were corresjxvnding changes in the institutions. We are thus led up to the scientific method of interpret- ing history known as the Materialist Conception of History. It is also known as Economic Determmism or the Economic Interpretation of History. The Materialist Conception of History teaches that the basis of social structure is to be found in the eco- nomic conditions of the times. In other words, the social and political institutions are determined by the means by which people get a living. THE CLASS STRUGGLE As the methods of production among the tribes develop, we find certain groups and individuals en- joying greater advantages than others. Again, wars, which are results of certain groups attempting 26 A B C OF SOCIALISM to obtain economic power at the expense of others, raise the victors to power while the conquered are reduced to slavery. Among the conquerors are in- dividuals who through custom, ability, or trickery acquire power at the expense of society. Economic conditions have created new structures in society. We have an aristocracy dn the one hand and chattel slavery on the other. In other words, economic con- ditions develop classes with opposing interests. Henceforth, the distinguishing characteristics of a given epoch are denoted by the power and social po- sition of the various classes. The materialist con- ception of history reveals to us a new view of the lives of nations. The history of a nation becomes the history of the various classes of that nation, the struggles of these classes with each other, and the struggles of the ruling class of that nation with the ruling classes of other nations. The struggle be- tween the classes within a nation is known as 7^he Class Struggle. A survey of history reveals this struggle in all past and modern nations. In prehistoric Attica, in Greece, the nobles had the exclusive use of the cities. The common people were compelled to live in the country while the nobility claimed the right to all wealth and political author- ity. But industry and commerce had in the mean- time developed. This economic change, like previous ones, resulted in a social change and we find accord- ingly that a portion of the commoners had now been converted into a wealthy land-owning class. This new class demanded a share in the government and by the aid of the poorer commoners their demands were granted. Economic conditions thus created a new class, which overthrew the older aristocracy, and then itself became the ruling class. ASPECTS OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE 27 At first the landowner was contented with making a living for himself, his tenants, and his slaves. But he soon found that he could realize a higher price by shipping his goods to the various colonies. Since the land yielded only enough to support its inhabi- tants, the poor were plunged into debt, and, on being unable to pay the same, became slaves. Here we see two classes arising from a common origin. Economic conditions first made a portion of the commoners wealthy. These then enlisted the aid of their fellow commoners and secured control of the government. This control gave them the use of colonies as foreign markets and finally led to the enslaving of the very ones who had placed them in control. A struggle between these new classes now ensued. The former commoners, now slaves, prepared for armed resistance. Violence was averted through the election of Solon, whose laws liberated all who were in slavery for debt, and restored former commoners to citizenship. The struggle of the classes again changed its form. The power of the government was so great that the citizens of Athens, the capital of Attica, developed into an aristocracy. The vast majority of the people, who were not citizens, were slaves. Thus we see a series of class struggles forming the history of Attica. Every time an economic change took place the nature of the struggle changed. Turning to Roman History we find another series of class struggles similar to those which occurred in Greece. Here the aristocrats are called Patricians while the commoners are known as Plebeians. A struggle for power ensues and results in a portion of the Plebeians gaining political power. This power enables them to become rich and new classes and a «8 A B C OF SOCIALISM struggle arise. As in Greece the struggle became one between the rich and poor and led up to a hundred years' revolution. Passing from Ancient to Mediaeval History we find again that changing economic conditions created new opposing classes. Under Feudalism we find the lords, who owned the various estates which surrounded the village. Then there were the workers who were subdivided into freemen and serfs. The position of the latter was somewhat better than that of the slave of ancient times. In addition there were the inhabitants of the towns who consisted essentially of traders and handicraft men. Indeed, it was the trades which gave existence to the towns. SOME CLASS STRUGGLES OF EARLY ENGLAND Economic changes were few and far between during Feudalism, and consequently social institutions dur- ing this period are noted for their stability. This stability/ was not due to the good qualities of the pre- vailing institutions. On the contrary it was the result of stagnation in human progress. But finally the change did coTne. In the years 1348-1350 a pestilence (the Black Death) spread over England and resulted in the death of about half her population. From this a number of economic changes resulted which in turn caused a number of immediate and ultimate effects. The most important of the latter was the scarcity of laborers, which caused wages to rise. This rise in wages was strenuously opposed by the ruling class, and in 1349, in the midst of the pestilence, parliament passed a law reducing wages to their former level. This law was reenacted about fourteen times between 1351-1444, but m each case without avail. The ASPECTS OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE 29 attempts to enforce this law only irritated the masses and finally led up to the insurrection known as the Peasants' Rebellion. We thus have illustrated an important principle developed from the materialist conception of history. Political laws are effective only when in accordance with economic conditions and not when opposed to them. This fact has not as yet penetrated the heads of our modern " trust busting " and " back to compe- tion " statesmen. DECAY OF FEUDALISM The rise in wages not only favored the laborers but also put the serfs in a more favorable position. The labor of the latter became so highly valued that they, too, were enabled to obtain important conces- sions from their masters. Before the epidemic the serf spent over half his time in working for his master, the rest of the time he spent in working for himself, so as to maintain himself and his family. As a result of the Black Death landlords began to let their estates for a rental. Usually the person who hired the land was a freeman or serf. Since such a person had no legal right over the body of the serf, a change in the economic status of the serfs took place. Instead of serving time to their feudal lord they now paid a sum of money to the lord or his representative. In other words the serfs had become tenants. Serfdom^ the basis of Fetudalism^ was decay- ing^ and the superstructure was hound to topple over. Legally, the vast majority of the people were still serfs; practically, the laws were obsolete. This period is now known as the " Golden Age of Labor," since at no time was labor as highly rewarded as then. The high price of labor had its effects. The ml- 30 A B C OF SOCIALISM ing class now turned to sheep-raising, since this required comparatively much less labor than did agriculture. On the other hand, the demand for wool was steady, at good prices, both within and without the country. This change led to the enclosing of the previously op^n fields, and the eviction of the former serfs from these fields. Rents were now high, the country partially depopulated, and the vast majority discontented. Masses were unemployed and there was a danger that not enough grain would be raised to feed the population. On three occasions the riot- ing rose to the heights of insurrection, but these were suppressed by the government. Laws restrict- ing enclosing were passed several times, but these were futile. By the close of the sixteenth century, enclosing had run its course for the time being. Thus was the decay of Feudalism accompanied by its class struggle. There were other evidences of the decay of Feudal- ism. The labor organizations of Feudalism, the craft guilds, were beginning to decay. The economic posi- tion of groups of members, particularly between masters and journeymen, were becoming antagonistic. This led to the existence of journeyman-guilds which did not count masters among its membership. The masters remaining in the old guild again split, the more wealthy being known as the " Liveried Com- panies." These began to get a firm foothold in the government. A large class of unorganized artisans sprang up, and finally the guilds were suppressed by Henry VIII. The above economic changes transformed England from an agricultural nation into a commercial one. As may be expected, these changes were accompanied by important political and economic consequences. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 31 THE INDUSTRIAL EEVOLUTION The eighteenth century finds England an indus- trial and commercial country. The raising and exporting of wool had enabled a small class of people to grow wealthy ; on the other hand the vast majority of the people had been degraded into a miserable condition. The " Golden Age of Labor " brought about its own reaction. The labor guilds were broken up; the peasants had been forced from the land. They no longer had the guarantee of Feudal- ism to eke out an existence. The accumulation of wealth on the one hand and the existence of a large mass of unemployed poor on the other, favored and made possible those industrial changes which finally developed into the present ca,pitalist system. The first industrial development consisted of what is known as the " Age of Manufacture." At first each craft was assembled in the workrooms and each man performed all the operations necessary for the complete production of the finished goods. Later, specialization developed, and each worker performed only a part of the work necessary for the production of the product. Thus, production became social, and one of the distinguishing characteristics of Modern Industry was established. At about this time the taking of interest, which heretofore had been illegal, was made lawful. While economic activity was confined to the soil, there was but little chance for the loaning of money on interest — such loans being practically confined to traders. When, however, manufacture came to play an im- portant economic role, we find that the payment of interest developed even before it was legalized. In- deed, the legalizing of interest taking is a splendid 32 A B C OF SOCIALISM example of economic determinism. The Feudal laws, the teachings of the Bible as well as other texts re- garded the taking of interest as wrong; but this once universally accepted doctrine had to change with a change in the means of production. The taking of interest is thus a result of the development of capitalism, and not a cause of it. ^ Aided by the immigration of foreign artisans, the manufacture of cloth grew to be England's leading industry. The demand for cotton and woolen goods soon grew to be far greater than the methods of pro- duction could possibly supply. Economic conditions called for improvements of the process of manufac- ture and these improvements were forthcoming. In 1764 Hargreaves invented his " Spinning-jenny " which soon displaced the spinning-wheel. Then Ark- wright, perhaps anticipating modem captains of industry, stole another's invention and claimed it as his own. This invention made a still greater im- provement in spinning. These improvements in the manufacture of thread opened the road for improve- ments in the art of weaving, and inventions from 1784« and onward met this demand. The power-loom in the meantime was developed by Cartwright. These improvements, and particularly the applica- tion of power, called for a more abundant supply of raw materials. The obstacle in the way was the old process of separating the cotton fiber from its seed, and this was solved by Whitney's invention of the cotton-gin. At the same time other industries de- veloped, particularly the iron industries and coal- mining. In the above industrial changes we see the play of economic forces. Inventions were not forthcoming untU economic conditions were ripe for them. This THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 33 fact opens our eyes to a social factor present in dis- coveries and inventions that is apt to be overlooked. It gives society a claim that far overshadows those of the individual who, as inventor, is merely a tool of social forces. Previously all manufacture was conducted in the home, the finished goods being collected from house to house. The application of power to the instru- ments of production soon put an end to this. In the first place, the home could not accommodate the large machinery; again, this machinery was too expensive for the average weaver to obtain. In other words, the modern factory system was also predetermined by economic conditions. All the essential features of this system were developed in the comparatively short period of forty years (1760-1800). This development of industry was so sudden, and in such marked contrast to the previous system that it hag been called " The Industrial Revolution." The Feudal lord has no place in this system ; birth is of no account unless it is accompanied by cash. The owners of the " capital invested " are the new rulers. Masses of laborers, previously scattered, are now gathered together in strictly regulated establishments. Previously the laborer owned the tools with which he worked. Now the tools have de- veloped into machines and are no longer his property. Before, tJie laborer took his means of production to his work; now the laborer must come to the machine before he can work. His individual work now repre- sents an almost negligible portion of all the human effort necessary to produce even a single piece of goods. Goods, in turn, become conmiodities, that is, they are now produced for sale instead of being made for direct consumption. 84 ABC OF SOCIALISM POLITICAL CHANGES The revolution in industry brought about, in turn, a revolution in Politics. In England the changes in the form of government were not marked, but the change in substance was truly revolutionary. In France, on the other hand, similar causes led to similar results, but here Feudalism did not die with- out bloodshed. Economic conditions had decreed the death of Feudalism, and a stubborn attempt to keep it alive after it had outlived its usefulness brought about needless violence. And to-day the ruling class attempts to keep alive an economic sys- tem that has outlived its usefulness. Socialists with their demand for a change point to the bloody French conflicts as a warning of what may happen if proper changes are not soon made. All people suffer by such clashes, and it is such reigns of terror that Socialists want to avert by the adoption of their plat- forms. Political law lags hehi/nd economic development; consequently we find England at the end of the eighteenth century trying to uphold Feudal laws under Capitalism. The Feudal government exercised a strict control over laborers, their conditions and compensation. This control is out of place under Capitalism. The factory system under private ownership demands a flexible supply of labor. Ac- cordingly, laws that fixed buying, selling, apprentice- ship, working conditions, etc., worked a hardship on the new master class. Consequently a new idea of freedom was soon preached. This idea forms the basis of modem individualism. This new theory of freedom,^ known as the Laissez-faire (let alone) iThis is an illustration of the application of the Ma- THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION 36 theory, was presented as the only salvation of man on earth. Numerous laws, well-established by time, custom, and precedent soon went to pieces and our modem ideas of government underwent changes. Now in order to get full power and open the way for their economic progress it was necessary for the manufacturers and business men to get control of the government. This control was gradually ob- tained, having its start when the " Liveried Com- panies," already mentioned, obtained offices. This move for political power was naturally opposed by the conservatives (nobles and other upholders of Feudalism). The working class naturally sided with the new class (known as Bourgeoisie) against the aristocracy and threw their strength of numbers with the rising Capitalist class. Accordingly, when the Bourgeoisie won the victory predetermined by economic conditions, the working class was in a posi- tion to demand and obtain the ballot, a weapon which. Socialism teaches, will enable the workers in their turn to get control of the government and work out their own salvation. What happened in England was duplicated wher- ever the factory system was installed. Feudalism was completely crushed. A new class, in its time decid- edly revolutionary, now ruled; a new subject class also arose. These two classes constitute the two great antagonists in the Modern Class Struggle. We have seen, in a hurried review of history, that the vital source of social and political institutions lies in the economic activities of the hunian race. We learn that thus far political government has terialist Conception of History. We see here that new ideas are eflFects and not causes of social changes. The cause of such changes are economic and social in character. Se ABC OF SOCIALISM always been an instrument of the ruling class. That class must, however, give way when economic condi- tions change. The forms of that change and the conditions under which it takes place depend upon the intelligence of the people. Governments must •fit the economic conditions which surround them. We also saw that no class obtained power until it had at first got possession of the government. Thus the Materialist Conception of History emphasizes the prime importance of the working class organizing into a political party. Again, our review of history teaches us that the progress of the world came about by means of the lower social classes rising to a posi- tion of power. Accordingly, the working class of to-day must depend on themselves alone; they must not expect permanent relief from the " higher classes." The next step of progress must come from them ; it can come from no other class. Again, when a change does occur the people must be ripe for it, if needless suffering is to be avoided. With these views in mind the Socialist Parties of the world an- nounce their programs. This international organ- ization recognizes that the truth will make the world free ; and hence it is always busy with its propaganda of teaching the whole truth. CHAPTER III The Modern Class Struggle — Present Economic Classes — Modern Government — Economic Basis of War WE saw, in the previous chapter, that Eco- nomic Determinism reveals to us that the internal history of a nation is the history of the class struggles of that nation. Now it is a comparatively easy task to distinguish between the various classes in previous periods. In fact, as we have seen, former governments were nothing but the instruments of the ruling classes for keeping the lower classes in subjection. We also saw that the beginnings of modern gov- ernment are merely a development of former class struggles. Are our present governments also class governments, as were all previous ones? If they are, we must be able to show not only the existence of antagonistic classes, but we must also show that the government is maintained for the benefit of one of these classes. This is not so easy to show as in the case of previous class struggles. By viewing the past we get a perspective scene; passing temporary effects are not magnified in importance. But in viewing present history we are apt to overemphasize the importance of superficial changes, while we over- look the fundamental but hidden forces that are shaping our future. Again, if there is a ruling class, the idea of a class struggle would naturally be repug- nant to them, and hence they would do their best to make all believe that there are no classes, for at best all ruling classes rule by consent of the lower classes ; 37 38 A B C OF SOCIALISM and as long as the latter are unconscious of this rule, the class struggle is hidden and the power of the master class is, apparently, not menaced. An examination of modern laws shows on the face of it that modern government stands preeminently for two things — the protection of life and property. Of these two the protection of life occupies a decidedly inferior position. Almost all of our legislative and judicial activities are concerned with property rela- tions. With partial exceptions to murder in pas- sion, the taking of life is a result of property rela- tions, that is, murders are usually committed for the purpose of material gain. On the surface it appears that all classes are equally protected in this respect. We know, however, that as a general rule there is little that can be gained by the murder of a poor person, since this class possesses no private prop- erty.^ Hence the laws against murder, which appear on the surface to be proofs for the non-existence of classes, show on analysis that they are the results of class rule. Now it can be truthfully said that these laws are equally enforced, but that should not blind us to the class character of these laws. Our laws against murder apply only to murders committed in certain waySy m fact the ways that they would he committed against the rich. About once in every fifteen minutes, recent statistics show, a worker is murdered 1 The expression private property is here used in the sense generally accepted by Socialists, that is, wealth which yields an income or pleasures afforded other than by the necessities of life. In this sense a person's tooth brush, clothing, kitchen furnishings, etc., do not constitute private property. Op- ponents of Socialism generally fail to take note of this distinction, and hence one of their objections to Socialism is based on their own ignorance rather than on the weakness of the proposed change. MODERN CLASSES 39 in our industries. Our laws do not apply to this class of murders because the wealthy are not mur- dered this way. Hence the class character of our laws protecting life. The laws dealing with the protection of life are, however, negligible when dealing with property rela- tions and the protection of private property. Here again, the laws as they read appear to show the absence of classes; analysis, however, proves the opposite to be true. There would be no need of laws protecting private property unless it was to the interest of existing groups to seize the property of others. With some exceptions, it is an advantage to the propertyless to seize the private property of the wealthy. In other words, modem laws reveal^ the presence of two classes with opposing interests — / a non-working property-owning class and property J less working class. THE CAPITALIST CLASS It is not necessary to go deeply into the motives of our laws to reveal the existence of classes. There are a number of characteristics of each class that are recognized by every intelligent person. Again, in every large city in this country there is published what is known as the " Blue Book." This book is an index of the " social elect," more popularly known as " exclusive society." The characteristics of this class of society are too well known to require extended description. The individuals comprising this group do not live in the slums nor work in the factories. They derive their income from private property, that is, capital, and hence are members of the capital- ist class. But few take an active part in industry, and most of these are active not in the production of 4fO A B C OF SOCIALISM goods but in the protection and distribution of the profits derived from industry. This is the function which apologists for the present system have named " executive ability " and " superior brains." So- cially, the members of the capitalist class consider themselves separated by an unattainable height from the " common herd " ; hence their exclusiveness. To emphasize their superiority they proudly mingle with and marry into the nobility of monarchial gov- ernments. The members of this class are the first to maintain that there are no classes in this country, yet when organized labor demands the enactment of an eight hour law, the members of the capitalist class are the first to denounce the law on the grounds that it constitutes class legislation. Apparently, they do not stop to consider that there can be no class legislation without the existence of classes. THE MIDDUE CLASS This class is complex in character. It includes the professional element, as teachers, doctors, law- yers, etc. In addition, groups of comparatively well paid wage workers, like engineers, foremen of factory departments, workers who are in charge of the super- intending of modern industry, etc., are also reckoned as members of this class. Another group of the middle class consists of shop-keepers and small busi- ness men. The income of this last group is double in character. A part of it is wages due for useful work performed in managing an establishment; the remainder is a return on capital invested. This entire income appears to this group as " profit," for- getting that their own labor has a value which should be reckoned as an expense. Hence this group, as a general rule, believes that profit constitutes " wages MODERN CLASSES 4fl of superintendence." (See Part II). In order to maintain their economic position, most members of this class must stand in the good graces of the capitalist class. Consequently, they share the views of that class in reference to the class struggle. This similarity in point of view is also strengthened by the fact that a portion of the income of this class represents surplus-value. In the class struggle proper this class plays a sensational, though almost negligible part. It is the first to feel the effects of organized labor on the one hand, and the combina- tion of capital on the other. The ablest upholders of capitalism come from this class. On the other hand, this class furnishes a great por- tion of the Socialist leaders. The educational possi- bilities open to this class are generally closed to the working class. Consequently members of the mid- dle class are in a position to obtain a thorough grasp of Socialism and hence become leaders. Too fre- quently is the middle class environment reflected in such leaders ; their lack of a workingman's actual experience in the class struggle many times leads them to extremes. On the one hand some of them confuse Socialism with reform measures, while on the other hand many of them advocate the violent reactionary methods endorsed by the most rabid element in the I. W. W. However, there are some members of the middle class who can cast aside their middle class characteristics by close contact with working people. Their education then becomes a power for the Social- ist movement. It is from such of the middle class that are furnished types like Marx, Engels, Bebel, Hillquit, etc. In addition to the middle class a small portion of the working class like to pretend that they are mem- 4d A B C OF SOCIALISM bers of the middle class. This applies particularly to bank clerks, bookkeepers, office and store em- ployees, etc. As a general rule these groups are a poorly paid set of individuals who imagine themselves superior to the working class. Their ludicrous at- tempts to imitate their employers in dress, speech, and thought make them the laughing stock of all classes. THE WORKING CLASS The existence of classes is forcibly demonstrated by those labor disturbances known as strikes. On one side are distinctly arrayed the employers ; on the other side are the members of the working class. The discontent lies wholly with the latter. When the strike is finally settled, it is they who must be at the bench or machine when the factory whistle blows. These people do not own private yachts or country estates. Most of them have never seen a stock certificate or bond. They do not deal with these because they do not get their living that way. They get their living from wages and as the capitalist desires a higher rate of dividends so does the modern workingman desire a higher rate of wages. And it is about these two conflicting desires that the modem class struggle takes place. If, as the capitalist class claims, the interest of the employer and his employees are identical, the former should rejoice in the willingness of the workers to receive higher wages. For, by paying higher wages the condition of the workers will be bettered, and since the interests of both groups are identical, the capitalist class would automatically receive its re- ward. We know, however, that no capitalists (not even insane ones ) believe this — hence the existence SURPLUS VALUE 48 of strikes. This leads us to a fundamental principle of Socialism known as Surplus Value. It is this surplus value which forms the basis of the modem class struggle. SURPLUS VALUE All wealth, that is, economic goods which satisfy human wants, are the result of the application of labor to the materials and forces of nature. Our machines, tools, chairs, vegetables, books, etc., are the result of the application of mental and physical labor to land and the forces of nature. The workers, men- tal as well as physical, do not receive all that is pro- duced. Land and the forces of nature do not require payment for their services. The workers get back as wages only a part of what they produce. The equivalent of that part of their product which they do not receive is called surplus value. Hence, the higher the wages are, the lower is the surplus value, and vice versa. Now this surplus value forms the fund from which profit, rent, and interest are paid.^ Surplus value is then unpaid labor, and hence the source of wealth of non-workers comes from the un- paid labor of workers. In spite of the fact that all wealth is created by labor the workers are poor even in the times of our greatest prosperity. The workers consider them- selves lucky at all times if they are " making a liv- ing." But the serfs were able to do this centuries ago, long before the creation of labor-saving machin- ery. In other words, in spite of all the workers pro- duce, they get back, on the average, merely enough to live on. The remainder — surplus value — goes to the capitalist class. Exceedingly few become rich 2 For the economic aspects of surplus value see Part II. 4f4 A B C OF SOCIALISM from doing useful work. Even in those exceptional cases where poor people become rich it will be found that the accumulation of wealth takes place at an appreciable rate only when useful work has been stopped and substituted by the receiving of surplus value in the form of profit, rent, or interest. In this connection let us remember that while the operations connected with the receiving of surplus value in the form of rent, interest or profit may be time-consum- ing, they represent a non-productive expenditure of human labor and hence produce no value. In other words, the wealth created by the workers, including useful brain workers of the middle class, is divided into two great divisions. The value going to the members of the working class ^ in the form of wages forms only one of these divisions. The unpaid labor of the workers forms the other division, known as E surplus value. In other words, the workers do not get the ftdl social product of their labor. By the full social product of labor is not meant that a man should receive the particular commodfties that he has himself actually produced. Instead of being paid in commodities what is meant is that he should receive the value (equivalent) of what he has produced. Nor is it meant that a shoemaker who makes shoes from leather should receive a reward for the leather in the shoes. That should go to the producer of the leather. We know that any com- modity has always a value greater than that of the raw materials contained therein. This increase in value is entirely due to labor. The workers who per- 3 It is curious to note that by the words " working class " is understood the class that produces useful things. Members of the capitalist class insist that they are not parasites on society, but nevertheless would strenuously object to being called mem- bers of the working-class! MODERN GOVERNMENT 46 formed this labor did not receive in wages this in- crease in value y hut distinctly/ less. What they did not so receive constituted surplus value. If the workers received the full social product of their labor there could be no surplus value, and hence no profit, rent ^ or interest. We have seen that in previous class struggles the government was essentially the instrument of the master class. Furthermore, no subordinate class obtained power until it had seized (not necessarily forcibly) the powers of government. The begin- nings of modern government were similar, and under modern government there are social classes. Is, then, modern government a government of the rich class, and is a poorer economic class attempting to obtain possession of that government? The previous analysis of our laws shows their class character, but there are other evidences of the class character of modem government. Every modem nation sends representatives (consuls, ministers, em- bassadors, etc.) to every other nation. The purpose of these officials is to represent the nation's interests abroad, we are told. But examination shows that no nation has interests as such. These " interests " are the possessions and claims of rich individuals or groups^ and it is these interests which the representa- tives look after. The working class of any nation have no such interests and accordingly these repre- 4 See Part II for the sense in which rent is used in economic discussions. 5 By Modern Government are included such governments as England, France, Germany, the United States, etc., i.e., those governments where the factory system constitutes the prevailing mode of industry. 46 A B C OF SOCIALISM sentatives are of little interest to them. In other words, the representatives of one nation to another are the agents of the capitalist class of those nations. When these representatives cannot come to terms regarding their various " interests," war results. Hence war is due to the clash of interests between the ruling classes of the different nations. Thus, not so long ago, private interests in Vene- zuela owed money to other private interests in Europe. The former being unable or unwilling to pay, the latter complained to their respective gov- ernments, which in turn threatened war on Venezuela. Here the United States came in with its Monroe Doctrine and the affair was settled by this govern- ment collecting the debt. Thus this government had the inestimable honor of becoming the collection agency of foreign capitalists against South Ameri- can debtors. Our Spanish-American war was a similar blot in our history. A number of wealthy Americans (now known as the Sugar Trust) had invested money in Cuban sugar lands. By so doing they came into competition with Spanish capitalists who used the powers of their government to secure a monopoly of the labor supply. Thereupon our own government was appealed to on the grounds that " American interests " were endangered, and the Battleship Maine was sent to Cuba at the demands of these " interests." In the meantime the jingoistic spirit was aroused in the ignorant, and an explosion aboard the Maine was made the pretext for war. It thus becomes evident how the Spanish-American war was a war for the benefit of the capitalist class. The sugar interests demanded that their land be made profitable and this government fought Spain, which FOREIGN MARKETS AND WAR 47 naturally preferred Spanish capitalists to American ones. The important results of the war were great financial gains for American capitalists. The sugar interests got their supply of cheap foreign labor (they would not even hire the very Americans who fought for them) and developed into the Sugar Trust. Thus do we see the class character of our own gov- ernment. One of the greatest activities of modern govern- ments is the securing of foreign markets. Now modern governments as such have nothing to sell, hwt the capitalist class of every modem government hus. Hence in searching for foreign markets modern governments become merely agents for their respec- tive capitalist classes. By our ambassadors, minis- ters, and special commissions we try to find markets where our capitalists may sell their goods, and when sold, enforce payments of the debts so incurred, using the army and navy if necessary. This government^ however, does not search for markets where American unemployed workvngmen may receive high wages. Now we can understand what Socialists mean when they say that modern government is an instrument of the capitalist class. The war between the Allies on the one hand and Germany and Austria on the other also illustrates the class character of modem government. Eng- land and Germany were the leading industrial nations of Europe. The capitalists of England thus found themselves in keen competition with German capital- ists for the world market. This competition was naturally transferred to the instruments of these classes, namely — their respective governments. Again, Germany had also in her neighbors France and Russia two nations whose ruling classes could 48 A B C OF SOCIALISM materially profit at her expense. Hence the triple alliance of England, France, and Russia. On the other hand Austria was always menaced by Russia; hence her taking sides with Germany. This com- petition between the ruling classes of the nations led to the maintenance of large military and naval forces. The assassination of an Austrian noble and the sur- rounding events were not the causes of the war, hwt rather the pretext and signal for it. Certainly France would not fight Germany because a Servian killed an Austrian noble. The economic competition between the ruling classes of Europe had produced such strained relations that any slight irregularity was sufficient to set the nations at each other. And the capitalists of our own country love foreign markets just as intensely as do the capitalists of European nations. This desire is reflected in the activities of this nation trying to get foreign markets, those of South America in particular. But in our haste to get this market we fail to see beyond our noses. English, German, French, and other capital- ists have just as great an appetite for South Ameri- can markets as have our own capitalists. This competition will be transferred to the respective gov- ernments, and unless we can display more sound sense and less statesmanship than heretofore, we may find ourselves on the verge of war. Then our jingoes (some people call them "patriots") will cry about " endangered American interests " and Ex-President Taft's " friendly nations " will become " our ever- lasting foe." Workingmen will then be called to enlist and fight the battles of the capitalist class, who will exercise their " executive ability " by stay- ing at home. Thus far, we have treated some of the leading FOREIGN MARKETS AND WAR 49 characteristics of the foreign policies of modem gov- ernments and found that they were for the direct benefit of the capitalist class. Also that the wars between nations are the differences of the capitalist classes of those nations, which are settled hy the lives of the working people. An examination of the interior workings of modern government will show that here too modern government is essentially an instrument of the capitalist class. A study of the founding of our government shows its class character. From Ex-President Madison (one of the founders of the government) we learn that the constitution was intentionally framed so as to keep the powers of government away from the people. The representatives to the Constitutional Convention were men with large property interests. The Articles of Confederation did not adequately serve their interests and hence the new assembly. As a result the senators were not to be elected by the people and the system of judges was altogether removed from the people's control. The delegates agreed that property was the main function of gov- ernment and that accordingly property owners should rule. It must be said to the credit of Madi- son that he warned the assembly that the nature of government could change, a change that Socialists are trying to bring about. To-day our Constitution is still the authority of our government. But aside from this we can easily see the class character of it in its domestic affairs. In the constitutional convention Gouverneur Morris declared as follows : " Life and liberty were gener- ally said to be of more value than property. An accurate view of the matter would, nevertheless, prove that property was the main object of so- 60 A B C OF SOCIALISM ciety. . . ." And so to-day, when classes are clearly marked, as when a strike is on, government troops do not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of workingmen in order to prevent the destruction of capitalists' property. Morris' statement still applies to our government. Sometimes the working class obtains power enough to pass an eight hour law. When this happens our courts declare the law unconstitutional on the grounds that it interferes with the right to work and thus infringes on the workers' liberty. The workers are only too willing to surrender this " liberty " and many bitter strikes have taken place where this desire of the workers was the bone of contention. The capitalists are opposed to this law and such court decisions only prove the class character of our gov- ernment. Again the hours during which the government con- ducts its business are those in which the working class are at work. Consequently working people cannot take an active interest in their government without losing their jobs. This, however, does not cause a serious disturbance in the running of government because the government deals with property rela- tions and property-owners can find all the time they need to safeguard their interests during regular hours. This enables the propertied interests to exer- cise a control over the government that is little ap- preciated by the working class. Again, modem governments are vitally interested in questions of Free Trade, Tariff^, Ship Subsidies, Mines, etc. These interests are purely for the benefit of the capitalist class ; the workers do not benefit from them. Modern government is thus seen to be an instru- ment of the capitalist class. This does not mean that THE MODERN STATE 61 this class resorts to bribery and other dirty work in order to make modern government the class instru- ment it is. To be sure these methods are employed by special interests among the capitalist class, but class government wovld he just as firmly entrenched if tliese evils were entirely removed. Modem gov- ernment is an unconscious but real result of modern conditions. And our officials are generally honest when they vote for and enforce these capitalist meas- ures. The effect of the times is to make such legislation unconstitutional which favors any class other than the capitalist class. Modern government, as an instrument of the capitalist class, thus becomes arrayed against the working class. As long as the government protects the profit system, so long will the working class find its demands for relief from present industrial condi tions unsatisfied. The working class must use its political power to change the character of the gov ernment before it can obtain permanent relief, The class character of modem government is, then, its essential characteristic, and it is in this sense that earlier Socialist writers say that the state will not exist under Socialism. However, the meaning of the word state has undergone a profound change since the beginnings of Scientific Socialism. The modern word state is synonymous with society. Conse- quently when Socialist writers are quoted as being opposed to the state that does not mean that they are opposed to organized government. It does mean that they are opposed to class government and in this they utter the sentiment of all Socialists. With the new meaning of the word state, Socialists realize that they are as much a part of the state as any, and as Modem Government becomes more and more ii- itsl w- j 6« A B C OF SOCIALISM reconciled to this idea of the state, the more must Socialists take an interest in it. Modern Govern- ment is itself in process of evolution and Socialists are doing all in their power to hasten and modify that change. The change in the character of the state is a result of the activity of the organized portions of the work- ing class, namely, the labor organizations and the Socialist parties. We find that the modem state is beginning to legislate for shorter working hours for women and children and at times even for men. The work of boards of health is mainly for the poorer class ; parkways are set aside for the benefit of all. These and similar activities show that the modern state has already begun to lose some of its class character. This tendency can be increased by the working class taking advantage of their power. This power, however, can only be obtained through organization. Modem government is, then, class government, but it is so onl2/ by consent of the bulk of the citizenship, the vast majority of whom are members of the work- ing class. No longer can they say that they are helpless. The ruling class, the capitalist class, rule only by the consent of the working class. We must not blame the former for legislating for themselves; self preservation is the first law of nature. The working class must be educated as to the true charac- ter of modem government. They must be taught that class rule does not result from the desires of individuals. They must learn that individuals them- selves are largely the product of their economic en- vironment, and that in order to change that environ- ment the prevailing economic system must be changed. Since individual character is an effect and not a THE MODERN STATE SB cause of economic conditions, it is evident that actions against individuals or groups can cause no fundamental change. This is one of the important messages of scientific Socialism to all, but particu- larly to the working class. CHAPTER IV Socialism as a Criticism of Modem Society — Widespread Evil Conditions — Capitalist and Socialist Efl&ciency A TEST of the worth of any social system is the general level of human happiness which it brings. A nation may be the richest on earth, yet those riches may be confined to a small number of property-owners who make their profits off the sweat and toil of an enormous majority of hard-working, underpaid, underfed, undereducated, wretched toilers. A nation may make little noise about its vast figures of wealth, yet the average of social health and well-being may be much higher than in the " richest " countries. If money is made in the shape of profits, and those profits are taken by a class which itself performs no labor of social value, then somebody — some other class, must be doing more than its share of work, and getting less than its share of the wealth produced. This is self-evident. Nor is it important how much less one class is getting or how much more the other receives; the point is that less and more are being received. And, although it may not yet be evident to the reader, from this arrangement flow the greater part of the evils, if not all, which Socialists find to criticize in modern society. Nor are the Socialists alone in finding fault. No one will deny, unless he wish to fly in the face of the most common experiences, that there is a frightfully wide gap between the rich and the poor to-day ; not only in America does this hold true, but 54 THE PROSPERITY HOAX 65 all over the world. No one will care to deny that the rich, as a class, are underworked, and the poor, as a class, overworked. Unless, indeed, the poor can find no work at all, which is even as bad. Members of all political parties, of widely-differing religious and social views, agree on the facts, but they differ with the Socialist on the cause. Before applying the remedy to these evils, then, let us survey the most glaring defects in our daily life as they appear to any person with eyes half open — as they appear to all, regardless of religion, social or political bias. In recent years the phrase " high cost of living " ■has become part of our daily vocabulary. It is becoming increasingly evident that it costs more to live to-day than ever before, both in labor and in money. We noticed at the very outset that in seventeen years the cost of living has increased nearly 80%, while wages and salaries had risen no more than a quarter of that percentage. If this state of affairs continues, it is only a question of time before the working-class, greatly increased by members of the middle-class whose means will have been thinned, will evolve into a vast concourse of economic slaves. And looking beneath the surface, they are little better than that at present. Investigation made by non-Socialist writers, aided by government figures, has resulted in the claim that in the Southern industrial centers a family of five needs at least $700.00 per year to live in bare decency, while for the same purpose in the Northern centers $750.00 would be required. In the larger cities, where the rents are higher, the minimum is estimated at $850.00. To most who read this book the figures will appear to be surprisingly low. And so they are, for in the calculations nothing has been 50 A B C OF SOCIALISM counted that could be looked upon as a luxury. What must be the astonishment of all thinking folk when they learn, from the government's census of 1910, that the average family income in these United States is a trifle over $500.00 per year! In the face of this one fact, what becomes of all "prosperity" boasts? What becomes of large na- tional per-capitas? And when we remember that $500.00 is merely cm average^ how many families must be dwelling in abject poverty and ignorance, far below that standard? And what, indeed, must be the wide chasm between this class and the small, but powerful, rich class that would look upon the whole yearly income of the worker as merely a part of the expense for a monkey dinner? In order to illustrate the yawning gulf between the rich and the poor class, let us take another illustra- tion from the government's statistics. This time we will go from families to individuals. According to an analysis of the income tax figures for 1913, 96% of all the persons who have any income at all whether from wages, salaries or investments, average only $601.00 yearly. The other four per cent., very evi- dently, do not belong to the working-class. Is it not merely common sense to predict that, with the cost of living rising as it does (despite tariff- measures, trust laws and all other reform efforts), this gap between the rich and poor, frightful as it is, will become wider still? On the one hand an ever- richer few will riot in luxury, while on the other, an ever increasing many will sink into degradation. It is significant here to notice that politicians of the old parties, although they deny " hard times " and cry " prosperity " while i/n office, change their, song when up for reelection, and promise to pass THE PROSPERITY HOAX 67 legislation remedying the very social troubles whose existence they before denied! And as often as such legislation has been enacted, the trouble grows con- stantly greater. There is evidently something deeper down which the politicians have not reached. Together with the high cost of living goes the low pay which results in such startling figures as we have just witnessed from the government reports. It does not matter that, because of certain conditions, a few workers are relatively well-paid; it is the total result that counts, and what that is we have seen. When the workingman is underpaid, the deficit, if possible, must be made up by finding work for the other members of the family, female as well as male. Despite the cry that " woman's place is the home," modern industry has taken her out of the home and into the factory, department store, and the mill. Here she is paid less than men's wages, and becomes a competitor against the man, thus bringing down his wages as well as keeping her own at a low level. Not alone the woman has been forced into labor by modem conditions, but even the child has been taken from his home, snatched from the fields where trees and flowers would teach him their secrets, torn from the school where books would complete his educa- tion, and forced to toil that the family income might be raised to a level of decency. And this level of decency, in families of five, is $500.00 per year on an average! One would imagine, too, that any country which laid claim to being a center of culture and justice would at least have work for all who wished it and were able to earn a living. But there is not a coun- try on the face of the earth which provides work for all who wish it. In the best of times millions are idle 68 A B C OF SOCIALISM through na fault of their own; in times of economic depression their number is doubled. It makes no diffierence just how many; the important thing is that able people who want and need work cannot find it. The total number of unemployed during the year 1900, for instance, counting men and women out of work from one month to the entire year was, (according to the Census Volume on Occupations) 6,468,964*. This is a number equal to the entire vote cast for Bryan in 1908! During the year 1900 approximately $1,000,000,000.00 (one billion dol- lars) was lost to the workers in wages. The total number of children working in the United States in 1912 was 1,750,000 out of an entire 9,613,252 chil- dren in the nation, between the ages of 10 and 15. The total number of women employed in the nation during 1900 was 5,319,397. But all these figures signify nothing, if it cannot be seen that underneath them stands the ghastly confession that here is a nation (reproducing conditions that exist all over the world) where millions are doomed to enforced idle- ness, where women are taken from the home into the vortex of modem business, and where even the child of the family must contribute his undeveloped brain and brawn to keep the family from starvation. It is a very small step from low wages and over- work (or no work at all) to crime, prostitution, in- temperance and general debasement. The man or woman who wants work and cannot procure it gradu- ally becomes unsuited to work, and if the difficulty in finding a position continues, there is a positive disinclination to work at all. From being disem- ployed, by economic conditions, the worker becomes unemployable and finally unwilling to be employed at all. In this psychological progress lies part of the MODERN EVILS 69 explanation of our '* hobo " types. The connection between prostitution and low wages is direct. Girls must make a living. Men must marry. If department stores pay too little, there is the ever-ready cadet and madame to show " the easiest way " to the discouraged girl whose moral fiber has been weakened in the ordeal of making both ends meet. With low wages the general rule for men, too, young fellows are afraid to venture marriage in the face of an increasing cost of living, and they turn to the brothel instead. Present conditions, then, favor prostitution from both the man's and the woman's angle. To blink at these facts, or to at- tempt, like many once did, to explain them away by well-sounding words, is out of fashion. The most reactionary elements in society to-day are being forced to admit that the major part of the evils of prostitution are rooted in bad economic conditions. It is true that " vice weakens the strong and kills the weak," and that the weaker characters are first to succumb to the pressure of hard times, but it is only a matter of time and pressure when even the strong, having been weakened, follow the general path. As to intemj>erance, we wish no greater authority than the world-renowned Frances Willard, who, after a life devoted to fighting the liquor evil, declared, at the 1897 convention of the Women's Christian Tem- perance Union, held in Buffalo, her adherence to Socialism. Speaking in June, 1895, before the W. C. T. U. in London, she said : " For myself, twenty-one years of study and observation have con- vinced me that poverty is a prime cause of intew- perance and that misery is the mother, and heredi- tary appetite the father of drink hallucination." When we glance for a moment at the extent of 60 A B C OF SOCIALISM poverty in this country, we can well understand why the drink evil is still so great a curse. Robert Hunter, after making one of the most minute investi- gations ever conducted on the subject, came to the conclusion that " there are no fewer than 10,000,000 (ten million) persons in actual poverty in the United States," reckoning conservatively! Various esti- mates by competent authorities have placed the num- ber of public and private dependants in the country at 3,000,000, constituting in 1893 a twenty-fifth of the entire nation's people! It is interesting to note that the causes of this poverty have also been investi- gated by non-Socialists, and that first in the list of causes stands unemployment and low wages. More- over, whereas, in investigations made in New York city, intemperance caused only two per cent, of the poverty, contrast this with Frances Willard's state- ment that poverty was the cause, and not the result, of the liquor evil. So much for a very hasty and necessarily incom- plete survey of present-day evils from the worker's angle. Let us now look at the evil worked among the upper classes, who, too, are debased in a differ- ent way, and who see to it that the working-class foots the bill in every possible instance. As things are run to-day, business is conducted for profits. The real significance of profits we dis- cussed in the very first paragraphs of this chapter. The general evils worked upon the poor and the rich, then, by the present system, are due to the fact that the poor must provide those profits and that the rich take them. In order to make profits, health and life itself are risked, materials and foods are adulterated, politics and courts are corrupted, churches are silenced and MODERN EVILS 61 as a final horror, wars for markets take place. Every year shows a toll of death among the work- ers that could have been prevented. Much of this is hidden under " accident " reports, where the acci- dents might have been prevented by the installation of safe-guards. But that would lessen profits, and so debased in the mad race for wealth have the owners become, that such safe-guards are installed only at the command of the law, and not even then if subter- fuge can aid in avoiding the statutes. Much of this death, too, occurs from preventable sickness loosely labeled " occupational diseases." These, again, would be more efficiently prevented were human life more valuable than gain. But, to-day it is not. The adulteration of foods and other materials would alone make a good sized book. Although Dr. Harvey W. Wiley served, while in the government employ, to call public attention to the extent of food adulteration (which he has placed at about five per cent, of all food sold) he did not point out that it was a direct consequence of the desire to increase profits. Dr. I. W. Abbot, of the Massachusetts State Board of Health, placed the total percentage of food adul- teration as high as one-tenth of all food sold, or, in other words, at a value of $750,000,000.00 yearly! The pure food laws which were passed as a result of Wiley's exposures (he could have gone a good deal further than he did) had as chief effect not the aboli- tion of adulteration, which still flourishes as much as ever, but merely the legalization (in a good many instances) of adulteration, and the getting around the laws by clever manufacturers. The corruption of court and legislative bodies is too common a newspaper item to need large space here. Every election brings its new crop of political 6ft A B C OF SOCIALISM and judicial exposures. It does not matter who is exposed, any more than it mattered jiist how many people were prevented from working. It is enough that the corruption exists and is taken for granted as part of our political life. In every case this cor- ruption has centered about " graft " and offices which meant large fees and business opportunities — in other words, financial gain. If large business inter- ests are in politics (and it did not take the Social- ists to spread that information, as the contending capitalists saved them the trouble) they are there to influence legislation and to spread their power over the courts which interpret legislation. Lincoln StefFens, non-Socialist, in his " Struggle for Self- Government," writes as follows: Our political corruption is a system, a regularly established custom of the country, by which our political leaders are hired by bribery, by the license to loot and by quiet moral support to conduct the government of this city, state and nation, not for the common good, but for the special interests of private business. Not the politicians, then, not the bribetaker, but the bribegiver, the man we are so proud of, our successful business man — he is the source and sustenance of our bad government. The captain of industry is the man to catch. And it should be remembered that the captain of industry himself is but the product of something greater and more powerful than he and his kind — the social and industrial system under which we live. Not least in the indictments brought against the present-day system is its enormous waste, due to competition, old methods, superfluous advertising, unemploymen,t, unguarded life, idle factories and various other causes. This phase of modem society is only slowly coming to public notice. A. M. Si- mons, in "Wasting Human Life," has shown that over 105 billion dollars' worth of value is practically WAR AND THE SYSTEM 63 thrown away yearly. Nor has he given the total fig- ure by far. But the crowning waste of all, and the crowning irony of the workers' existence is war. And war is an inevitable outcome of the system under which we live. War may rightly be called the system under which we live, forged to a white heat. It is the logical re- sult of the chase after profits. Just as man must compete against man in modern business, so must nation compete against nation. Just as the weaker man is forced into personal bankruptcy, so is the weaker country forced into national bankruptcy. Accumulations of wealth demand ever increasing fields for reinvestment ; the capitalists of one country having covered their own territory must expand; this they accomplish by fair means or foul, as the histories of past wars have amply proved. We do not need to argue the commercial basis of war; read any reliable historian. Recall the relation between our own Sugar trust and the Spanish War; ponder over the greatest war yet, between Germany and England, practically. Though much confused and disguised by minor and dependent issues, the war was started in cold blood, prepared for years ahead, for commercial suprcTnacy, Already, from sources that cannot be accused of sympathy for the Socialist cause, come cries against the conscienceless shedding of blood and killing of mankind's best energies in ghastly shambles of ma- niac battles. The call to " patriotism " finds less response than in former days. People are beginning to ask why they shall fight folk of other nations with whom they have no clear-cut quarrel. Soon they will begin to ask why shall they fight each other in 64 ABC OF SOCIALISM that less bloody, but no less fierce warfare called " making a living." They will recognize that the world produces enough for all and will want to know why the all are not receiving that plenty, and why it is precisely those who work hardest who acquire least, while those that do practically nothing seem to gain all? Is this not so? Have you not heard it from the minister's sermon, read it in the newspapers, talked it over in the shop? Yes, we know what is wrong, but how remedy it? One advantage of the Socialist criticism of modern society, omitting for the present the remedy (which we shall discuss later) is this: whereas all the other critics agree that things are bad and point out the particular evils with about the same clearness as the Socialists, the latter alone relate all these evils to a central origin. They alone see in modern social problems the by-products of an underlying basic principle, so to speak. When the capitalist exclaims that this is a highly efficient form of society, he is right, from his class standpoint : for to the capitalist '^ efficiency " means anything that brings in more profits. To the Socialist " efficiency " means, in the long run, anything that brings humanity more hap- piness. The modem efficiency engineer of whom we hear so much in these commercial times, is the hired brains of the capitalist class, whose duty it is to de- vise ways and means for extracting more profits from the working-class. The Socialist view starts exactly from the opposite end : it proclaims the need of working-class efficiency to extract from life all of the good things which are rightly the makers' (i,e., the workers') due. The Golden Rule cannot be practiced in modem society; the very foundation upon which modem WAR AND THE SYSTEM 65 business is built makes it impossible. The complaint " If men would only practice the golden rule the world would be better " should logically be changed to " the golden rule could be practiced if the world were better." In other words, this is a concrete illus- tration of the principle of economic determinism spoken of in the previous chapter. Men are as good, in this worlds as the world lets them he, not as good as they ought to be. We shall now consider in a rapid survey some of the ideas and ideals of the past ages in regard to their own problems ; we shall see how people proposed to cure their epoch's evils, and why they failed. We shall then see whether similar errors are being made in our own day, and we will be prepared to appreci- ate more fully the significance of the Socialist reme- dies and the political party which embodies them. CHAPTER V Ideal Aspects of Socialism — "Utopias" — Socialism Distin- guished from Communism — Socialism, Utopian and Scien- tific — Origin of Some Mistaken Objections to Socialism IT has been said that people cannot long discuss what is without coming to what, in their opinion, ought to be. Aspiration for better things is a characteristic of human effort. In all epochs man has sought relief from the stern realities of life by turning to his imagination and picturing realms where instead of toil there was rest, instead of worry and inequality, peace and fraternity. This ideal longing has played its part in Socialism, and much of its power is evident to-day; but it must be dis- tinguished from the official Socialism of the party in whose interest this book is written. It must fur- thermore be held in mind throughout that whereas early ideals were individiial in origin, and often liter- ary rather than economic, modem ideals are gen- erally social both in origin and application. This is an interesting example of economic determinism working upon thought; in the early days, when ef- fort was still unorganized and sporadic, the ideals which arose were similarly individual and disunited. In modem times, whether socialistic or not, ideals tend to achieve social character. These distinctions, and a few others which shall presently appear, must be constantly borne in mind, lest the reader fall into the same errors in his con- ceptions of Socialism as the world did in its evolu- 66 EARLY " UTOPIAS " 67 tion from the crude beginnings to the present highly organized party. Many writers whose thought penetrates only the surface have written that " So- cialism began with Plato," or that " Socialism was tried in ancient Peru and proved a failure." Such statements, and similar nonsense, show that their originators have not grasped even the elementary principles of Socialism; that they have not learned the difference between Communism and Socialism; that they have not learned to distinguish between Utopian and scientific Socialism, and finally, that they are in complete ignorance of the real meaning of economic determinism. The present chapter has for its purpose the explanation of several of the Uto- pian authors, writers and thinkers (who have con- fused Socialists and non-Socialists alike) and will also seek to explain the various distinctions given above and the errors to which a misunderstanding of them leads. Firstly, as to the word " Utopia." It comes from two Greek words .signifying " nowhere," or " no place." Early writers especially, and quite a few modem ones, when desiring to give a far away ap- pearance to their work (often wishing to disguise its contemporary application lest some ruler be of- fended) chose an imaginary location, peopled it with imaginary beings and surrounded it with imaginary conditions. They then unfolded, each after his par- ticular notions, some fortunate land where humanity had at last solved the problem of happiness for all. One of the earliest examples of such writings, which has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism, but which for other reasons serves very well to start with, is Plato's " Republic." This much-abused book, which has affected later writers of Utopias, has been 68 A B C OF SOCIALISM responsible for much unjustified criticism of Social- ism on moral grounds. Plato lived from 429 to 347 b. c. In his " Re- public " and " Laws " he expounded an imaginary system in an imaginary country, and with the char- acteristic economic ideas of his times, he had no iLse for the working class at all, except as they were to serve as slaves for his land of aristocrats. His scheme called, among other things, for the common ownership of property and of wives (referring, of course, only to the ruling class), and it is this in particular which has been brought against modem Socialists by people as much alive to modem condi- tions as Plato could have been several centuries be- fore Christ. Plato's writings cannot have the slight- est possible relation to the Socialism that is spread to-day, because modern Socialism itself could not have arisen until Capitalism was firmly established. Modem Socialism is the result of Capitalism's sway; to connect Socialism with Plato, then, or with an- cient China and Peru, is equivalent to saying that a result can exist before its cause. Plato's scheme, if ^ it is to be connected with any notions current in these days, is more akin to Com- munism than to Socialism. Communism is to be dis- tinguished sharply from Socialism. The first has always existed in one form or another, and lends it- self easily to primitive society's needs. The early Christian church, too, was largely communistic in character, all things being owned in common. In the eighteenth century a wave of Communism swept over France; the general spirit of the writings of this epoch being that man, naturally good, was debased by unnatural conditions; that property, unless owned by all in common, was a harmful influence, EARLY " UTOPIAS " 69 leading to avarice, greed and inequality. So that even from a fragmentary explanation such as this we can see how ridiculous is a connection between So- cialism and Plato. Socialism, as we shall see in the next chapter, far from asking the ownership of all property in com- mon, demands the social ownership amd control of all socially necessary actvvities; communism, for in- stance, would ask the common ownership of your tooth-brush, your clothes, while Socialism asks the social ownership of telephones, telegraphs, mines, railroads and all other industries. Failure to note this elementary distinction has led to much silly writ- ing against Socialism. Thanks to diligent propa- ganda, much of it is now a joke of the past. _ Jumping across the ages we come to the book whose title gave the general term " Utopia " to our language. Sir Thomas More wrote his famous " Utopia " about 1511, and it was printed some two years later. According to his fabled realm, all were expected to work six hours a day, except those un- able; all things were owned in common, and every ten years the people chose their houses. Dining was communal, taking place in large halls. Personal adornment was considered childish. There were two religious orders in the land, but religious intolerance is unknown. One of the doctrines of the Utopians points to the author's deep insight, considering the times when the book was written. The doctrine of the Utopians was, that religious belief is largely a matter of environment and birth. The criminals of the realm were enslaved and made to perform useful labor. It has been recognized that this book shows More as a democrat at heart — as a man high in his coun- 70 ABC OF SOCIALISM try's life who had perceived many of the evils of monarchy, and the sources of misgovernment. But there is nothing Socialistic in the book, nor could there be, since Capitalism was yet centuries away. This was an individiuil reaction to certain evils in monarchial England. At the same time, even as Plato in different degree, it contained the germs of social feeling which were later to develop much more strongly. In essence, then. More, even as Plato, is communistic. One more example of the communistic Utopia will serve to impress upon our minds the general charac- ter of this type. Campanella's " Civitas Solis " (City of the Sun) is influenced largely by Plato. The writer, who lived from 1568 to 1639, was still a vast distance, in time, away from Capitalism. His work, therefore, is in essence little different from Plato or More. " The City of the Sun " is in the form of a dia- logue between a Knight Templar and a sea-captain. The latter relates to his hearer the tale of a won- derful city he had visited, and then describes in de- tail the educational and legal system of the place. As in More, all work who are able; this is a feature of most communistic lore. Wives and property are owned in common, as in Plato. There is, however, no slavery, and people work but four hours per day. This is two less than in More's " Utopia." In this connection it is interesting to note that Benja- min Franklin, years after this book saw the light, declared that if all the people on earth did their proper share of the world's work, only four hours per day would be necessary to devote to labor. Were Franklin alive in this age, with all its vast array of inventions to which he himself contributed, he would MODERN "UTOPIAS" 71 be even more optimistic. ^^he Utopias which we have thus far considered were written by men not in touch with the large world of toilers. Plato was a philosopher who disdained the working class. More was a statesman of ideal character, but far removed from the sinews of Eng- land. Campanella wrote his book while imprisoned in a Neapolitan dungeon for almost twenty-seven years. All three were ages away from the develop- ment of modem Capitalism. Any relation they may have to modern Socialism is purely historical-liter- ary. They aspired for better things, in a way, but not so much as the result of actual oppression as from intellectual longing. They are among the fore- runners of Utopia writers who may be called Social- istic rather than Communistic; they invented the style, the general mold into which later men poured their own metals. Perhaps the best example of modern Utopias is the famous "Looking Backward" (1888), by Ed- ward Bellamy. Here the fabled happy land becomes strongly tinged by actual social ideals of the author — ideals conceived as the result of actual experience in the world's realities — written down in the very hurly-burly of a world fast being destroyed by the sinister forces of Capitalism and its pernicious by- products. With the actual contents of the book (which may easily be procured) we are not con- cerned. The point to be brought out is, that all these Utopias, whether the early communistic stories or the later socialistic ones, are individual expres- sions. They are not official documents upon which to base arguments for or against Socialism. Many of them, it is true, together with serious works as well, are sold by the Literature Department of the 72 A B C OF SOCIALISM Party. This is a matter of general education, how- ever, not Socialist propaganda. Just as there were writers of Utopias, there were, too, people who tried to initiate social reform with similar ideas. They did not recognize that it is easy to build a happy land on paper, but extremely difficult to realize that land in actuality, especially if such schemes mere not in accordance with the eco- nomic environment. The history of the attempts to establish different communities is interesting and in- structive; but they are easily procured and this is not their place. However, we note that practically in no case did the establishment of any such commun- ity succeed. This is often brought against Social- ism, demonstrating again that the objectors have not seized the real significance of modern Socialism. Why did these ideals fail when put into practice? The noble Fourier and Cabet, the self-sacrificing Robert Owen, were certainly men whose personality was inspiring, yet their schemes, as all others, went down in common ruin. Why.^^ Because they were undertaken in defiance of social facts, in ignorance of social principles and of scientific Socialism. Be- cause they were after all centered about an individual rather than about a social prvnciple. Indeed, had the lessons of scientific Socialism been then under- stood, such communities would never have been un- dertaken. Frederick Engels, in his remarkable classic, " The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science," takes up this matter in full. So long as people did not understand the laws of social evolution, which have been discussed in chapter two, they were inade- quate to cope with social problems efficiently. Their view-point was individual rather than social. The MODERN " UTOPIAS " 73 early social agitators and thinkers proceeded upon the principle that all the world needed in order to be set upon the right path was a leader, a social Mes- siah. They saw in humanity's troubles merely hu- man perversity, or at most, certain evils which could be corrected by varying the arrangement. They had, as many people to-day, not yet divined the class struggle, or its cause. Hence we have the spectacle of Robert Owen's brilliant failure. Here was a humanitarian spirit that surrendered his possessions to his employees and began a tour of the continents to preach human brotherhood by means of a scheme well-thought out, but not based upon the scientific foundation neces- sary. He started communities, as was then the fash- ion, only to find them succumb, one after the other, to the inevitable inroads of growing capitalism. All such attempts at founding communities were broad in spirit; contrary to the early Utopian writings, they were social in inspiration. But they failed because they were based upon wrong principles. It is one of the deductions from the materialist conception of history (amply proved by historical study), that " leaders " of society are the result Sy not the causeSy of social progress. As a late writer has well expressed it, -these leaders are on the crest of a wave of social change, and are mistaken for the wave itselE::^ The progress of the world, we have learned, is determined by changing economic conditions. These changing conditions call forth men of a new type, thoughts and institutions of a new order, and it is the greatest representatives of these new condi- tions that are the leaders of their age. But they are none the less the creations of that age. The Kaiser did not create German militarism ; he is its product ; 74 A B C OF SOCIALISM Washington did not make our revolution ; the revolu- tion called him forth. This point was missed in the early days of social reform. Humanity was waiting for the social Moses to lead it into the promised land. They thought that if he had come a hundred years before, all would have been well; that if he would not arrive till a hundred years around, all would not be well until then. They had no sense of the connection between conditions and persons ; between the economic back- ground of human institutions and " leaders." They had no conception of evolution in social progress. The difference between " Utopia " and " scien- tific " Socialism comes right at this point. Socialism based upon the deductions of the materialist concep- tion of history" (class struggle and surplus value) is called scientific because it is rooted in a well-demon- strated and classified array of social and historical facts. Socialism previous to Marx's epoch-making formulation of the materialistic conception of his- tory is called Utopia because it lacked this scientific basis. A modern phase of the " leader " error is the so- called " good man argument." We have seen, in the very first chapter, that most people in the past, and too many of the present, have failed to discover that behind all social troubles stood a system, not an in- dividual. In the same way the modem political " boss," fearing that he may be ousted from power, puts up a candidate who enjoys a high reputation in the community or the nation, so that the people may think, " Here at last is a social leader who will lead us out of our plights." And just as disap- pointment awaited the early believers in this idea, so here, too, disappointment lurks in the shadow of the WHY SOME IDEALS FAIL 75 ballot-box. Reflections of such underlying notions may also be seen in personal attacks upon political candidates, rather than rigid scrutiny of what the party, as a whole, stands for. It thus becomes evident that people, in their prog- ress along social lines, go through the same errors in their personal mental evolution as society's ideas went through in social evolution. First comes a sense of wrongs present in society ; as a reaction to this discovery of social unhappiness, the imagination pictures better realms, where trouble is unknown. Moreover, attempts are made to discover the individ- uals responsible for the wrongs ; and if one individual is powerful enough to cause wrongs, surely another can arise to overcome him. Thus proceeds the er- roneous reasoning; thus comes the belief in a person being responsible and a " leader " being able to cure it all. Not for a long time, with the progress of social and historical knowledge, do we come to the point where social thought ripens — where a system is seen to be the cause of the world's ills and where the basis of that system is discovered to be not per- sonal, but economic. Once this is discovered, evi- dently not a leader is needed, but an understanding of the economic causes, so that the social superstruc- ture may be better adapted to the economic basis. We have to-day the startling inconsistency of a twentieth-century economic basis of society, with an early nineteenth-century method of administering it. In other words, despite the fundamental changes that have been going on since the days when all commodi- ties were made by hand in the home (and the prod- ucts thereof kept by the owner), we still m/n things as in the old days. Goods now are made in vast factories where the former personal relation between 76 A B C OF SOCIALISM maker and the thing made has been destroyed beyond recognition. Nobody knows (as in former days) just who made this or that; this or that has been made through the laborious cooperation of multi- tudes of workingmen who no longer, as of yore, own their tools. The tools have become transformed into machines too large for a home. The worker leaves his home to go to work in the factory. He has followed the tool from his home to that factory. In other words, production of goods has changed from an individual to a social activity. Production, in still other words, has become socialized. But has distribution — the taking of the rewards of labor — become socialized to correspond with the economic change? Not at all. This is what is meant when it is sometimes said, rather loosely, that " we already have Socialism in production, but we have Individual- ism in distribution." Our modern idealists, many of whom are called " reformers," have failed to see this point. They are social idealists, it is true, and when they do not belong to the coterie that is willfully deceiving the working class they certainly do belong to the larger element who are unwillfuUy deceiving themselves. Like the early Utopian writers they have discerned social troubles; like them, too, they write, talk and work against these troubles ; and still like them, they have not perceived the real root of it all with any scientific precision. Yet these idealists of to-day are making their contribution to progress even as the older ones. They are arousing the social spirit which sooner or later must come to Socialism for the healing science it contains. Just as the evolution of Utopian conceptions led to scientific Socialism, so will the modem Utopians, gradually discovering SOCIALISM AND IDEALS 77 their error, embrace Socialism. It may be said that Utopianism and Idealism are not always the same thing ; indeed, a valuable distinc- tion may be made between the two. Socialism cer- tainly discourages Utopianism, but breeds a healthy and efficient idealism. Utopianism might in this connection be called an idealism which is unrelated to social common sense, which is individual in origin and in application, which disregards economics and history. The idealism which Socialism breeds, how- ever, is not merely a beautiful hope that things will grow better, but the inspiration that here at last is a scientific, yet human reason why they wUl grow better; why they must; the ennobling conviction that although the foundations of society are in the hands of unrelenting economic law, we can build upon that foundation the greatest of institutions, the grandest^ of religions, the broadest of humanities. Those who have feared from Socialism a degrading materialism of thought have been deceived by the word " materialist," as used in the phrase " materi- alist conception of history." One might as well say a man is a degraded materialist because he insists on three meals a day. Just as personal idealism can- not exist to best advantage in a starved body, so social idealism cannot exist in a starved society. Just as food is the material with which life is nourished, and without which the highest idealism would fail to support life for any length of time, so is the prob- lem of material necessities the greatest which any epoch or nation faces. Once that is settled, untold wonders of human progress and happiness await mankind. Socialism merely points out that the basis of life, as well as the basis of social structures, is material and economic ; but it demonstrates, too, that 78 A B C OF SOCIALISM those needs have been and are to-day im/necessarily restricted for millions of beings — that once they are open to all as a result of the labor of all, the world will, for the first time in its history, he free from materialism* s clutches. Then, and then only will it reap the harvest of efficient idealism's fertile seed. If such aspiration be material, then Socialism must plead guilty. If, on the other hand, men and women to-day are forced to think exclusively of where the next meal is coming from, and how to provide for life, let alone comforts, then the charge of gross ma- terialism must be laid at the door of Capitalism. Common sense and ordinary observation have taught the workingman and workingwoman the answer to these " ifs." Perhaps there is no better way of concluding this chapter and impressing the pith of its contents than by considering the question: Could Christ have been a Socialist.? Many Socialists have called him one; indeed, there is an entire organization known as the Christian Socialists, although that does not necessarily mean that Christ is by them considered as a modern Socialist. Christ could not, from what and because of what we have just learned, have been a Socialist. He came too early. True, he discerned evils of the day ; he desired to remedy them; he declaimed against them. Moreover, were Christ on earth to-day, he would most likely be a Socialist. But Christ was too far removed from modem Capitalism to be a Socialist of any type; he could not have been even a Christian Socialist, because at Ms time neither Chris- tianity nor Socialism were known. And yet, the practice of the ideals which Christ SOCIALISM AND IDEALS 79 preached will become for the first time possible under Socialism. So long as an economic arrangement of things forces every man to be the other man's competitor for work, it is foolish to talk of " love thy neighbor as thyself." Remove that competition and the evils which flow from it, and human love, so long suppressed, but by no means extinguished, will blos- som forth more beautiful than ever. It is no mere paradox to say that the golden rule cannot exist side by side with the rule of gold. The most beauti- ful religious injunctions fail utterly when preached in the midst of an economic system which renders their practice suicidal. Because men do not practice the actions which their conscience tells them are right, many say that " human nature is bad " and cannot be changed. But no, mankind is essentially good. It is the economic conditions that are had, a/nd they can, and will, be changed! A little thought about your own personal experience and actions will demonstrate to you how true the foregoing is. Nor should this be construed as an attack on religion, or the church. The church has certainly erred, how- ever, as an organization, in being blind to the eco- nomic ills which prevented people from living up to the best ideals. And finally, a word about another fallacy. Peo- ple are apt to ask, " How will you run this, that, and the other thing under Socialism ? " That is an illog- ical way of looking at the matter. Knowing the progress of social evolution in the past, we have no reason to lack confidence in the future. Such things have a way of adjusting themselves, as all history shows. Washington, at the time of the revolution, could not point out how this country was to run its affairs. But the revolution was justified, it was ac- 80 A B C OF SOCIALISM complished, and affairs are being run to-day. The past attended to that problem ; the immediate future will attend to ours. We are the soldiers of the social revolution; let us hope it will be a bloodless one, but bloodless or not, it is a just one. Science sup- ports it; idealism supports it, and it, in turn, gives rise to a new and better idealism than any the world has yet seen. The idealism of Socialism transcends the limita- tions of any single creed, outgrows the boundaries of any single country, unites all races in one vast, uni- versal bond. It embraces the entire world. What more beautiful can there be than a materialism which breeds such idealism; than an idealism which is so lofty, yet which not for a moment deserts the ma- terial and scientific fundamentals which make it pos- sible, actual and inevitable.? CHAPTER VI The Socialist Party — What It Stands For and How it Oper- ates — ^Difference between Government Ownership and So- cialism — Socialist Influence on Legislation — Socialism and War WE have now examined Socialism in its his- torical, critical and ideal phases. We have seen how the same general idea appears in the light of various standpoints. We have noted what was, have felt what ought to be, and have even penetrated down to rock-bottom causes. But the mere knowledge would be useless, unless it were acted upon. And the mere action, as history proves, would be equally useless, unless that action were the result of strong and efficient organization. Xhe Socialist Party, then, represents the organized polit- ical effort of the working-class to attain the pur- poses which we shall state presently. As we noted in the first chapter, these purposes are affected by each of the preceding phases ; they are colored by these phases, and interpret them in terms of efficient political action. Let us now, to- gether, examine the official platform of the Socialist Party of this nation. Let us try to discover whether we can honestly say that any of the other parties has so scientific a basis, so adequate a program, so ideal a spirit, so efficient an organization. The platform adopted at Indianapolis, May, 1912,^ recognizes that the present system has " out- 1 For all party literature, address 803 West Madison St, Chicago, 111. Platforms, etc., are free. 81 82 A B C OF SOCIALISM grown its historical function, and has become utterly incapable of meeting the problems now confronting society." You will notice, then, that as a result of historical investigation modem Socialism finds the present system outgrown; it may once have been necessary in the progress of the world ; it has accom- plished many things, but just as Capitalism itself replaced Feudalism, so must it in turn be replaced by Socialism. This not alone because Socialists are determined upon it, but because social evolution has decreed it. The economic basis of production has changed, and as in every previous instance in the world's history, such a change will inevitably be fol- lowed by a change in social structures. Indeed, this is slowly taking place already, as we shall see when we come to consider, briefly. Socialist influence on legislation. The Socialist Platform then goes on to state the various evils of the Capitalist system which we have considered in chapter four, relating them, as we did there, to the one central cause, the present profit- \ system. Concentrated capital stretches its octopus tentacles in every direction, seeking to control all. Labor-saving machinery, which should prove a boon to mankind, proves a curse, for instead of shorten- ing hours and causing more men to be employed, it throws out of employment a vast number. Thus the army of the unemployed receives new recruits to its already overcrowded regiments. The farmers suff^er from high rents, high storage charges, high freight rates, high cost of implements. All the boasted prosperity, in fact, goes to swell the coffers of the owning class, at the expense of the toiling class. This is too self-evident to need much argu- ment in these days. THE PARTY PLATFORM 83 After pointing out the host of evils to which our own experience can add its own details, the platform considers the powerlessness of the old parties (and of the short-lived Progressives) to cope with the sit- uation. Since the root of the present-day evils is the profit-system — that system by which a non- working owner can make profits off the back of the non-owning toiler — any attempt to end these ills must strike at the system itself. This, no other party than the Socialist has attempted. The Re- publicans in general are stand-patters; they are satisfied with the present order of things and want everybody else to be. The Democrats, representing the smaller capitalists, as the Republican party rep- resents the larger, would do a little tariff-tinkering here, a little anti-trust piffling there, and would restore competition. In other words, while social evolution is going away from competition towards cooperation, this party would turn the hands of Time backwards. Even if this were possible, it would but take us so much to the rear of social progress, and we would have all that same road to travel over again. The day of competition is dead. This is why trust regulation, too, is a farcical failure. The Socialists do not want to " bust the trusts." The trusts are a good thing. They represent the mod- ern cooperative spirit in a highly efficient form, but — and here comes the rub — they represent co- operation in production only. They represent co- operation for private profit only. They are (or rather their owners are) the greatest enemies to that same principle of cooperation for which Socialism stands — that same principle applied to production and distribution — that same principle, with the 84 ABC OF SOCIALISM trust owned hy the nation of workers. The only trouble with the trusts is this : the workers create the values, but the private owners take the profits. That is why the private owners do not believe in the workers owning the trusts — the owners will lose the profits. Let us stop for a moment on this important topic. Do the owners of the trust do any labor, beside cutting coupons ? No. Who does all the work? The workers, naturally. Who gets the profit? The owners, because of that ownership and nothing else. Obviously, the profits should go to the people who create them, that is, the workers. This Socialism proposes to effect hy making the workers the owners. By no means abol- ish the trusts, say the Socialists. Let the nation OWN THE TRUSTS AND LET THE WORKERS CONTROI. THE NATION. The significance of the latter part of the preceding sentence, and the reason why mere gov- ernment ownership of the trusts would not be Social- ism, we shall presently discover. The platform of 1912 then goes on to affirm the class struggle, which we have treated in chapter two. Then, as we have seen in chapter three, the platform indicts modem government as the tool of the owning class, showing how the latter subsidizes all sources of public education and opinion, how it corrupts the departments of the law, the courts and the carrying out of justice, and how it even enters the sacred pre- cincts of religion. To oppose this, and to inaugurate the change all the quicker, the platform calls for the solidarity of the working class ; for effective organization and a solid front to the common enemy. The following excerpt is especially enlightening: PARTY IS PRACTICAL 85 The working class, which includes all those who are forced to work for a living, whether by hand or by- brain, in shop, mine or on the soil, vastly outnumbers the capitalist class. Lacking effective organization and class solidarity, this class is unable to enforce its will. Given such class solidarity and effective organization, the workers will have the power to make all laws and control all industry in their own interest. The Socialist Party is the political expression of the economic interests of the workers. Its defeats have been their defeats, and its victories their victories. It is a party founded on the science and laws of social development. It proposes that, since all social necessi- ties to-day are socially produced, the means of their production shall be socially owned and democratically controlled. We are now tolerably familiar with the ultimate aim of the Socialist Party. The happy world in which this practical ideal will at last have been estab- lished is called by Socialists the " Cooperative Com- monwealth." But Socialists are not impractical dreamers. They believe in evolution, and if evolution is any- thing, it is gradual. Socialism is hownd to come, de- spite all the opposition it meets with, despite the most intense pessimism and inactivity of even the Socialists themselves. But just as a patient can help his own disease to go away, by hygienic living and proper care, so, too, can the coming of Social- ism be hastened by intelligent action and social fore- sight. In other words, we can help evolution along, since we are the only conscious elements of evolution that can aid its social workings. It is moreover true that almost every step the Capitalist class takes to make itself stronger makes the coming of Socialism so much easier. The trusts, the railroads, the telegraph, the telephone — all of 86 A B C OF SOCIALISM these have been highly developed with the sole aim of more profits, but at the same time all this devel- opment has made the step to Socialism merely the matter of the organized workers, in the guise of a truly democratic government, taking over these func- tions from the interests of a few for the interests of all. The Socialist Party being, as we said, very prac- tical, provides for things to be done right away, as well as for ultimate aims. It calls, in the first place, for immediate relief of the unemployed by the exten- sion of all useful public works under union condi- tions ; for unemployment bureaus and such other measures as shall afford temporary relief to the suf- ferers from the misrule of the owning class. It calls for legislation which shall look to the conservation of LIFE rather than of property, for minimum wage scales, abolition of child labor, better working con- ditions, for old age pensions instead of official char- ity, and a host of other things that have become familiar to the public only since the Socialist propa- ganda began to be heard. It demands absolute free- dom of speech, press and assemblage, a graduated income tax, unrestricted suffrage for men and women alike, the initiative, referendum and recall, the elec- tion of the President and Vice-President by the direct vote of the people, the curbing of the right of the courts to issue injunctions, and a host of other issues, all tending toward democracy in fact as well as in name. The above items are not in themselves Socialism. Far from it. The Socialists maintain a healthy dis- tinction between reform and socialism. Reform merely aims to change something in the present sys- tem without affecting the profit-basis of the system ; REFORM DANGERS 87 socialism is after the overthrow of the profit-basis from which all the ills flow which reformers attempt to combat. Socialists recognize that the above de- mands, taken separately, are of a reform nature. Many of these demands have been taken over by the Progressive Party, for instance. Many of them have been already enacted into legislation. Social- ists look upon these measures merely as steps that clear the road to the Cooperative Commonwealth. Not even government ownership of the whole nation would be Socialism; nobody knows this better than the Socialists. This is why, and incidentally it explains the latter half of the capitalized sentence several pages back: Government ownership alone will not abolish prof- its; it will merely yield the form to the popular de- mand, and instead of having a capitalist class com- posed of profit-takers, you will get the same class, owning government bonds on which they will collect interest. Furthermore, a political aristocracy can easily develop, unless the laws admitting to citizen- ship are truly democratic. To-day the vast major- ity of the people have no share in the government whatever, and government enterprise, as carried on, is a source of income, not to the people, but to those portions of the capitalist class which own govern- ment bonds. As government activity in industry increases, moreover, we find that private ownership of those industries is transformed into the private ownership of interest-bearing government securities. In fact, such a form of government is rapidly com- ing, and it will be a distinct advantage to the capi- talist class, in that their source of income will be officially protected by the full strength of the gov- ernment. The risk element of modem business will 88 ABC OF SOCIALISM be eliminated.^ There is another vital point to be considered here. The recent laws forbidding government employees to take part in political matters, outside of merely vot- ing, will, under the extension of government owner- ship, apply to a vast army of citizens. Such a sup- pression of free speech is too menacing to be over- looked. It may now be appreciated why Socialists, in de- manding that the nation own the trusts, are careful to add. Let the workers own the nation ! We have touched, in the first chapter, on the method of organization of the Socialist Party. We have explained that the dues-paying membership is the backbone of the movement ; that this ' is the nu- cleus from which Socialism will radiate, in time, into the minds of a majority of the country's and the world's voters. Any person desiring to join the So- cialist Party signs the following statement, answer- ing, also, a few questions, such as his age, whether he is a citizen, etc. : " I, the undersigned, recognizing the class struggle between the capitalist class and the working class, and the necessity of the working class organizing itself into a political party for the purpose of obtaining collective ownership and democratic ad- ministration and operation of the collectively used and socially necessary means of production and distribution, hereby apply for membership in the Socialist Party. I have no relations (as member or supporter) with any other political party. I am opposed to all political organizations that support and per- petuate the present capitalist profit system, and I am opposed 1 Government ownership is much more extensive in Germany and in Russia than in this country, yet the people there are far from enjoying the full product of their labor. Govern- ment Ownership of this nature is known as State Socialism or better still, State Capitalism. The workers must not be de- ceived by it. The transition between Capitalism and Socialism is already assuming this fonn. PARTY PRACTICES 89 to any form of trading or fusing with any such organizations to prolong that system. In all my political actions while a member of the Socialist Party I agree to be guided by the constitution and platform of that party." It will be noticed that, insofar as it is possible, the party practices in its own organization that democ- racy which it demands for the world as a whole. Women vote and participate in all matters on equal- ity with the men. Non-members are always welcome at meetings ; there are no " star-chamber " sessions. There is nothing to hide; no passwords or any other ear-mark of a secret society. Long before it became law to declare political expenses the party published its lists of disbursements for all purposes, the year round. The only campaign contributor to the Socialist Party is the worker. No corporations swell the party funds, for they know they can expect nothing in return. The initiative, referendum and recall operate in the party business just as they will one day operate in our national and our international affairs. To- day, in nations, a few can declare war; that few usually keep at a good distance from the battlefield. In a nation where every man and woman could vote on the question of war, doesn't it seem to you that some other method of settlement would be found.'' Think you a nation's majority would ever vote such barbarism.? The initiative, referendum and recall are democratic in their very essence. A member in- side the Socialist Party, who has what he thinks a good idea, need not wait for some " representa- tive " to bring it up. He is his own representative. He brings it up, and if it meets with anything like approval, it is in course of time submitted to the 90 A B C OF SOCIALISM other members directly. The first member initiates the idea ; hence the term initiative ; it is then referred to the entire membership; hence the term referen- dum. Not only this, but the recall (which word explains its own origin) gives the membership the power to take out of office any person who has abused power or shown unfitness after his or her election. If this operated in public affairs, there would be very little of the feeling among officials which finds ex- pression in some such form* as this : " Well, I'm elected for four years. Deuce take the people ; now I'm here and I'll do as I please." In some states where the recall is already in operation, judges who would otherwise have served their unjust terms for life, have been removed by the people. Putting judges, especially, within the power of recall brings justice nearer the people. The general effect of all three devices is to bring the people closer to their government and the government closer to the people. We have seen that the recommendations in the So- cialist Platform have for their purpose the smooth- ing of the road to Socialism. People often say, without thinking, " I want something now. That's why I vote the old party ticket instead of yours. Socialism is all right, but it's too far ahead of the times." This is sheer nonsense for several reasons. Anything that helps to strengthen the old parties keeps Socialism so much further away. Moreover, the only " something now " that you get by voting an old ticket is a repetition of the dose that you received before. One of the beauties of the Socialist program is that, not only does it stand for much more now than the others dare to, but all of those things which it demands immediately make the transi- tion to the Socialist state so much easier. PARTY PRACTICES 91 The growing Socialist vote has already scared the old parties into doing something now which they never would have done had that vote remained as small as in the early days. Our advance in labor laws, in factory conditions, in safeguards for life and limb, in the spread of woman's suffrage, is all due primarily to the education and agitation of the /HW^ Socialist Party. If you want something now, that is the best of reasons for voting for Socialism, which will get that something now not as a sop thrown to quiet a dog but as a preliminary to getting it all later: all that the worker earns — the full social product of his labor. A vote for the old parties makes them' stronger; it gets you nothing now and keeps you from getting anything later. A vote for Socialism gets you some- thing now (either scaring the old parties into doing it, or doing it directly in case a Socialist administra- tion is elected) and clears the way for the rest of the program. Is not this the plainest of common sense? A Socialist vote must not register merely dissatis- faction ; it must be intelligent dissatisfaction. Thus we see that the program of the Socialist Party is the result of a historical, critical and ideal study of society: that it is the official word of the organized nucleus of workers who aim to bring about, by education, organization and agitation, the reali- ties and ideals of the future Socialist commonwealth; that they are working out these aims in their own organization so far as it is possible; that they are not sacrificing the present to the future, but that the present is of necessity paving the way to that future. We thus have a most powerful union of the practical 9^ ABC OF SOCIALISM and the ideal in a purpose that often calls for the greatest sacrifices, even as it promises the greatest hoons. For the first time in the history of the world the oppressed class stands forth conscious of its class interests ; conscious that by its victory alone can the class struggle be ended, and classes of all kinds abolished, since the cause of these modern classes will have come to an end. For the first time that oppressed class stands efficiently organized, with its knowledge of the past as its surest guide to the present and strongest guarantee of the future. We have had something to say in chapter three about war. At present it is, and for many years to come it will be, a burning question in more senses than one. That which Socialists call class-con- sciousness is becoming remarkably evident in the world-wide opposition to war. A further indication as to how Socialism looks upon the greatest of world- conflicts will bring out more strongly the value of the political party and of class-conscious intelligence. It has been said that the war between the Allies and the combined forces of Austria-Hungary and Germany was caused by " the violation of Belgium's neutrality," by " secret diplomacy," by " Prussian militarism " and a host of other things. These are not the causes of the war. Had the violation of Bel- gium's neutrality been to England's advantage, she would have acted just as did Germany. The only trouble with Prussian militarism, in the Allies' eyes, is that it is developed more efficiently than English, French or Russian militarism. Does not militarism exist in all countries, and for the same purpose? And why does " secret diplomacy " exist ? Back of ALL STANDS THE PROFIT SYSTEM ! If it were not for profits, nations (that is, the con- CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 93 trolling capitalists in them) would not desire foreign possessions as markets for the home surplus. If it were not for profits, the nations, as above inter- preted, would not compete in times of peace, thus lead- ing to the inevitable warfare that such competition brings. And the part that the workers here play would be an intensely laughable comedy, were it not so tragic. First, the worker is exploited at home. That is, he is paid much less than the values he creates by his toil. His masters, as a class, heap up such large profits that they must re-invest. They do so. In- vestments at home get crowded; outside fields must be reached. This is called, " developing a foreign market." Now other capitalists in other countries are doing the same thing. It makes no difference under what flag capital flies ; it is looking for profits, and will change flags if more profits are to be got that way. This is exactly what happened recently (1914?) when it became more profitable, as a result of the war's outbreak, to fly an American flag from mer- chant ships. Before then, patriotic American owners flew foreign flags from those same ships. The capi- talists of all nations are after the same thing, then — PROFIT. They all come to the point where the foreign market is needed; they can't all have it at once, so they fight for it. But they know that if the issue were put thus rawly before the workers' eyes, there'd be a precious small army and navy to do the fighting. So, fooling themselves, and the same workers whom they rob during peace, they cook up a dish of " pa- triotism," " national honor " and other ingredients. Secret diplomacy plays its part by keeping from the people all the essential moves in the war which the PEOPLE alone can fight; then the press, the pulpit 94 A B C OF SOCIALISM (the latter often deceived, as well as consciously de- ceiving) and all other channels of public opinion, are filled with the poison of jingoism; the nations are inflamed, and, for the most part, really think them- selves in the right. For being the creatures of their economic environment, they have been unknowingly deceived. Socialism says that the interests of the workers are international, as workers. Religion has nothing to do with the case; you may be whatever you please, and another rich whatever-you-please will overwork and underpay you. You may be of a certain race; but another rich person of that same race will under- pay and overwork you. You are overworked and underpaid not because of your race or religion or color, but because of your economic position ; because you are a worker, and not an owner. As a member OF THE WORKING ciAss you are exploited, the world over ; as a member of the working class you can end that exploitation the world over by international co- operation. What real quarrel has the German worker with his French brother? The Russian worker with his Austrian brother? Aren't they both oppressed by the same evil conditions, from the same evil causes? What earthly sense have they to go shooting each other to pieces ? Will they gain by any " victory " ? Not at all. The owning class will make any gains that are to be made. The working class will con- tribute all the losses, not only in war indemnities, taxes and so forth, but in flesh and blood. A world without profits means a world without war; a world with profits means a world with con- tinual war in one form or another. There is no way out of it except to abolish the profit system and CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 96 substitute Socialism. It may take bloodshed to do this ; if so, it will be blood shed in a good cause, at least, from which the workers will benefit. But it need not take bloodshed. Especially here in Amer- ica, where the ballot is accessible to so many, the bullet should gradually become a thing of the past. Capitalism is getting to understand that its interests are international, to the point that it is even dis- covering that war is a waste — not of human life — but of profits. Should this be so. Capitalism will even go to the extent of abolishing war, but not the PROFIT SYSTEM, which is Capitalism itself. It re- mains for the workers to discover their international interests. Whether the social revolution will be a bloody one or a peaceful one depends largely upon the intelligence of the working class of the world and the quickness with which it embraces Socialism. CHAPTER VII Objections to Socialism — Their Assumptions and Errors THE objections to Socialism are as numerous as ignorance, malice and misunderstanding can make them. On the one hand they come from beneficiaries of the present system who cannot but believe that what is to their interest must necessarily be best for the world at large. They come also from those who enjoy the advantages of the present system and who would willfully deceive the workers, lest the latter wrest from them all their unjust powers. They come, too, from the ignorant, who merely ape the objections of the upper classes, just as they ape their manners. Objections to Socialism, finally, come from honest men and women, who want the truth as eagerly as do Socialists, and who urge their opposition with a sincerity that makes them oppo- nents that are respected and admired by Socialists as well as the sincere public at large. We shall consider, in this chapter, a host of objec- tions to Socialism; not necessarily all, however, as that is neither feasible nor necessary. In consider- ing the objections, the purpose is twofold: first, of course, to answer them; and secondly, to show the logical way of treating all such opposition. During the preceding chapters we have touched upon objec- tions here and there, and answered them, thus antici- pating something of what we have to say here. First to be considered are the more popular and more foolish arguments. That these have come from the " POPULAR " OBJECTIONS 97 mouths of men and women in high public esteem ac- counts for their popularity, but in no wise does it diminish their folly. Atheism. The old charge that Socialism is un- godly arises from several sources. It will be remem- bered that before the public school system was inaugurated in this country, its sponsors were at- tacked with the same charges as are flung at Socialists by the ignoramuses of to-day. This holds true of the Abolitionists, who were similarly attacked. Lincoln, the martyr, was not free from the vilifica- tions of opponents who saw in his liberal policy the seeds of not only atheism, but insanity. Anything which disturbs the old order of things is looked upon by the patrons of that old order as being ungodly and anarchistic. God, to such opponents, would seem always to be on the side of the old and opposed to the new, yet when the new triumphs, people wonder how the old could ever have been defended. The Socialist party being authority for what Socialism is, it is enough to say that it has never made any official declaration of atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, or anything else religious. Religion has been declared by Socialists to be a private issue ; the essential world-wide democracy of Socialism is abso- lutely opposed to prescribing religious belief or non- belief. Socialism is a political and economical mat- ter pure and simple; its leaders may think as they please ; they cannot force those thoughts upon others. We have given, in chapter six, the exact words which you must sign if you wish to become a member of the party. All the official literature is open to you ; it is for you yourself to settle the atheism folly. Re- member: Socialists do not forfeit their right of indi- viduality when they join the party. Prominent ones 98 A B C OF SOCIALISM have written, and obscure ones may write, anti-re- ligious or pro-religious books. They do so cbs indi- viduals; it is their perfect right. As Socialists, they would be the first to admit that they are concerned onlt/ with the industrial emancipation of the working- class through the policies of the Socialist party, and that is the whole story. Free Love. This is the twin brother of the atheism charge. Consider how foolish it is in origin and in assumptions. This argument, like the preceding, has been hurled against all preachers of the new as against the old. Of course " free love " here means " lust," since real love itself cannot be bought, and is, therefore, in a most beautiful sense, free. But lust, on the other hand, must purchase its pleasures. Is not this the story of prostitution? The opponents who urge this objection to Socialism, however, mean this : that under Socialism men and women will mingle freely, with no sexual restraint or legal restriction. This objection is a confused memory of Plato's com- munism and similar institutions, coupled with a mis- understanding of the significance of modem marriage. We know from chapter five that Plato's commun- ism has nothing to do with Socialism. We ought also to know that under modern conditions very little love can be at the basis of marriage, since so many women are forced to marry for a home, while in addition, prostitution competes with every wife for her hus- band's manhood. Moreover, Socialists are not afraid to say what they mean ; they have said so much that is revolutionary, that if they had this, too, to say, they would say so openly. How under the sun could Socialism, even if it were on the program, force people to live without sexual restraint, if they did not wish to ^ Indeed, consider the lack of sexual re- « POPULAR " OBJECTIONS 99 straint practiced to-day by the most determined enemies of Socialism, and then ask yourself if some- thing isn't wrong somewhere with this most foolish of objections. It is by no means too optimistic to say that under Socialism sexual life will be purer than at any other time in the world's history ; for the first time, woman's real equality with man will save her from prostitution, from loveless marriage, from all the conditions that breed family disruption. Socialism Against the Home. This argument is the result of the preceding twin-objections. A god- less, sex-unrestrained world can produce no home, is the cry. But inasmuch as Socialism has nothing to do, one way or the other, with godlessness, and inas- much as Socialism, in its attitude towards and effect on real love will be the very opposite to what its opponents claim, this objection sinks beneath its own weight. Many things have happened in the past to modify the home as an institution. Many things are happening to it to-day, as a result of Capitalism's terrible sway. Vast numbers have no home; vast numbers depend on charity; homes are broken up every day by unnecessary poverty. Such conditions as these Socialism will remedy, and not perpetuate, since it stands as the irreconcilable foe of Capitalism. So, rather than being against the home, and " break- ing it up," Socialism wants to rebuild the homes that Capitalism has shattered. " Dividi/ng Up" This argument, that Socialism believes in dividing up all the wealth of the world equally, comes from brains of the same intelligence as the ones which repeat the objections just con- sidered. Such a purpose has never been promulgated by the Socialist party of any country in the world. This is also a confused remembrance of some com- 100 ABC OF SOCIALISM munistic practices. Socialism does demand, and its effect will be to inaugurate, equal opportunity. It is so ridiculous when a workingman (who is robbed every day of his life, by a conscienceless system, of most of the things that make life worth while) exclaims : " Catch me dividing up my wealth with a hobo who has done nothing at all ! " Precious little wealth he has to " divide up." The dividing up is done by the capitalists, in the shape of dividends — the very word means " something that is to be di- vided ! " No, Socialism has said nothing about divid- ing up the world's wealth equally. Such questions will be of minor importance when men and women, as a result of changed conditions, need not worry about finding a job or receiving decent wages and healthy conditions. Against Private Property. The claim that Social- ism is opposed to private property has led to some of the most ridiculous statements that anti-Socialist literature knows. This claim, like so many others, arises from a confusion between Socialism and com- munism, and also from a misunderstanding of the term " private property " as applied to capital. We have seen that it is communism which believes in dividing up all belongings ; that it is communism which believes in common ownership of all property. The only kind of private property that Socialism will abolish is that kind which is used to produce profits. Socialism does not, as foolish writers have written, believe that the state should own your toothbrush and your fine-comb. It does believe that the making of toothbrushes and the making of fine-combs, and all other commodities, as well as their transportation, etc., should be a worker-government affair, with goods made for use and not for profit. The evil of " POPULAR " OBJECTIONS Wi great fortunes is not the mere greatness of them, or the inequality of wealth that they cause, but the fact that they can be used to accumulate still greater for- tunes for the owners, at the expense of the workers. Every cent of interest collected by a non-worker, by reason of his ownership of money, comes from the sweat of a toiler who is being robbed of part of what he produces in order to pay that interest. Socialism, then, far from being opposed to private property in the personal sense of the word, desires that more of it be owned hy the class that produces it! The workers make the goods that eventually become the private property of somebody or other ; but little indeed of what they make comes to their own homes. Socialism stands for the public ownership and control of all socially necessary industries. The important words in that sentence are " socially necessary indus- tries." Your piano is yours; Socialism is glad you have it, so to speak; Socialism doesn't want it. What Socialism is after is the industry of piano- making; it will see to it that no private owner uses that industry, or any other, for grinding profits out of underpaid workers ; it will see to it that such an industry, as well as all the other socially necessary activities (railroads, mines, factories, means of com- munication, etc.), will be owned by the nation as a whole and operated for the nation as a whole. Socialism is Too Material. We have touched, in chapter five, upon one of the reasons why Socialism has been accused of gross materialism. Socialism, as we have learned, does not concern itself with mat- ters spiritual, although it is true that under Social- ism people will have more time to worship and more money to spend, if they so wish, on those same churches that to-day are being abandoned through 10^ ABC OF SOCIALISM lack of support. Socialism, being a politico-indus- trial movement, is, as far as these things are material, a material affair. It is rather peculiar, too, that many of the very accusers of materialism are the first to ask, " How are you going to determine people's pay under Socialism? " The word material has many different meanings ; if it means non-spiritual, then Socialism is certainly material; it does not pre- tend to meddle in pure religion. But if by material- ism is meant sordid^ coarse, caring only for the body and not the mind, then Socialism is clearly not in that class. The effect of Socialism will be to give people more time for mental culture, for higher things than living out a weary existence as a wage- slave. Just as the body is the material structure upon which the soul of man in its highest manifesta- tions of music, art and science is nourished, so will Socialism provide the world with a material structure upon which the world-soul will rise to ever higher and higher manifestations of its limitless possibilities. For Socialism is material in its relation to the world only as the body is material in its relation to the mind ; it is a sane, healthy and necessary materialism^ having nothing to do with those meanings of the word which denote sordid preoccupation with lower pleas- ures. This latter form of materialism has been bred by Capitalism, and will die out only with the inauguration of Socialism. Nothing can be more material, in the bad sense, than the merciless enslave- ment of man by man which Capitalism renders neces- sary. Nothing can be less material, in such a sense, than Socialism's aim to abolish such enslavement. " You Can't Change Human Nature.^' This phrase used to be more common than it is ; it is still dinned into Socialist ears. What is education but a "POPULAR" OBJECTIONS 103 change in human nature? Do not human beings give their lives for each other in danger, as well as enslave each other in business? Is human nature a fixed quantity, a simple essence, or is it the accumu- lation of thousands of years of experience — a com- plex, varying quality ? Is it really so human to cause the untold misery of to-day ? Is this the " human- ity " which preachers defend and warring nations claim they are fighting for? Is it this " humanity " which humane societies are formed for the purpose of conserving? Is there not a difference between the " humanity " of a hungry man who will steal, or even kill for food, and that same man, satisfied and seeking to spread his satisfaction? Human nature is what the surroundings .ma ke it. No*"!mm or woman is ahsoluiely individual. Into their blood has gone the heredity of parents, grand- parents and previous generations. Into their minds go the ideas and customs of the present social en- vironment. Few can overcome these influences in part; none can overcome them entirely. Human nature, indeed, is often a class affair, just as are heredity and environment. The " human na- ture " of the rich is in many respects different from the " human nature " of the poor. The only respect in which all mankind can be said to be the same is in the instinct of self-preservation and preservation of loved ones. And that instinct of self-preservation leads to the non-working owner to want more profit, while the all-producing toiler wants more wages. Then comes the inevitable class-struggle, as we have seen. Socialism does not depend upon any violent change in this fundamental instinct of self-preservation. Indeed, it appeals to that instinct in the toilers; it io4j a b c of socialism educates it ; it develops it and gives it interpreta- tion ; it prevents that instinct, as far as possible, from assuming violent forms. While there is hunger, it will be human nature to steal; when there will be plenty, that phase of supposedly ineradicable human nature will disappear. When the " can't-change- liuman-nature " opponents make their objections, they forget that the world is full of misdirected altru- ism, misdirected self-sacrifice — much more than Socialism asks for to-day, and certainly more than will be required when Socialism comes into its own. " Who'll Do the Dirty Work? " This is another of the posers that believers in the Cooperative Com- monwealth are asked. And frequently it is asked by men and women who are doing the dirty work to-day, let alone who will do it under Socialism. The idea in their minds is this : people will not do disagreeable work unless well paid for it; therefore, under Social- ism, people being well paid, will disdain to do the more disagreeable labor. All of which would be very nice, if it were sensible. But it isn't. In the first place, the disagreeable work to-day is the lowest-paid; ac- cording to our questioners it should be the highest. And the low pay is not determined by the nature of the work at all, but by the number of men and women who are competing for the chance to earn a living. Are sewer-diggers our highest paid men to-day? Most " dirty work," so-called, is unskilled labor ; un- skilled labor is numerous — hence the low pay. It is not necessary to go into details about the future. The future has an accommodating way of taking care of itself. Such questions as, " How will pay be determined under Socialism.'^ " are really not so important as they look. The important thing is, that with the system's robbery abolished, the workers « POPULAR " OBJECTIONS 105 will get what they really earn as social producers, and that means they will be much better off than to- day. Exactly how much better off, only the future can tell. We need worry very little about that! Similarly, the future will take care of the " dirty work " question. With the enormous strides made in machinery and invention, most of it may be done through these agencies. The " dirty work " of to- day could be made much more clean if the contractors cared less for profits and more for human considera- tions. What is more, there is a good deal work more " dirty " than the kind which the questioners have in mind. Experimentation with germs, investigation of mines, care of certain diseases — these are a sample of the kind of dirty work which men reckon it an honor to carry on. It is higher paid than the other kind, not because it is " dirtier," but because there is less competition in that line. So that we see this objection to be based upon the erroneous assumption that the nature of work de- termines its reward ; also, that the question asks too great exactness from the future. If the only objec- tion against Socialism offered by the performers of to-day's " dirty work " lies here, they need quickly dispel it. For, even should there be no change in inventions and machinery, that same work will re- ceive more pay than to-day because it will be carried on by the nation, for the service of all and not for the private profits of a few. Government Ownership a Failure. A good many people, not knowing the distinction between govern- ment ownership and Socialism which we have given in chapter six, regard arguments against Govern- ment Ownership as arguments against Socialism. We have learned that this is far from logical. Social- 106 ABC OF SOCIALISM ists approve government ownership, but only as a step towards Socialism. It is not true, however, as has been averred by some, that government owner- ship is a failure. It is a well-known fact, for instance, right here in the United States, that our postal system would run at a profit, were it not for the excessive rates charged the government by the railroads. This has been shown in more than one official report by United States Postmaster Generals. For instance, Carl D. Thompson, Director of the Information Department of the Socialist Party of the United States, has refuted the arguments against government ownership in his pamphlet entitled " Pub- lic Ownership of Railways." He has also shown in the Socialist Congressional Campaign book for 1914 that the railroads of this country have managed by one means or another to keep the charges of carrying mail far above every other rate. " They get from two to four times as much for hauling mails as they do from express companies for equal service. The railroads, moreover," he continues, " rob the gov- ernment of $5,386,000 by charging in rentals for cars each year more than the cars are worth altogether." (See report of Postmaster General Vilas, 1887.) In addition to this, the privately-owned railroads cheat the government by a clever system of false weight. (See report of Postmaster General Wanamaker, 1893.) Obviously, with the railroads in the govern- ment's hands, even under the present system, the postal department would be a paying institution, and the railroads would give better service in every way. The same has been shown in other industries. It is of course natural to find many of the defend- ers of Capitalism against government ownership, for. the same reason that Socialists favor it ; it is a step ACADEMIC OBJECTIONS 107 towards Socialism. At the same time, we should be on our guard against the developments outlined in chapter six. Socialism Causes Class-Antagonism. Of course, the obvious answer to this objection is that Socialism merely points out the fact that classes exist, and explains why. Socialism, as we shall see in consider- ing another objection presently, aims to abolish all classes through the victory of the working class. Classes, as we found in our historical survey, have always existed in antagonism to each other. Capi- talism has given the class struggle a violent impulse, and Socialism gives to the most important class in the struggle a well-defined program and purpose. It stirs up not class hatred, but class-consciousness, class-solidarity. It recognizes that the capitalists, as a class, are much more aware of their interests than are the workers, as a class. It educates the workers in their class interests. But Socialism cannot cause class antagonism any more than a doctor can cause a disease when he examines a patient and tells him he is ill. The doctor diagnoses the disease already there; he can cure it all the more readily because he has hit upon its cause. Socialism does the same for society. It points out the class-struggle already th^re, and can cure it all the more readily because it has hit upon the cause. That Socialism Would Destroy Incentive. This objection is made on the assumption that the present system offers an incentive for economic activity. But what is the nature of this activity? It is cer- tainly not the useful wealth producing activity of the workingman, for all he receives is a mere pittance in the form of wages. Capitalism does offer an incen- tive, but it is not for useful work. It is for the useless 108 ABC OF SOCIALISM work of the money lenders, brokers, railroad mag- nates, etc., or for the non-workers who own stocks and bonds. The pittance that is paid for useful work is so small that instead of being an incentive for work it is the very opposite. Consequently almost all people seek to avoid useful work under capitalism, knowing that certain useless activities pay more. To-day the worker " makes a living " by giving up the best portion of his life in producing useful things. Instead of giving him a mere living, Socialism pro- poses to give him the full social value of his labor rather than merely a portion of it. Yet our critics say that Socialism offers no incentive. That is, if a ditch digger gets $1.75 per day for his work, that is an incentive, say our critics; but if Socialism offers him $4.00 for the same work, that is lack of incentive. This merely shows the class viewpoint of our critics. Socialists are proud that Socialism will destroy the kind of incentive capitalism offers. Capitalism's incentive has prostituted art and science. The modem " artist " is busy designing advertising dis- plays, while the modern " scientist " is busy adulter- ating foods and other goods. Such are the results of capitalism's incentive. By substituting an incentive for useful work in place of profit making activity, society and its mem- bers will be the gainers. With all people assured a better livelihood than can be obtained to-day, the artist and scientist will have the opportunity to expand their useful powers which to-day are crushed by commercialism. Capitalist incentive is only for those living on the backs of others ; Socialism incen- tive is for all, not for a few. To-day the worker must work or soon die ; that is compulsion, not incen- tive. Under Socialism the worker will get the full ACADEMIC OBJECTIONS 109 social value of his labor. That is, a real incentive for life will then be just what the worker makes it. That Socialism Means Mob Rule. This criticism is in itself an admission of the class character of modem government. So accustomed are the ruling class to having their own way that they characterize the carrying out of popular demands as mob rule. Socialism intends that the majority of all the people shall rule ; there will be no superior (?) political class. This is but pure democracy. Of course, this is re- pugnant to our self-elected superiors, and hence they style true democracy as mob rule. Socialism offers, for the first time, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Those who object to this kind of government must object to Socialism. That Socialism Means Class Government. This objection is made with the best of intentions. Will not Socialism be a class government where the work- ing class will rule over other classes ? Is it true that the object of the Socialist Party is to obtain the possession of the government by the working class, but the establishing of Socialism means the abolition of the profit system. Consequently, all classes, in- cluding the working class, will cease to exist as classes. Hence a new phase in government will ap- pear. Heretofore, all class struggles were for the purpose of empowering one class at the expense of others. Since socialism arises from the struggle of the lowest social class, once that class attains power there can be no lower classes to dominate, and hence all social classes will be abolished. Tliat Socialism Means a Government of Office Holders. On the surface, this objection to Socialism would appear to be warranted. We know that to- day every increase in government activity means an 110 ABC OF SOCIALISM increase in the number of office holders. Does not SociaHsm imply, then, a vast army of non-productive government officials? Without a knowledge of Economic Determinism this objection would be difficult to answer; with such a knowledge the objection falls. All government is based on the economic conditions surrounding it and cannot exist unless it fits these conditions. Modern government is essentially a class government and numerous officials are necessary to maintain the com- plex relations between modern government and the ruling class. As the scope of government increases the complexity of these relations increases, and hence more officials are needed. Since Socialism consti- tutes a change in the relationship between the people and the means of production, a change in the nature of government must take place. Socialism will con- stitute a government of industry where the affairs of each industry will be settled by the workers in that industry. The various property relations now exist- ing among owners of industries will have been wiped out, and consequently all government offices regulat- ing such relations will have been abolished. There will be a central government, but its activities will deal with the correlating of the various industries, the same as a central labor union acts towards the individual labor unions in a locality. Socialism then will not require the vast army of officials which mere government ownership would necessitate. That Socialism Will Encourage Graft. An ex- amination of the nature of graft will reveal the folly of this objection. Graft is purely capitalistic in origin ; it comes from the desires of private industrial establishments to obtain special privileges. In order to gain such privileges government officials are liber^ ACADEMIC OBJECTIONS 111 ally rewarded for what aid they may render. Graft, is then a result of the private ownership of public necessities, and with the replacement of private owner- ship of industry by public or social ownership, graft will be automatically abolished. We have now considered enough objections, of both popular and academic character, to demonstrate the ability of Socialism to withstand them all. We have shown that in many cases Capitalism has already done what it pretends to fear Socialism will do. We have attempted to be strictly logical; we have appealed only to facts and common sense, not to prejudice or enthusiasm. The case now rests with the reader. In closing the first part of this little book we do so with the hope that it will bring light to more than one perplexed worker. The intelligent reader, by this time, has a fairly adequate knowledge of the modem practical and theoretical socialism. He is ready to read the more advanced works on the subject and pro- ceed to the specialized branches which open up on every hand. But should he not care to do so, he knows enough to make his socialism intelligent and sufficient to form the basis of a vote backed by reason and judgment. PART TWO THE A B C OF ECONOMICS THE A B C OF ECONOMICS The Labor Theory of Value — Value of Labor — Surplus Value — Price — Profit, Interest, Rent — Capital — Price of Labor-Power (Note. Everything dealt with in this chapter, unlets otherwise stated, assumes the presence of com- petition and the absence of monopolies.) WE realize that commodities exchange with each other at any given time in certain pro- portions. This exchange is generally ac- complished through the medium of money. Thus let us say that A has an overcoat which he sells to B for a specified sum of money. With this sum, let us supn pose that A buys two pairs of shoes from a third party, whom we shall call C. What A has really done is to exchange his overcoat for two pairs of shoes, or, in other words, the value of the coat is equal to twice the value of a pair of shoes. Value, then, is the proportional quantity for which one com- modity is exchanged with other commodities. We can thus set down varying quantities of differ- ent commodities whose values are equivalent. What determines this value.'' Before answering this ques- tion a few examples will better prepare us to appre- ciate what follows. Scientists tell us that one mile equals 1.61 kilometers (the French standard of dis- tance-measurement). How do they determine this.? They take a fixed distance and apply it to both of the above distances, and find that if this fixed distance goes 161 times into a kilometer it goes 100 times into a mile. The ratio 1.61 is thus established. But in 115 116 A B C OF ECONOMICS order to get this ratio they must employ a measure which is common to both distances. In this case a fixed distance (one one-hundredth of a mile) is the measure. Or again, we are told that a cubic foot of mercury has a weight equal to that of 13.6 cubic feet of water. Now it is evident that mercury and water are two different substances. We could not write an expres- sion of equality between them unless there was some- thing in common between them, by which a common relation could be expressed. Well, both substances are liquids, but we know from experience that such a property does not affect the weight relationship. The proper relationship can be determined by the use of a proper unit, say a one-pound weight. By ap- plying this unit we find that a cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 pounds, while a cubic foot of mercury weighs 84«9 pounds. Dividing both quantities by 62.4 we get the ratio 1 to 13.6. The value of commodities is similarly determined, by the application of the proper unit of measure. Experience shows us that the amount of socially necessary labor power contained in a commodity de- termines its value. Thus, before the invention of the cotton gin, a large amount of labor was required to remove the seeds from the fiber. The value of cleaned cotton, therefore, was comparatively high. The invention of the cotton gin, however, greatly reduced the amount of labor necessary to clean cot- ton, and as a result, the value of clean cotton fell considerably. What applies to cotton applies to all other com- modities. It is a fact that improved methods of pro- duction which resulted in a saving of labor were followed by a reduction in the price of the commodity THEORIES OF VALUE 117 thus produced. This is vividly illustrated by the history of the price of shoes, steel ware, and other goods. The best recent illustration of this is found in the production of crude rubber. Not more than several years ago this commodity was collected in vast forests by methods requiring great outputs of labor. To-day rubber trees are artificially culti- vated, and the gathering and treatment of the pro- duct has been systematized, resulting in a considera- ble saving of labor. This saving of labor, in turn, re- sulted in a 60% reduction in the price of crude rub- ber. On the other hand, there are cases where more labor than formerly has been required to produce certain commodities ; in such cases, prices have risen. The value of a commodity, then, is determined by the socially necessary labor power contained therein. The expression " socially necessary " is of extreme importance. Thus, after the invention of the cotton gin, the value of all cotton fell. Cotton cleaned by the hand was just as cheap as cotton cleaned by the machine, although the former had consumed more labor. In spite of this consumption of extra labor the cotton was not more valuable because the extra labor contained therein was Twt socially necessary. Accordingly, waste labor, or useless labor, creates no value, since it is not socially necessary. Another way of expressing the same idea is to say that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor power socially necessary to reproduce the commodity. Modern economists disagree amongst themselves as to what determines value. Some say that scarcity is the cause ; others advance the utility (marginal utility) theory, and still others support the theory of supply and demand. Let us consider these theories. 118 ABC OF ECONOMICS The Scarcity Theory states that value is deter- mined by the scarcity of a commodity. The more scarce it is, the greater its value, is the idea. The Marginal Utility Theory ^ states that value depends upon the satisfaction derived from the consumption of goods. Neither of these theories is sound enough to withstand analysis. The value of goods is social and artificial in charac- ter, and is due to artificial relations of the exchange of commodities. The basis of value must then be social. Scarcity, however, is a natural property and is independent of artificial relationship. It there- fore cannot be a fit measure of value. In fact, some of the most abundant substances are more expensive than scarcer ones. For instance, aluminium consti- tutes from 6 to 10 per cent, of the earth's crust, whereas carbon constitutes about 1 per cent. Now, although coal makes up but a fraction of all the car- 1 The theory of marginal utility as the cause of value is based on the law of diminishing utility. This law states that succes- sive consumption of a given article yields less and less satisfac- tion. The satisfaction derived is called utility. Utility, we are told, can be measured by what people are willing to give for it. Then the conservative economists reason as follows: Suppose a number of apples were offered to us, in successiwi. If the first were the only apple available, its fragrance and taste would so appeal to us that we would be willing to give, say a dollar for it. A second apple would yield satisfaction, but not so much as the first, hence we would be willing to give only 80 cents for it. And so on with the others. If now, these apples exist as a stock, all will have the same price, which will be the utility afforded by the last apple. This smallest utility is called marginal utility. The above sophistry is called a "psychological analysis of consumption." A more truthful estimate of this theory is that it is a conventional and unwarranted assumption expressed in technical language. It is not in accord with experience and the reason why it cannot be a cause of value is given in the text above. THEORIES OF VALUE 119 bon, nevertheless coal is very much cheaper than alu- minium. Again, oxygen is the most abundant element on earth, and yet it is much more expensive than many substances which, when compared to it are not only scarce, but rare. The reason, in both these cases, is that it requires more labor to extract aluminium than coal on the one hand, and on the other, it re- quires much more labor to obtain oxygen than sulphur, salt, iron, and so on. The marginal utility theory also falls to the ground in that the consumption of commodities (on which it is based) is an individual and not a social affair. It cannot, therefore, explain a social relationship. In addition, experience shows that the value is entirely independent of utility except that no article can have value unless it possesses utility, real or imaginary. This qualification is accepted as essential in all theories of value. The Theory of Supply and Demand appears on the surface to be more scientific. It is based on the observation that market prices rise with decreased supply or increased demand, and fall with increased supply or decreased demand. In the first place, Marxian economics draws a sharp distinction between value and price (see Price further on), and secondly, supply-and-demand does not even offer a satisfactory explanation of price. We are told by the intelligent supporters of this theory that retail prices do not follow the market fluctuations, and that supply-and- demand applies rather to wholesale prices. But goods sold at wholesale are in the process of distribu- tion and are not being exchanged, hence supply and demand do not affect values, but merely the prices in process of distribution. Now let us assume, for instance, that the supply 120 A B C OF ECONOMICS equals the demand. Then the tendency to raise values is equally offset by the tendency to lower prices; accordingly, our commodity should have no value at all if the supply-and-demand theory holds true. When such a case occurs, however (and in the long run it occurs with all commodities), we find a very definite value stated ; this is indeed the standard market price. The truth of the matter is that market variations due to supply and demand offer no data from which conclusions as to value may be drawn. We observe that such variations cause fluctuations in price and hence the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that supply and demand cause price-fluctuations. Price fluctuations, however, are a very different thing from price and value.^ In contrast with the above, the labor theory of value deals with goods in the process of exchange, and not in distribution. It deals, in other words, with value, and not with its fluctuations. Again, it is more scientific than the other theories in that it gives a suitable unit by which value may be measured. Every quantitative expression involves the use of such a unit.^ The Value of Labor. How is the value of labor 2 It is as ridiculous to say that supply and demand are a coAise of value as it is to say that the depth of the ocean is determined by the height of the waves. The height of the waves merely cause a fluctuation of the depth, and supply and demand merely cause a fluctuation in price. 3 The labor theory of value is not original with Karl Marx; it was taken over by him bodily from the classical economists and was generally accepted in his day as the cause of value. It was after Marx had developed his idea of surplus value from the labor theory of value that new theories became prom- inent. The idea of surplus value, a logical conclusion from the labor theory of value, was too revolutionary to be taught ! LABOR AND COMMODITY 121 power to be determined? By the identical method with which the value of other commodities is deter- mined; namely, the quantity of labor socially neces- sary to produce (reproduce) it. In order to produce the labor-power, which is inseparable from the indi- vidual laborer, not only must the toiler be fed and sheltered, but when he is worn out (unable to work) there must be another to replace him. In other words, the value of an individual's labor power is de- termined by the value of the necessaries required to produce, develop, maintain and perpetuate his kind. This does not mean that the value of labor is that which will allow a bare existence. The standard of living is social, and the value of labor is measured by the necessities required to enable the laborer to live up to this traditional standard.* This does not mean that the value of all labor is equal. Since it requires much more economic effort to produce and maintain an engineer than to produce and maintain an unskilled worker, the value of the engineer's labor power is higher than that of the unskilled worker. This difference in value is re- flected in the higher wages which the engineer re- ceives. Surplus Valu^. The value of labor power, then, is independent of what it produces. If a worker can produce enough in five hours to maintain himself, his wages will correspond to a value measured by his five hours' labor. If, however, he does not stop at the end of that five hours, but continues another five hours (working ten hours in all), he produces a sur- 4 Before leaving this topic it must be recalled that the labor theory of value deals only with such goods as are readily pro- duced. It does not deal with such things as rare works of art, historic treasures, etc. 122 ABC OF ECONOMICS plus value, measured by the extra five hours' work for which he is not paid. Surplus value, then, is vmpaid labor. This surplus forms the fund from which profit, rent, interest and socially unnecessary labor receive their revenue. If real wages increase, then this surplus decreases ; when real wages decrease, then this surplus increases. A distinction must here be made between nominal wages and real wages. Nominal wages consists of the actual money a worker gets for his labor; real wages consists of that which the worker can actually get for the money he receives. Thus it is possible, and frequently happens, that in spite of a rise in nominal wages, real wages are lowered and surplus value is increased. For instance, the worker gets a raise of 10% in wages. But the cost of living goes up 20%. The nominal wages of the worker have increased: that is, he is actually receiving more money ; but, due to the rise in the cost of living, the purchasing power of his money has been so weakened as to constitute really a step backward. In other words, his real wages have gone down. The secret of profit, rent and interest lie in surplus value. This surplus value can be obtained only when the laborer produces more than he consumes. This is the significance of the wage-system. When So- cialists denounce the wage system, they do not de- nounce the system wherein labor is rewarded in money-payments ; they denounce the system wherein labor is paid only a part of the value it produces. Sometimes this sentiment is expressed as a demand " for the full product of labor." As already stated, this means, not the actual ownership of the things created by labor, but a reward equal to the value LABOR AND COMMODITY 123 added to the commodity by the labor performed. Price. The price of a commodity is the selling price of that good expressed in money. If goods exchanged at their value, the price of a commodity would be the value of that commodity expressed in gold, which is the basis of money. But prices, as a general rule, do not express the value of commodities ; usually, for any given commodity, the average price is above or below its value (as expressed in gold). If this is the case, it becomes evident that a study of prices is not necessarily a study of values. This is an error which modern economists make; hence their misunderstanding of the labor theory of value on the one hand, and their numerous faulty theories of value on the other. The question then arises, why do not goods sell at their values? Capitalism has developed an economic law of its own. This is, namely, that the rates of profit in the various industries tend to be equal. This is a result of competition, and consequently prices are affected by this competition so as to yield this rate of profit. Accordingly goods are sold practically always above the cost of production. The price at which the goods are sold, however, is generally above or below its value. Value and price do coincide only when the sum total prices of all commodities are com- pared with their sum total values. Under Capital- ism, the law of value becomes only a tendency when applied to any one price. The operation of this is readily observed when changes in the productivity of labor takes place. When no such changes take place the law of value is still operating; it is, however, obscured by the results of competition, which give the appearance of causes to superficial effects. We know that prices of the same commodity vary 1^4i ABC OF ECONOMICS in its different stages of distribution. The manufac- turer sells his goods to a wholesale merchant, who sells it at a higher price to a retail merchant, who in turn sells it at a still higher price to the people. Here, for the first time, the commodity is exchanged for the value of the workers' labor power in it on the one hand, and the surplus value of others. In practice the process of distribution may be more complex, and consequently the commodity commands a great vari- ety of prices in the course of distribution. Those who maintain that prices directly represent value (and this covers all who do not accept the labor theory of value) are confronted with the following questions : Which of the aforementioned various prices of the same commodity corresponds to the value of the com- modity ? Why has the same commodity different " values," since the supply, demand, scarcity and marginal utility are the same whether it is sold wholesale or retail ? If the mere process of distribution creates "value," what is the need of working; why cannot everybody grow rich by merely distributing goods and live on the increased " value " thus created.'* A satisfactory explanation of price must show how the same commodity with its fixed value can have the various prices indicated above. Karl Marx gives such an explanation in " Capital," Vol. Ill, and at the same time shows that this law of price is a result of the law of value, modified, however, by competition. The law of value, thus modified, applies to the exchange relation of commodities; this exchange, however, does not take place until the commodities have been sold to the ultimate consumer. Hence the law of value, modified by competition, applies to goods LABOR AND COMMODITY 126 sold at retail. When the capitalist system is working we know that goods are sold for more than what was paid for them ; this is the essence of all business. Then again, since competition creates the tendency for profits to become equal in all branches of industry, we can lay down the following law of price. The price of a commodity is equal to the socially necessary cost of production plus the average rate of profit.^ Thus a commodity produced in factories is practically al- ways sold at such a price as to yield approximately the average rate of profit. The wholesaler who buys it sells it at a still higher price to the retailer, who, in turn, sells it for a still higher price to the con- sumer. Retail prices are the most stationary and are com- paratively unaffected by the daily fluctuations of the wholesale market. This itself shows first, the super- ficial character of supply and demand and second, the working of our labor law of value. In case of war, etc., it becomes more difficult to produce certain commodities. Then retail prices go up from de- creased supply, hut also because more labor is re- quired to produce the commodity than was previously necessary. The decreased supply is, then, merely a symptom of the true cause of the higher price. Thus in what are sometimes called good years a given num- 5 If price were determined by supply and demand, or mar- ginal utility we should expect that the price of a commodity would be as frequently below the cost of production as it is above it. If this were so then the net profits obtained by the capitalist class as a whole would amount to nothing. We know that such is not the case. On the contrary, cost of production is to a great extent the cause of supply and demand. When the cost of production is low a given investment yields a com- paratively large supply; when cost of production is high a d© crease in output results. 1^6 ABC OF ECONOMICS ber of men can gather a large crop ; if, however, the year is poor then the same number of men can gather only a smaller amount. In other words more labor is required for each bushel of wheat, oats, etc., and consequently retail prices rise m bad years. The law of value is then a statement of the pre- vailing tendency which governs the exchange of goods under capitalism ; it is not a statement of how things ought to exchange, or how they will exchange under Socialism. Competition introduces the tendency for profits to equalize and accordingly the law of value is not directly applicable to price. Market price de- pends essentially upon the average cost of produc- tion plus the average rate of profit. Supply and demand cause a fluctuation of this price but in the long run the upward fluctuations neutralize the down- ward ones. Most capitalistic professors of economics recog- nize that the cost of production is practically always below the selling price. Hence they say that value determines the cost of production. In a sense this is true, in that the value of a commodity is deter- mined by the necessary labor power embodied in a commodity, and this labor power always receives less than the value it has created. Otherwise there could be no profit. But this is merely another way of stating the doctrine of surplus value, which the same professors so strenuously deny. Profit, Interest y Rent. From what we have already considered, it is seen that profit is only a part of surplus-value, for what forms one man's profit be- comes another's expense. Commercially, profit is the difference between selling prices and cost prices, the latter including all expenses. The basis of profit is surplus value, which results from the paying of PROFIT, INTEREST, RENT 127 men for the use of their labor power and not for what is produced. If our industrial capitalist has borrowed money from a financial source (private capitalist or bank) he must pay interest upon it. To him this is an expense, and since it reduces the surplus value avail- able for himself, it also reduces profits. To the money lender who receives the interest as well as the original loan, it is a clear gain. This interest can buy some of the goods produced by the employees of the industrial capitalist. It is hence a portion of the product which they cannot buy back and there- fore is a part of surplus value, though a source of expense to the industrial capitalist. Rent. The word rent (or ground rent) as used in economics means the payment made for the use of land and other natural resources. Land as such asks for no payment, but since it is privately owned and its occupation is essential for economic activity a toll is extracted by the owner in the form of rent. This, too, represents unpaid labor and is, hence, a portion of surplus value though not of profit. Such rent has interesting laws of its own. (See " Capi- tal," Vol. III.) Common rent, that is, house or building rent, is more complex in character. It is a mixture of neces- sary and unnecessary payments. Among the former are maintenance, depreciation, and taxes ; among the latter are ground rent and interest on invested capital. In the payment of ground rent the pay- ment represents exploitation of the producer, while part of payment of house rent (the unnecessary part) represents exploitation of the consumer. In the past, a number of Socialist writers con- sidered that the taxes were paid by the receivers of 1^ A B C OF ECONOMICS surplus value and hence did not affect the working class. But as a little thinking will show, such taxes are '' socially necessary " expenses of production, and hence are paid by the ultimate consumer. This fact has been recognized by the Socialist parties of several nations and hence their platforms call for the substitution of direct taxes in place of indirect ones. Indirect taxes are paid by the consumer, since such taxes can be shifted, whereas direct taxes (like the inheritance and income taxes) cannot be shifted as a general rule.^ Capital. To the average person this word means the investment on which an industry is run. In most of our colleges a different meaning is put on the word. In those institutions capital is defined as " wealth used in the production of wealth." Under this defi- nition a carpenter's saw is capital as is also a factory building; a painter's brush is considered capital as well as the ship he is painting. Socialists have a well founded objection to this definition on the ground that it is too inclusive and thereby leads to a lack of clearness. Thus, in the above example, the carpenter's saw is his own prop- erty and is used only when he himself is working ; and so with the painter and his brush. The owners of these tools get their living by using these tools them- selves. This is not the case with the factory-build- ing or ship; in this case the people using either do not own them. Nor do the owners have to work in them in order to get their profits. They get their incomes from the mere ownership of the factory or ship. Hence the great difference between the saw and the brush on the one hand, and the building and 6 The tax on land values is also a direct tax and will be used by the workers to help shift some of the burden of taxation. ASPECTS OF CAPITAL 129 ship on the other. But they are all " wealth used for the production of wealth " and hence Socialists call them " the tools or means of production." The ship and building also represent what Socialists call Capi- tal. Again, the factory owner may borrow or lay aside money to meet expenses. This, too, constitutes capital in the Socialist sense of the word. Capital, as Socialists define it, is value used to exploit labor. By exploiting labor is meant the extraction of surplus value which is created but not received by the workers. And so buildings, machin- ery, raw materials, funds, etc., constitute capital. On the other hand a man who uses his own tools exploits no one and hence his tools do not constitute capital but merely means of production. The tools or means of production constitute capital onltf when they are owned hy others who do not use them for production, hut make them the mediu/m of exploitation. It is this separation of ownership which character- izes modern society and hence the present economic system is called the Capitalist System. Production is carried on by the owners of Capital, who are called Capitalists, for the purpose of making a profit. The profit and other forms of surplus value is taken solely by virtue of ownership. The people cannot work unless they use these tools of modern industry. The owners do not care to have these tools used unless they can get " returns." By virtue of their ownership they become the modem master-class and are enabled to get a part of the surplus value created by the labor which uses these tools. And so, too, the financial capitalist, by virtue of his ownership of money which the industrial capitalist must have, is enabled to demand and receive his re- 130 ABC OF ECONOMICS turns which are a part of the surplus value created. And what applies to the financial capitalist applies to the landlord. These groups of capitalists, while a source of ex- pense to each other, nevertheless receive their income from one source, namely, surplus-value, and hence are united when confronted with labor problems. They instinctively recognize that the demands of labor can only be granted at their expense. Socialists seek the abolition of the Capitalist Sys- tem. This can not be done by attacking groups or individuals ; the capitalist class is created hy, and is not the creator of, the capitalist system. They are the beneficiaries of it and therefore seek to maintain it, but that is only natural. Socialism cannot come about without the abolition of capital. But this does not mean, as some half informed professors think, that Socialists wish to do without modem machinery, buildings, etc. By " capital " they have a much clearer concept than have the professors of economics. By the abolition of capital they mean the abolition of the private ownership of the tools of production which allows one class to live on the labor of another. The excuses offered for the taking of ground rent and interest are so feeble that we will pay but little attention to them. The truth of the matter is that the owners of land and money capital are in a position to demand them. The use of capital allows the exploitation of labor and the consequent production of surplus value created through the use of property. Those economists who uphold the present system state, as we have already seen, that labor, land and capital produce wealth."^ Therefore, they say the wealth produced should be divided between laborers, 7 Wealth means a collection of goods having value. ASPECTS OF CAPITAL 131 landlords and capitalists. We have already seen the double and therefore faulty character of their defini- tion of capital. Furthermore, labor cannot be separ- ated from the laborer. Land and capital, however, are entirely different from landlords and capitalists. If land and capital demand a share in the wealth pro- duced, then we should pay our rent and interest to land and capital and not to landlords and capitalists. But this is absurd. So is the assertion that land and capital produce wealth. The products of land alone have no value. Only when land is cultivated, that is, when labor is applied to land, do the products have value. This value is thus a product of labor alone. Mechanically speak- ing, the products come from the ground, but the value of that product is a social and not a natural result, and is due entirely to the labor expended in plowing, sowing, weeding, reaping, storing, transporting, etc. If agricultural products required no labor, their value would be nothing. Thus land in itself although it is a factor of production, produces no value and hence no wealth. The so called productivity ^ of capital is in the same class with so called productivity of land.^ Our economists confuse the increased production of ^oods with increased value. The use of capital in the form of machinery results in an increase in output. But as we have seen in the discussion of value, the social result of the use of machinery js to reduce values in proportion to the decrease in the total labor re- quired. This decrease in value is reflected in de- creased prices. Machmery produces no valtie; it is a means of making labor more efficient, Disregard- 8 Productivity relates to production of value and not of goods. 18« A B C OF ECONOMICS ing immediate effects, the use of machinery reduces values, enabling the worker to reproduce his wages in less time. Consequently, there remains a greater period of time during which surplus value may be produced. Machinery, while thus not increasing values, does increase profits. The short sighted economist con- fuses the production of profits with the production of value and hence thinks his theory is supported by facts. Capital by itself is inert; it produces no value; its possession does enable the extraction of values created by the working class. The apologists for the present economic system use other arguments attempting to justify the " re- ward of capital." The " wages of superintendence " is another one of these. The capitalist class, they tell us, is entitled to its income because they manage or superintend the industries. When superintend- ence means the coordination of various departments of production it is real work and is entitled to wages. As a matter of fact, practically all such managing is done by employees who receive a salary and who do not receive profits, although in some establishments a portion of this salary is paid in the form of a " share in the profits." This " profit sharing " fools only those people who have not received such shares. As already mentioned a group of the capitalist class, as Directors of Industries, safeguard profits. Such activities do not produce values. The so-called " wages of superintendence " falls to the ground when applied to the capitalist class. It does apply partly to the so-called profits of the middle class. When capitalists do perform work as railroad presi- dents, etc., they receive extra compensation. When the problem is squarely faced there can be ASPECTS OF CAPITAL 1S8 no apologizing. The income of the notorious Harry Thaw continued just the same whether he was in the insane asylum or not. Certainly while confined there he could not exercise " executive ability " in superin- tending industries ; and we all know how much " su- perior brains " he has to exercise that superintend- ence. Or again the helpless Astor infant will be re- ceiving vast incomes from its capital. It certainly is not managing industry, yet it receives its income. It is of little use to dodge the issue. Every intelli- gent person recognizes that under the present system, capitalists can get an income without performing useful work. The so called risk that capitalists take is another " argument." The risks they take are risks of not making a profit. Such risks produce no value and hence are entitled to no reward. If the capitalist class receives vast sums for trying to, make a profit, what should the just reward of the working class be who daily risk their lives in serving society.? The capitalist class do take monetary risk in starting a new industry, but it is merely for personal gain ; it is not therefore entitled to a social reward. Capitalists get an income because the present sys- tem as maintained by modem governments allows them this and protects them in .their so doing. This is one of the " rights of property " — a right which must necessarily be ever denied to the vast majority of the useful and productive class. The Price of Labor-Power. We have seen that the prices of commodities under capitalism do not coin- cide with their values. The same is true of the price of labor power, although the operation of the law of value is more evident. Supply and demand, while not a cause of price, give rise to variations which are 184. ABC OF ECONOMICS of great importance to the working class. As with the price of other commodities, supply and demand neutralize each other in the long run, but in the case of labor we must remember that we are dealing with living beings. It is cold consolation to the starving working class of to-day that several years hence their real wages will rise above that necessary to maintain life at a traditional standard. The human factor accordingly lends to supply and demand an importance which it does not have in connection with other commodities. In a general sort of way we may assume that the supply of labor is determined by the number of work- ing-class population. A most striking feature of the capitalist system is the great variation in the de- mand for labor. We have our seasonal occupa- tions ; then our times of industrial depression. Market conditions affect profits and these in turn affect the demand and consequently the price of labor. Again the production of gold which is a basis of our money system has its far-reaching effect on the demand for labor. We can therefore assume that in a general way the supply of labor is fixed at a given period and .the demand is variable. The causes for the variations of the price of labor are a part of the workings of the capitalist system. The price of labor (power) does not fluctuate from day to day as do the prices of other commodi- ties. Changes in the general price of labor are slower, but in turn they cover longer periods. A drop in the price of a commodity may be compen- sated within a week or a month by a corresponding rise. A general drop in wages is usually compen- sated for only by a gradual rise spreading over a number of years. The opposite is also true; it ASPECTS OF CAPITAL 136 takes years to affect a fall in wages to offset a pre- vious rise. This does not apply to any particular establishment; it does apply to the labor market as a whole. The law of value is thus seen to apply more strictly than it does to other commodities. Unconsciously the workers are interested in real wages, i.e.y what they can buy for their nominal wages. If now, the price of goods rises without a corresponding increase in the price of labor power, then real wages have fallen. In such a case a higher rate of wages must be paid in order that workers receive the value of their labor power. Again if prices of goods fall the worker gets, paid more than the value of his labor power. ^ Economic conditions, while not caused by human beings, nevertheless take place only through the agency of human beings. This applies to the fluc- tuations in the price of labor. The capitalist class wants labor as cheap as possible all the time. The working class wants higher wages all the time. The result of this .clash is to fix the price of labor at about its value. When the demand for labor is low then economic conditions favor the capitalist class and the tendency of wages is to fall. When the de- mand for labor is good economic conditions favor the workers and the tendency of wages is to rise. The capitalist class at all times has one great ad- vantage in the army of the unemployed. The de- sire to live is the strongest motive in all human be- »The authors must here again refer to the great distinction between the value of labor power and the value of its products. The former is always less than the latter, the difference between the two making up surplus value. Socialists demand that the worker receive the value of what he has created, and not the value of hia labor power, which, approximately, he receives to-day. 186 ABC OF ECONOMICS ings, and in order to live the worker must work. If he cannot get work at market rates, he will, in time, work for less than the market price. The workers ,must at all times compete with this army, and when this army is big the chances of the work- ing class for success are negligible. Orgardzed Labor. Manufacturers must know the market price ,of their commodities before they can sell them for the greatest profit. The same applies to the working class. However, the work- ing class have not market bulletins which quote prices. In order to know and demand this price the working class must organize on the industrial field. In this way they can learn what their labor power is worth and prevent price-reducing competition in their endeavor to get it. This is then a general law which governs strikes. Strikes are called when the wages and conditions are less than what are war- ranted by market conditions. There are two ex- ceptions to this rule. First, where the working class is swayed to strike by irresponsible leaders rather than ,by economic conditions of the market. Siu;h strikes almost always result in such crushing defeats that demoralization of the defeated workers results. The labor movement receives a severe set- back which requires ; years for recovery. Second, where labor is able to become a monopoly. In this case the monopoly price sets the highest limit. The general ignorance of the working class as to market-values results in almost universal payment of wages which are below the price which would be determined by the laws of capitalism. The eco- nomic conditions of the workers is below the stand- ard predetermined by capitalism and workers can make absolute and relative gains ;by organizing in- ORGANIZED LABOR 18T dustrially. The craft form of labor organization owes its success to its character of being a monopoly, and the so-called evils of, labor unions are due to this monopolistic character. That labor organizations have made absolute and relative gains for the workers is too well verified by experience to be denied. These victories have mis- led many as to the possibilities of labor-organiza- tions. Those who have been thus misled believe that organized labor alone is enough to get finally the full value of its product. Such belief is the result of an ignorance of economics and the improper inter- pretation of the results of labor-organizations. The demands of organized labor are not the result of mere desire. Economic determinism teaches us that these demands are predetermined by economic conditions. Some of these conditions we have al- ready enumerated. Consequently we can reason that no strike can be successful which exceeds the demands warranted by economic conditions. Under capitalism ,the law of value of labor power is the basis which determines such conditions. Organized labor cannot, then, receive more than favorable fluc- tuations from this value, without first abolishing capitalism. Unfortunately for the working class, strikes attempting to get more than the market value have been undertaken with the usual defeat. In the case of monopolistic trade-unions, the best they can get is monopoly price, which is a ,form of market price. The above limitations to the possibilities of labor organizations does not mean that, the workers cannot get absolute gains. The law of value as applied to labor says essentially that the value of labor-power is determined by the labor-power necessary to main- 188 ABC OF ECONOMICS tain the worker at a certain standard of living. This does not mean that all that organized labor can get is a mere existence. The standard of living has been rising for a considerable period. This is not necessarily due to the direct efforts of the organized workers but to changes taking place in the methods of production. It is, however, true that organized labor is the first to take advantage of such changes. The use of labor-saving devices results in greater efficiency. Most of this goes to the capitalist class but some of it goes to the workers in the form of more pay and less hours. This is offset, however, by the fact that more people are added to the army of unemployed. The working class organized on the industrial field can demand such increases in wages as to bring wages up to the market value. Such increases re- sult in reduced profits. In addition, the working class thus organized can take advantage of economic changes and improve the standard of living. Such improvements take place, however, only when the capitalist class receives benefits which are far greater in proportion than those received by the workers. The workers gain absolutely, but in comparison to the capitalist class the breach is widened; i.e.y there is a relative loss. Economic conditions automat- ically prevent wages from rising appreciably higher than market-values. Among such conditions are, supply and demand, the competition among em- ployed and unemployed for work, the production of gold, foreign markets, and the substitution of ma- chinery for labor. The powers of industrially organized labor are determined by capitalism. The clashes about wages, hours, conditions, etc., are not fights against ORGANIZED LABOR 139 capitalisTn, but are merely struggles incidental to the carrying out of the economic laws of capitalism. Practically all of these class struggles are for the purpose of maintaining the value of labor. Karl Marx sums this up in the last chapter of " Value, Price and Profit," as follows : " At the same time, and quite apart from the gen- eral servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these every-day struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction ; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these guerrilla fights incessantly springing up from the never-ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material condi- tions and the social forms necessary for an econom- ical reconstruction of society. Instead of the con- servative motto, A fair day^s wages for a fair day's worky they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword. Abolition or the wage SYSTEM." The economic interpretation of history shows that such a change of system can be made only through political power. ^^ The " direct actionists " of 10 It should be remembered, in connection with the class strug- gle and its political character, that, as Ralph Komgold says in his excellent pamphlet " Are There Classes In America? " (1914. Pub. by The Socialist Party, 803 W. Madison St., Chi- cago), "All these class struggles aimed at the conquest of p