(LIBRARY I 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 CALIFORNIA 
 
 SAN DIEGO j 
 
 presented to the 
 UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 SAN DIEGO 
 
 by 
 
 Tom Ham
 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 PROMISE OR MENACE?
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS 
 ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED 
 
 LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. 
 
 TORONTO
 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 PROMISE OR MENACE? 
 
 BY 
 
 MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 AUTHOR OF "HISTORY OF SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES," 
 
 "SOCIALISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE," AND 
 
 "SOCIALISM SUMMED UP" 
 
 AND 
 
 JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 AUTHOR OF "A LIVING WAGE" 
 
 FOB EDIT! 
 
 REVIEW RELEASED FOR PIlBUOffli 
 
 22 19(4! 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 \I9I4 
 
 All rights reserved
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1913, 1914, 
 BY THE RIDGWAY COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1914, 
 BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. Published April, 1914. 
 
 NorfooolJ press 
 
 J. 8. Gushing Co. Berwick <fc Smith Co. 
 Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE chapters which constitute this book originally 
 appeared in seven consecutive issues of Everybody's 
 Magazine. The large and generous interest with which 
 the discussion has been received by the reading public 
 has induced the authors to reproduce it with slight 
 revisions in the more permanent form of a book. 
 
 The scope and object of the work and the practical 
 methods employed in its production are best told in 
 the introduction of the editor of Everybody's Magazine, 
 which is here reproduced in substance : 
 
 " Here is a most distinguished series of articles : A 
 joint debate upon the right or wrong of Socialism. 
 
 " The opposition to this world-wide movement comes 
 not only from those who have qualified themselves to 
 speak, but also from many who are ill-equipped with 
 information to justify their attacks. Moreover, such 
 criticisms are usually addressed to audiences already in 
 sympathy with them. 
 
 " Socialism, too, has its half-equipped apostles. And 
 Socialist arguments are offered, for the most part, to 
 people already attached to the cause. 
 
 "The novel feature of this work is that for the first 
 time, the opposing arguments are presented with the 
 greatest completeness ano\ highest competence, and side 
 by side, in a form availably for the immediate compari- 
 son of arguments.
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 "The readers will be interested in the personnel of 
 the authors and the circumstances that have brought 
 them into debate. 
 
 " The comment that ' the Catholic Church is the chief 
 bulwark against Socialism ' is familiar to many, in and 
 outside the Church. For a long time this Church has 
 warred against Socialism ; but during the past few years 
 its campaign has become more general and systematic, 
 and is now the most highly organized attack on Socialist 
 doctrines. 
 
 " Yet it was a long step to that point where men dis- 
 tinguished in the Church councils finally assented to 
 an open discussion of the subject in the pages of a 
 secular magazine. Naturally, it would be out of the 
 question to ask of the Church or of the Socialists that 
 they should formally choose an authoritative representa- 
 tive. This would be staking the cause on one spokes- 
 man, who would inevitably fail of perfection. 
 
 "The unique thing is that there could have been 
 even an approach to authority in the guidance which 
 we have received in the choice of opponents. Men 
 eminent in both these world-wide groups have lent their 
 good-will, shared in the selection, and welcomed the 
 conflict as one certain to be of the utmost value. 
 
 " Now as to the authors themselves. The atack on 
 Socialism will be made by John Augustine Ryan, D.D., 
 Professor of Moral Theology and Economics at St. Paul 
 Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota. Dr. Ryan was born in 
 Minnesota, received his early education there, studied 
 theology in St. Paul, and continued post-graduate studies 
 at the Catholic University of America at Washington, 
 D.C. He was ordained a priest in 1898, and eight 
 years later was made a Doctor of Divinity. He is the
 
 PREFACE Vli 
 
 author of ' A Living Wage,' one of the standard works 
 in its own department of economics, and his writings 
 and lectures have given him national position as a 
 leader of progressive thought in industrial, economic, 
 and social fields. 
 
 " Socialism will be defended by Morris Hillquit, a 
 distinguished practising lawyer of New York City. 
 Mr. Hillquit was born in Riga, Russia, and after his 
 early education there came to this country and studied 
 law in New York. He is the author of ' History of 
 Socialism in the United States,' ' Socialism in Theory 
 and Practice,' and ' Socialism Summed Up.' He has 
 been a delegate to all national conventions of the So- 
 cialist party since 1899, and to the international con- 
 gresses at Amsterdam, Stuttgart, and Copenhagen. 
 
 "The subject is not a discussion as to whether the 
 Church or Socialism is right. It is a discussion of 
 Socialism, attacked by a Churchman and defended by 
 a Socialist. 
 
 " Arguments based on the teachings of revealed reli- 
 gion are a factor in Dr. Ryan's discussion, but he 
 does not rely for weapons and armor on inspiration or 
 authority. 
 
 " Neither is the attack narrowed to the expression of 
 the ecclesiastical attitude of the Catholic Church. Not 
 speaking with authority^from his own Church, he is cer- 
 tainly not the chosen champion of other denominations. 
 Yet it is true that he isV inevitably, contending for the 
 position of all Christian ^Churches in so far as they 
 oppose Socialism on the basis of religious argument. 
 
 " The mechanics of the debate were somewhat diffi- 
 cult to arrange. In the outcome it was decided that the 
 authors should exchange manuscripts and re-exchange,
 
 viii PREFACE 
 
 each with the right to introduce revisions in the light 
 of what the other had written, until each should be 
 content. An exception was made for the concluding 
 chapters, the manuscripts of which have not been ex- 
 changed by the authors."
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I. PRELIMINARIES : SCOPE AND METHODS. 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Formulation of Issues. International Socialism. 
 Sources of the Socialist Doctrines. " Authorities " 
 on Socialism, their Significance and Limitations. De- 
 finition of Socialism 1 
 
 II. POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT. 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Party Conventions and Authoritative Writers. Im- 
 portance of Non-economic Views of Latter. Social- 
 ism an Economic System, a Social Philosophy, and a 
 Social Movement. All Three Rejected. Present 
 System Amendable 10 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 
 
 I. AN INDICTMENT AND THE VERDICT. 
 By MORRIS HILLQJJIT. 
 
 Difference in Attitude of Socialist and Reformer 
 towards Social Problems. Modern Order of Society 
 Analyzed. Unregulated Production. The " Corner " 
 in Culture. Social Warfare. Political and Intellectual 
 Corruption. The Socialist Remedy .... 14
 
 X CONTENTS 
 
 II. THE SOCIALIST INDICTMENT is OVERDRAWN. THE REM- 
 EDY is SOCIAL REFORM. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Socialist Criticism Exaggerated. Economic Condi- 
 tions Improving and Improvable. Other Conditions 
 not Hopeless. Not the System but its Abuses Intoler- 
 able. Adequate Remedies in Legislation and Co- 
 operative Institutions 27 
 
 III. REJOINDER. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 Socialism and Social Reform. The Limits of Re- 
 form 43 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Socialist Movement not Fruitful in Social Reforms. 
 Efficiency of Measures advocated in Main Paper. No 
 Limit to Social Progress by Means of Social Re- 
 forms ... 44 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 
 
 I. IMMORAL AND IMPRACTICABLE. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Socialist Proposals regarding Land and Artificial 
 Capital. Confiscation. Sources of Capital. Menace 
 to Agrarian Enterprise. Industrial Leadership Inef- 
 ficient. The Rank and File. Socialism vs. Co- 
 operation. Individual Liberty Jeopardized . . 48 
 
 II. A JUST AND RATIONAL ORDER. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 The Socialist Plan of Industrial Organization. Ac- 
 quisition of Tools of Wealth by Community. As to 
 " Confiscation." Sources of Modern Wealth. Land 
 Ownership. Management under Socialism. Incen- 
 tive to Work. Individual Liberty .... 69
 
 CONTENTS 3d 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 
 I. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MARXISM. 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Place of Theory in the Socialist Movement. 
 Marxism. The Economic Interpretation of History. 
 The " Class- Struggle " Doctrine. "Surplus Value." 
 Socialism as a Labor Movement. The Trend towards 
 Socialism 88 
 
 II. AN EXPLODED PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Economic Determinism fundamentally Materialistic. 
 Exaggerations. Futility of Surplus- Value Theory. 
 Marx's Prediction of Concentration and Impoverish- 
 ment. Refutation by Subsequent Events. No Trend 
 toward Socialism. An Aprioristic and Fatalistic Phi- 
 losophy 103 
 
 III. REJOINDER. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 Admissions by Dr. Ryan. Classes, Class Interests, 
 and Class Struggles in the United States. The Fac- 
 tors of Wealth Production. The " Revisionist " Con- 
 troversy 124 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 No Extensive Class Struggle in the United States. 
 Industrial Wage-earners a Minority. Demand for 
 Reforms not a Demand for Socialism. Surplus Value 
 Once More. Importance of " Increasing-Misery " 
 Theory . V .134 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 
 I. SOCIALIST MORALITY is IMMORAL. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Summary and Basis of Socialist Ethics. The Moral 
 Law Immutable. Socialist Perversions of Individual, 
 Family, and Civil Morality 143
 
 xii CONTENTS 
 
 II. IF THIS BE IMMORALITY 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Definition of Ethics. Capitalist Ethics. Socialist 
 Morality. Variable Ethics. Evolution of Morality. 
 Socialism and Marriage. Socialism and Lawlessness . 154 
 
 III. REJOINDER. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Socialist Exaggeration of Ethical Variations in Ideas 
 and Practices. Necessity of a Fixed Moral Standard. 
 No Individual Sin? "Love Marriages." Monopoly of 
 Education 166 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's " Immutable " Ethics. Ethical Ideal vs. 
 Final Ethics. True Monogamy. Marriage under 
 Capitalism. Woman and Industry . . . 176 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 I. SOCIALISM is IRRELIGIOUS. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Platform Utterances Disingenuous. Anti-religious 
 Declarations of Leaders, Books, and Journals. Ameri- 
 can Movement likewise Irreligious. Economic De- 
 terminism mainly Responsible. An Invitation and 
 Challenge 186 
 
 II. SOCIALISM is NON-RELIGIOUS. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 "Neutrality Planks" in Socialist Platforms. Dif- 
 ferentiation between Religion, Christianity, and Church. 
 Idealistic Religion and Dogmatic Theology. Science 
 and Religion. Socialism and the Church. Religious 
 Tolerance of the Socialist Movement. The Test of 
 Social Democracy in Germany. Religious Freedom 
 under Socialism. A Counter-suggestion . . . 199
 
 CONTENTS xiii 
 
 III. REJOINDER. 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A Curious Omission. Economic Determinism vs. 
 Orthodox Religion. Neither Science nor Scientists 
 Irreligious. Socialist Intolerance. Socialism Irre- 
 deemable , , , 215 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER. 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 Economic Determinism and Religious Beliefs. The 
 Opposition of the Church to Scientific Advance . . 224 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT. 
 
 Significant Admissions. The Evil. The Remedy. The 
 Methods. Socialism not Materialistic, not Fatalistic, not Uto- 
 pian, not Final. The Church Again 230 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 SUMMARY. AND CONCLUSIONS 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Some Unquestionable Results. The Church not identified 
 with Plutocracy. Meaning of Prescription. Economic Facts vs. 
 Socialist Faith. Woman and Marriage. Expediency vs. Moral- 
 ity. Socialists vs. Scientists. A Sample of Socialist " History " 245
 
 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR 
 MENACE? 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I. PRELIMINARIES : SCOPE AND METHODS 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 THE object of the joint discussion on Socialism be- 
 tween Dr. John A. Ryan and myself is to present to the 
 reading public both sides of a much-mooted social prob- 
 lem and to draw their attention to the promise or menace 
 of a movement which is yearly growing in influence and 
 extension. 
 
 The form of presentation chosen for that purpose is 
 best calculated to secure that object. A partisan state- 
 ment of the Socialist creed and movement by an adherent 
 or opponent must necessarily suffer from one-sidedness, 
 and all attempts at an "unbiassed" presentation of both 
 sides by one person are bound to fail, because in the 
 nature of things there can be no true impartiality on 
 any controversial subject of vital and direct social im- 
 port. In a joint debate between an avowed Socialist and 
 a determined and consistent opponent of the movement 
 each debater may be expected to present his side in the
 
 2 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 strongest light, marshalling all available facts and argu- 
 ments in favour of his contention, and thus to enable the 
 reader to exercise his own judgment on the merits of 
 the controversy. 
 
 Especially is that the case when a debate is carried on 
 from the deliberative seclusion of the study with ample 
 intervals for dispassionate analysis and careful formula- 
 tion of statements, rather than in the contentious atmos- 
 phere of an extemporaneous polemic from the platform. 
 
 As an "orthodox" Socialist, who has spent the better 
 part of his life in active service of the organized Socialist 
 movement, I may without immodesty undertake to 
 present the accepted Socialist position, and to speak for 
 the Socialist movement with some degree of authority. 
 On the other hand, my distinguished adversary, Dr. 
 John A. Ryan, is one of the few opponents of Socialism 
 in this country who are thoroughly familiar with the 
 Socialist philosophy and movement, and whose opposi- 
 tion to both is based, not on mere prejudice, but on a 
 fair and serious criticism of the Socialist teachings and 
 practices from their point of view. It may therefore 
 be hoped that the debate will at all times preserve the 
 character of an instructive discussion of pertinent issues. 
 
 Dr. Ryan, besides being an authority as a student 
 and teacher of social and economic science, is an eminent 
 Catholic divine, and I assume that he will approach 
 the subject largely from the point of view of the Catholic 
 Church, all the more that the latter has recently in- 
 augurated an active campaign against Socialism. Dr. 
 Ryan will, of course, be at liberty to assail the Socialist 
 doctrines and methods with any weapons he may choose. 
 He may base his opposition on the arguments of papal
 
 INTRODUCTION 3 
 
 encyclicals just as well as on those of the conservative 
 economists, and in either case I shall have to meet him 
 on his own ground. But I hope that in no event will 
 the debate develop into a discussion of the comparative 
 merits or demerits of the Catholic Church and the 
 Socialist movement. The Catholic Church is not at 
 issue in this debate ; the issue is and will always remain 
 Socialism. The Socialists are as little concerned with 
 the Catholic Church as with any other organized expres- 
 sion of religious belief they do not fight the Catholic 
 Church unless forced to do so in self-defence. 
 
 I propose to defend the Socialist claims on their own 
 merits. I shall attempt to prove that the Socialist 
 philosophy is sound, that the Socialist ideal is just and 
 equitable, that the Socialist ethics are pure, and that the 
 Socialist methods are legitimate and efficient. If these 
 claims should prove untenable, the Socialist contention 
 fails of it own weakness; and if, on the contrary, 
 Socialism should be proved to be rational and righteous, 
 the opposition of the Catholic Church will not make it 
 less so. 
 
 Like all other social theories and practical mass move- 
 ments, Socialism produces certain divergent schools, 
 bastard offshoots clustering around the main trunk of the 
 tree, large in number and variety, but insignificant in 
 size and strength. Thus we hear of State Socialism, 
 Socialism of the Chair, Christian Socialism, and even 
 Catholic Socialism. With these heterogeneous and het- 
 erodox varieties I am not concerned their chief function 
 is to confuse the minds of the unwary critics of Socialism ; 
 but they have no part in the real life and development of 
 the active Socialist movement.
 
 4 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The Socialism that counts and the one that is to be 
 discussed here is that represented by the politically or- 
 ganized movement. This numbers its adherents by 
 tens of millions, while the followers of all its secondary 
 forms and variations in all countries are probably well 
 within the hundred-thousand mark. 
 
 The modern political movement of Socialism is world- 
 wide in scope and is definite and uniform in conception 
 and methods. The international Socialist movement 
 consists of a chain of organizations or parties, rarely 
 more than one in each country. These parties meet at 
 regular intervals in convention to discuss principles, 
 tactics, and policies. The platforms, resolutions, and 
 constitutions adopted at such conventions are the su- 
 preme expression of the organized movement. Barring 
 variations in phraseology and allowing for differences 
 of conditions and issues confronting the movement at 
 different times and places, the declarations are practically 
 identical in all cases. The dominant Socialist organiza- 
 tions of all countries are organically allied with one 
 another. By means of an International Socialist Bureau 
 supported at joint expense, the Socialist parties of the 
 world maintain uninterrupted relations with one another, 
 and every three years they meet in international con- 
 ventions, whose conclusions are accepted by all constitu- 
 ent national organizations. 
 
 It is principally the doctrines and policies formulated 
 by such official national and international Socialist con- 
 ventions that I propose to defend and that I expect my 
 opponent to assail in this debate. 
 
 Principally, but not exclusively. 
 
 For while the official statements and declarations of
 
 INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 the organized Socialist parties, national and interna- 
 tional, constitute the most indisputable authority on 
 the questions with which they deal, there are certain 
 other sources which cannot properly be left out of ac- 
 count in a comprehensive and intelligent discussion on 
 Socialism. 
 
 The practical Socialist movement is supported by a 
 social philosophy which was formulated by the " theoreti- 
 cians" of the movement, and was and still is constantly 
 elaborated by its students and writers. In its everyday 
 work and struggles the Socialist movement acts and 
 speaks through its recognized representatives on the 
 public platform, in legislative bodies, or in administrative 
 offices. The utterances and acts of such writers and 
 representatives, unless formally repudiated by their 
 party, must be considered as legitimate expressions and 
 manifestations of the Socialist movement r and its de- 
 fenders and opponents alike may properly refer to them 
 in support of their contentions. The same rule applies 
 to the editorial attitude of the official publications of the 
 Socialist parties. 
 
 But in fairness to both sides of the debate and to the 
 reading public, certain limitations and exceptions must 
 be noted here. The literature on Socialism and I 
 refer to the pro-Socialist side only consists of many 
 hundreds of volumes written in all modern languages, 
 and there is no censorship and no index expurgatorius 
 in the Socialist movement. The Socialist author writes 
 on his own responsibility. If his work meets with the 
 approval of the movement, it is tacitly adopted as one of 
 the instruments of the Socialist propaganda, otherwise 
 it is rejected or ignored. To the uninformed this designa-
 
 6 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tion of "authorities" may seem exceedingly vague, but to 
 persons familiar with the Socialist movement, its history 
 and literature, it will convey a tolerably definite test. 
 
 Thus Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Ferdinand 
 Lassalle are unquestionably the theoretical founders of 
 the modern Socialist movement, and their economic and 
 political doctrines are substantially the basis of the 
 philosophy of International Socialism. Similarly, almost 
 every strong national movement has produced a group 
 of thinkers, writers, or "leaders," whose utterances are 
 generally accepted as authoritative expressions of the 
 Socialist position. 
 
 As such we may mention the Germans August Bebel, 
 Wilhelm Liebknecht, and Karl Kautsky; the French- 
 men Jules Guesde, Paul Lafargue, and Jean Jaures; 
 the Austrian Victor Adler; the Belgian Emile Vander- 
 velde ; the Russian Georges Plekhanoff ; and the English- 
 men H. M. Hyndman and J. Keir Hardie. 
 
 American Socialism has likewise advanced a number 
 of representative spokesmen, whose names will readily 
 suggest themselves to all persons familiar with the move- 
 ment. The authors named do not by any means exhaust 
 the list of Socialist "authorities" they are only men- 
 tioned to substantiate the claim that there is a large 
 group of generally recognized exponents of the Socialist 
 creed, whose expressed views may be invoked in a discus- 
 sion of the subject, and that Socialism cannot be charged 
 with the utterances of unknown or irresponsible writers. 
 
 The expression "Socialist authorities" must further- 
 more be taken in a very restricted sense. Socialists are 
 no respecters of "authorities." They do not accept the 
 conclusions of their writers on faith. The leaders of
 
 INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 Socialist thought are those who have been able to state 
 their social and economic theories with the greatest 
 degree of convincingness, and the ability to substantiate 
 their views with facts and arguments always remains 
 the test of their authoritativeness. 
 
 There is nothing sacred in the writings even of the 
 founders of the modern Socialist philosophy. Some of 
 the economic doctrines of Ferdinand Lassalle and many 
 cardinal planks of his practical programme have been un- 
 able to withstand the test of experience and criticism, 
 and have been discarded by the Socialist movement. 
 Some of the expressed views of Marx and Engels have 
 been modified by their Socialist followers, and generally 
 the Socialist movement is constantly engaged in revising 
 its creed as well as its tactics. Socialism is a modern, 
 progressive movement engaged in practical,^ every/day 
 struggles, and it cannot escape the influencfe-of^hanging 
 social conditions or growing economic knowledge. The 
 international Socialist movement is still Marxian, be- 
 cause the fundamental social and economic doctrines of 
 Karl Marx, his collaborators and disciples, still hold 
 good in the eyes of the vast majority of Socialists ; but 
 in the details of its methods and mode of action the Social- 
 ist movement to-day is quite different from what it was 
 in the days of Marx. 
 
 And, finally, another point must be borne in mind in 
 any fair discussion of Socialism. The Socialist "authori- 
 ties" are such only within the scope of their competency, 
 i.e. on the subject of Socialist economics and politics. 
 Their opinions on all other topics must neither be credited 
 nor charged to the Socialist movement. 
 
 For instance, G. Bernard Shaw is a well-known Social-
 
 8 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ist, and has written several tracts on economics which 
 fairly express the recognized Socialist position. Mr. 
 Shaw also happens to be a playwright and a dramatic 
 critic. It would obviously be preposterous to claim that 
 Shaw's volumes of dramatic criticism represent the 
 Socialist view on the drama, and, perhaps in a minor 
 degree, it is similarly unwarranted to claim that Engels' 
 religious beliefs or Bebel's views on the institution of the 
 family represent the Socialist conceptions on these subjects. 
 Like the opinion of a judge on a subject not directly 
 involved in the matter submitted for his decision, such 
 extraneous views are obiter dicta, and not binding on 
 anybody but the author. 
 
 With this statement of my opinion on the object 
 of the present discussion and the methods to be employed 
 in connection with it, I shall now endeavour to outline a 
 concise statement of the aspect of Socialism which is to 
 form the main subject of the debate. 
 
 The term Socialism is used indiscriminately to desig- 
 nate a certain social philosophy, a scheme of social or- 
 ganization, and an active political movement. As a 
 social philosophy Socialism is concerned with the laws 
 and course of social evolution in general and those of con- 
 temporaneous society in particular. It proceeds from a 
 critical analysis of the prevailing order, seeks to discover 
 its substance and mainsprings, to ascertain the causes 
 of its shortcomings, and to determine the trend of its 
 development. 
 
 As a practical movement Socialism stands primarily 
 for industrial readjustment. It seeks to secure greater 
 planfulness in the production of wealth and greater 
 equity in its distribution.
 
 INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 Concretely stated, the Socialist programme advocates 
 a reorganization of the existing industrial system on the 
 basis of collective or national ownership of the social 
 tools. It demands that the control of the machinery 
 of wealth creation be taken from the individual capitalist 
 and placed in the hands of the nation, to be organized 
 and operated for the benefit of the whole people. The 
 programme implies radical changes in the existing indus- 
 trial machinery, political structure, and social relations. 
 The form of society which would result from such changes 
 is usually designated in the literature on the subject as 
 the Socialist State or the Socialist Ideal. 
 Thus the dominant factors in the Socialist thought, 
 movement, and ideal may be said to be of a politico-epe^ 
 nomic nature. But Socialism is not devoid of ethical and 
 spiritual implications. The Socialist philosophy in- 
 volves certain definite views of right and wrong in the 
 individual and social conduct of men, which are some- 
 times at variance with accepted standards; and the 
 Socialist ideal is predicated on a change in the reciprocal 
 relations of man and society which are bound to affect 
 our conceptions of individual and social duty. The 
 moral conceptions implied in the Socialist programme 
 constitute the code of Socialist ethics. 
 
 An adequate treatment of the subject will thus require 
 a discussion of the Socialist criticism and programme and 
 the Socialist ideal and philosophy, as well as the bearings 
 of Socialism on morals and religion. I propose to present 
 the Socialist claims under these various heads in the 
 succeeding chapters, and I trust to the tender mercies 
 of my opponent to give adequate expression to the op- 
 posite views.
 
 10 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 II. POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 My opponent's general statement of the methods 
 that we have agreed to follow in the discussion now be- 
 ginning leaves nothing under that head for me to add, 
 subtract, or otherwise modify. He is to defend Socialism 
 in the ways that seem best to him, and I am to oppose 
 it with whatever weapons I choose. His generous per- 
 sonal references to me are naturally gratifying, even 
 though strict candour would compel me to admit that 
 they are not entirely deserved. In the spirit as well as 
 the matter of his first paper he sets a standard of cour- 
 teous, dispassionate writing which I will at all times 
 emulate. The debate will be one of issues, not of per- 
 sonalities. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit's delimitation of the subject-matter and 
 his conception of the sources and standards for argumen- 
 tation are on the whole the same as mine. Not any of 
 the minor schools and varieties, but International Social- 
 ism, is the thing that we are to debate. The doctrines 
 and policies of this system, as set forth in national and 
 international conventions, "constitute the most indis- 
 putable authority on the subjects with which they deal." 
 Nevertheless, "there are certain other sources which can- 
 not properly be left out of account." For the living 
 thing called Socialism is underlaid and permeated by a 
 fairly definite social philosophy, and "is not devoid of 
 ethical and spiritual implications." 
 
 These elements are to be found in the pronouncements, 
 whether by voice on the platform or by pen in books
 
 INTRODUCTION II 
 
 and journals, of the recognized authorities and represent- 
 atives of the Socialist movement. What they say and 
 do must be taken as the legitimate expression of the 
 movement until it is formally repudiated. Some of the 
 most important of these authoritative persons are named, 
 and others are alluded to, in Mr. Hillquit's article. They 
 would be accepted as adequately representative Socialists 
 by any intelligent student of Socialism. His concep- 
 tion of the limited sense in which they are recognized 
 as authorities by their fellow-Socialists is likewise unex- 
 ceptionable. 
 
 There is, however, one statement made by my oppo- 
 nent concerning the competency of these authorities 
 which is not entirely adequate. They are, he tells us, 
 authorities only "on the subject of Socialist economics 
 and politics. Their opinions on all other topics must 
 neither be credited nor charged to the Socialist move- 
 ment." For example, the views of Bernard Shaw con- 
 cerning the drama do not necessarily reflect the Social- 
 ist thought on the topic. 
 
 I admit the truth of the illustration, and for three 
 good reasons : first, Mr. Shaw's notions on this subject 
 are apparently peculiar to himself ; second, they do not 
 appear in those of his writings which deal specifically 
 with Socialism ; and, third, they are not placed by him 
 in any definite relation to Socialism or Socialist phi- 
 losophy. 
 
 When, however, Mr. Hillquit thus continues: "and, 
 perhaps in a minor degree, it is similarly unwarranted 
 to claim that Engels' religious beliefs or Bebel's views on 
 the institution of the family represent the Socialist con- 
 ceptions on these subjects," he understates the impor-
 
 12 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tance and relevance of these particular utterances. As 
 I shall try to show at length in the proper place, such non- 
 economic opinions as these have a direct and significant 
 bearing on Socialist philosophy and the Socialist move- 
 ment. 
 
 We are, as Mr. Hillquit states in his closing paragraphs, 
 to discuss Socialism under a threefold aspect. We 
 shall consider it not merely as an economic and political 
 system, but also as a social philosophy and a living social 
 movement. Were we to do less than this, our treatment 
 of the subject would be partial, misleading, and inade- 
 quate. Every social ideal pursued by a social group 
 involves a movement and a philosophy. If there be ex- 
 ceptions to this rule, they do not include in their number 
 the subject of this debate. Adequately considered, then, 
 Socialism is an end, a means, and a set of fundamental 
 principles. The end is the Socialist State, or Socialist 
 reorganization of society; the means is the concrete 
 Socialist movement with its organized political party, 
 its literature, and its general propaganda; while the 
 principles or philosophy consist mainly of an interpreta- 
 tion of history, and a theory of social forces and social 
 evolution. 
 
 Although the Socialist State might conceivably be 
 cherished and striven for by a different kind of move- 
 ment from that known as International Socialism, and 
 might start from and be motived by a different social 
 philosophy, the fact is that the movement and the 
 philosophy with which we have to deal are those which 
 Mr. Hillquit has outlined. It is this living reality and 
 not some imaginary or artificial Socialism that we are 
 to discuss.
 
 INTRODUCTION 13 
 
 Thus far we are in agreement. Thus far, and no 
 farther. For I reject and oppose Socialism in all three 
 aspects. As a social philosophy, it reaches some glim- 
 merings of truth, but is in the main false. As a living 
 movement, it involves and disseminates so many and 
 such baneful errors, social, religious, and ethical, that it 
 is a constant menace to right principles and a right 
 order of society. As a contemplated economic-political 
 scheme, it would bring in more and greater evils than it 
 would abolish. 
 
 While holding these rather decided views regarding 
 Socialism, I would have the reader understand that I 
 am not an undiscriminating apologist of the present 
 industrial system. In many of-its elements it is far, 
 very far, from satisfactory or teieTatteT^Ori the other 
 hand, it is not bankrupt. It has in it the possibilities 
 of immense improvement. Hence we are not compelled 
 to continue it as it now is or to fly to Socialism. There 
 is a third alternative, namely, the existing system greatly, 
 even radically, amended. 
 
 And this I believe to be the only reasonable choice, 
 and the only enduring outcome.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 
 I. AN INDICTMENT AND THE VERDICT 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 THAT the world needs mending, is generally conceded. 
 It is the tacit assumption from which proceed all modern 
 social and political activities, even those of the most 
 conservative character. The divisions in public opinion 
 arise only over the question of the extent of the needed 
 improvement and the methods of accomplishment. 
 
 The old-line politicians and statesmen and the con- 
 ventional philanthropists and church workers take it 
 for granted that the prevailing order of society is funda- 
 mentally sound, and that its workings are, on the whole, 
 just and beneficial. The few social flaws which they 
 discern they consider as purely accidental, something 
 in the nature of a passing sore on a healthy body. 
 
 The more modern political reformers and social-better- 
 ment workers have a somewhat wider range of social 
 vision, but they too do not question the foundation of 
 the body social and politic. The difference between the 
 most advanced reformer and the most conservative 
 "stand-patter" is one of degree, not of substance. The 
 distinguishing feature of Socialism as a social philosophy 
 lies in the fact that it is more scientific in its criticism 
 and more radical in its remedy. 
 
 14
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 15 
 
 Socialism proceeds from a thoroughgoing analysis of 
 the practical workings of the existing economic, political, 
 and social institutions. It refuses to treat their multi- 
 form shortcomings as accidental and unrelated phenom- 
 ena, and endeavours to establish their mutual bearings 
 and to discover their common source. Its attack is 
 directed primarily against that source, the underlying 
 social wrong, which is the root of all minor and specific 
 complaints. 
 
 The most serious social problems which confront the 
 present generation may be grouped under five main heads, 
 which together cover practically all phases of our com- 
 munal existence the economic, cultural, social, political, 
 and intellectual. Of these the economic problem is by 
 far the most important, and des^r^es^oTirfirst attention. 
 
 The striking feature of the modern plan of industrial 
 organization in its early phases of development is the lack 
 of plan and absence of organization. In the most vital 
 function of associated human beings, the "production 
 of wealth," which means the process of sustaining life, 
 anarchy reigns supreme. The necessaries and comforts 
 of the community are not produced on an intelligent 
 plan based on the needs of the population and the avail- 
 able supply of raw material and productive forces. They 
 are created and thrown into the market pell-mell by an 
 indeterminate number of individual, competing, and 
 unorganized manufacturers. 
 
 The system involves an insane waste of human effort 
 in duplication of plants and machinery, in sales forces, 
 advertising, and other unproductive factors of competi- 
 tive warfare. Work is unregulated and uncertain, 
 periods of strenuous and taxing activity alternating with
 
 1 6 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 seasons of enforced idleness. The planless and casual 
 mode of production often results either in a scarcity or 
 in a superabundance of supplies. 
 
 In the former case the price of products rises to a point 
 which puts them beyond the reach of the needy con- 
 sumer, and the latter is apt to inflict on society that most 
 fearful of capitalist scourges the industrial crisis. 
 
 When the market is stocked with such an excessive 
 quantity of commodities that the consumers have neither 
 ability nor means to absorb them, industrial paralysis 
 ensues. The wheels of production cease to turn, the 
 arteries of trade are clogged. Millions of workers are 
 thrown out of employment, thousands of business enter- 
 prises collapse. Men, women, and children succumb 
 for want of food and clothing, and all the time food and 
 clothing are piled up in prodigious quantities, rotting 
 for lack of consumers. 
 
 The competitive system of private capitalism erects 
 an unsurmountable barrier between the workers and 
 their work, between the people and their food. 
 
 These glaring defects of competition in manufacture 
 and trade ultimately lead to its partial suppression. 
 The capitalists begin to organize. The individual mer- 
 chant and manufacturer yield to the corporation, and the 
 latter rapidly grows into that most modern of industrial 
 phenomena the trust. The trusts succeed in elimi- 
 nating some of the evils of unbridled competition, but 
 they exact a terrible price for the service. With the 
 control of the market in each important industry they 
 acquire practically unrestricted powers over the workers 
 as well as the consumers, and they do not hesitate to 
 use and abuse these powers to the utmost.
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 17 
 
 To the trusts furthermore belongs the credit of having 
 perfected the most pernicious of modern methods of 
 financial malpractice the "watering" of stocks. In 
 creating by their mere fiat new income-bearing "securi- 
 ties" to the extent of billions of dollars, they impose 
 a heavier tax on the people of this country than the com- 
 bined organs of government ever dared to exact. 
 
 And the nation, as at present organized, is helpless 
 before them. No amount of denunciation will shake 
 their massive foundation, no penal legislation or court 
 decrees will curtail their tremendous powers, as the 
 sturdy corpses of the Standard Oil Company, the To- 
 bacco Trust, and other "dissolved "/combines eloquently 
 attest. In the face of popular cl^rrjruji^ajidr-in^ignation 
 they stand like huge giants, complacently grinning at 
 the impotent ravings of excited pygmies. 
 
 The trusts have largely abolished industrial anarchy. 
 They have reared in its place the formidable throne of 
 industrial autocracy. 
 
 The economic ascendency of the capitalists places 
 them in a position to apportion the annual product of 
 the country among its inhabitants. To be sure, they do 
 not discharge that function consciously or planfully 
 they operate indirectly, each within his own sphere; 
 but the collective result of the process amounts to an 
 effective division of wealth, periodically accomplished 
 by the capitalist class. 
 
 And the plan upon which the division proceeds is 
 exceedingly simple : 
 
 The working population as a whole gets just a little 
 less than is necessary to maintain it in physical fitness
 
 l8 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 for its task and to enable it to reproduce the species 
 worker. 
 
 The balance is retained by the capitalist purveyors 
 as their just share of the "national" wealth. 
 
 It is this method of wealth distribution which rears 
 our thousands of powerful millionnaires, with their proud 
 mansions and dazzling luxury, and it is this method 
 also that breeds our millions of paupers with their disrep- 
 utable dwellings, their filth and rags. To this capitalist 
 system of wealth distribution we are largely indebted 
 for our libraries, our hospitals, rescue missions, and 
 charitable institutions of all descriptions; also for our 
 pauperism, child labour, trade diseases, white slavery, 
 and many other forms of destitution and its twin sisters, 
 crime and vice. 
 
 The monopoly of material wealth inevitably involves 
 a corresponding monopoly in education and culture. If 
 the degree of civilization attained by a community is to 
 be measured not by the heights of accomplishment 
 reached by the few, but by the general diffusion of cul- 
 ture among the masses, then indeed our modern civiliza- 
 tion is a miserable failure. 
 
 The large masses of the people participate to some ex- 
 tent in the benefits of the practical achievements of 
 modern science, but the general cultural influences of the 
 marvellous scientific discoveries of recent times pass by 
 them with little effect. Millions of mine workers, fac- 
 tory hands, and street labourers culturally still live in 
 the fifteenth century, and as to the fine arts, the drama, 
 literature, music, painting, and sculpture, and all the 
 things that go so far toward ennobling and embellishing 
 the life of the individual, they simply do not exist for
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 19 
 
 the vast majority of the people, who have neither means 
 nor leisure to cultivate them. 
 
 But the most disastrous effect of the system of private 
 capitalistic industries is the division of the population 
 into distinct social and economic groups with conflicting 
 and hostile interests. The prevailing system of industrial 
 ownership and operation arrays the producer against 
 the consumer, the tenant against the landlord, and the 
 worker against the employer. 
 
 Most far reaching in social consequences is the war 
 between the latter two classes. For there is war, and 
 nothing but war, between the capftajisjt jmd_the worker, 
 in spite of the conventional cant about the alleged har- 
 mony of their economic interests. The capitalists' 
 profits stand in inverse ratio to the workers' wages and 
 vice versa. So long as the industries of the country are 
 operated for the private advantage of the individual 
 capitalist, so long will the latter strive to secure the 
 maximum of work for the minimum of pay ; and so long 
 as human labour remains a mere commodity to be sold 
 to the capitalist in open market, so long will the worker 
 strive to save and conserve this, his sole valuable posses- 
 sion, and to obtain as large a price for it as he can. 
 
 There is no more harmony between privately owned 
 capital and wage-earning labour than there is between the 
 wolf and the lamb. The modern capitalist extracts his 
 profits by dint of his economic power, the ownership of 
 the tools of work. The modern toiler does his share of 
 the world's work under protest. When he does not 
 strike or boycott or destroy his employer's property, he 
 renders his services grudgingly. Instinctively he hates
 
 20 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 his employer, for he feels that the latter is robbing him 
 of a large portion of his legitimate product by means of 
 an artificial social arrangement. 
 
 The employer feels and fears that hatred, and is al- 
 ways on the watch for open outbreaks of the sentiment, 
 prepared to quell the ever anticipated revolts of his 
 "hands" by a course of starvation, enforced, if need be, 
 by the clubs of the police, the rifles of the militia, or by 
 court injunctions. "Industrial disputes" are not the 
 exception, they are almost the rule, in the relations of 
 employer and employee. Our industrial derangement, 
 miscalled "system," operates through a state of perma- 
 nent industrial warfare, in which the true producers of 
 all wealth are treated as prisoners of war. 
 
 This general and relentless social strife is not fomented 
 by malevolent "agitators." It is rooted in the very 
 foundations of the system of capitalism and is the 
 most damning indictment against it. 
 
 Nor are the direct economic faults of the existing 
 order its only or even greatest curse. The diseased germs 
 of the system are bound to infect all organs of the body 
 politic with their insidious poison. For, after all, modern 
 politics is mainly concerned with affairs of business 
 within the municipality, state, and nation. Franchises 
 and grants for public-service corporations, tariffs for man- 
 ufacturing industries, supervision of certain quasi-public 
 business concerns, regulation of rates and charges of 
 others, and rules with respect to certain employments 
 these constitute the largest items on the calendar of 
 every legislative body, and all such legislation has a direct 
 effect on the capitalist's ledger.
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 21 
 
 The capitalists are likewise vitally concerned in the 
 personnel of the executive and judicial officials. The 
 favours or disfavours of such officials often mean dollars 
 and cents to them. The big business interests have 
 thus a direct and practical motive in seeking to influence 
 or control politics. And therein lies the main cause of 
 all contemporary political corruption. The national 
 campaigns of the old political parties are financed, hence 
 controlled, very largely by the national trusts through 
 their individual representatives; the state campaigns 
 by the principal railroad lines of the^state; and the 
 municipal campaigns by the local tractiony^gas^or-ether 
 "public-service" corporations. 
 
 Under these conditions politics becomes a lucrative call- 
 ing exercised by a large army of professionals, trained in 
 the fine art of trafficking in votes, public offices, and legis- 
 lative enactments. The Spartan band of our honest but 
 simple statesmen may continue exerting their ingenuity 
 toward the elaboration of an ideal Corrupt Practices Act 
 and perfect primary laws, and our public-spirited munici- 
 pal reformers may remain on their life-job of purifying 
 local politics ; they may even succeed in curbing the raw 
 methods of open barter and in introducing greater out- 
 ward decency ; but they cannot change the substance. 
 
 So long as politics has a direct bearing on private 
 profits, there will always exist a commercial alliance 
 between the capitalist and the politician, the former 
 having a constant incentive to corrupt, and the latter 
 being in the business of being corrupted. 
 
 And what is true of politics holds equally good of the 
 effects of capitalism on all fields of the intellectual and 
 spiritual life of the nation.
 
 22 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The general state of public enlightenment in the last 
 analysis determines all social and political developments 
 of the country. 
 
 The natural and direct impulse of every individual or 
 group or class of individuals is to act in a manner most 
 conducive to the promotion of his or their interests. But 
 in order to make the action effective, the interests must 
 be intelligently understood. If the majority of the 
 people clearly perceived their needs and rights, and 
 realized their power, no minority would ever rule. The 
 fact that all ruling classes in history have been in the 
 minority is to be largely accounted for by their ability 
 to impose on the rest of the population such views and 
 notions as were required to preserve their rule. 
 
 Not that the rule of any dominant class was ever 
 based on purely intellectual concepts on the contrary, 
 they were always supported by brute physical force in 
 the shape of strong armies; but nevertheless they de- 
 pended ultimately on popular sanction. In the absence 
 of such sanction the ruling classes could not even recruit 
 and maintain their armies in the long run. 
 
 The capitalists are no exception to this general histori- 
 cal rule. They constitute a minority in the population 
 of every civilized country. Their rule is based on their 
 ownership of the tools of work, the laws which sanction 
 and protect such ownership, and the government organ- 
 ized to enforce such sanction and protection. But in 
 a political democracy the laws may change with every 
 change of the popular notion of justice and expediency, 
 and the government is always the football of contending 
 forces of diverse material interests. To preserve their 
 economic power the capitalists must therefore retain
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 23 
 
 their political control, and the latter presupposes the 
 support of a majority of the people. 
 
 Modern capitalism depends on popular sanction even 
 in a larger measure than the class rules of the past, be- 
 cause that sanction must be renewed and solemnly at- 
 tested every few years at the ballot-box. 
 
 The capitalists are thus vitally concerned in the state 
 of enlightenment, social views, economic doctrines, and 
 ethical conceptions of their fellow-citizens, and they 
 spare no effort to shape them in conformity with-their 
 own notions and interests. The press, the pulpit, and 
 the school are largely under their influence, if not directly 
 in their service. 
 
 The most influential part of the daily press is either 
 owned outright by them, or mortgaged to them, or de- 
 pendent on them through advertisements and similar 
 bonds of friendship, and the average editorial writer 
 quite naturally views the world and its problems through 
 the coloured spectacles of his masters. 
 
 The churches, especially the larger and wealthier, are 
 also supported by the money interests, and their ministers 
 in most cases quite innocently and sincerely deliver the 
 message of Christ in the version of the factory superin- 
 tendent. 
 
 The public schools suffer from the same malign politi- 
 cal influences which corrupt the city councils, and the 
 colleges and universities are often founded, endowed, or 
 supported by benevolent capitalists, on the tacit condi- 
 tion that science is at all times to remain respectable and 
 respectful. 
 
 The existence of an "independent" press and the oc- 
 casional type of the progressive preacher and the radical
 
 24 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 college professor only prove that exceptionally vigorous 
 spirits may assert themselves in spite of the corrupting 
 influences of capitalist economic pressure. They justify 
 the hope of Socialism, but do not mitigate the evils of 
 Capitalism. 
 
 In his reply to this statement Dr. Ryan asserts that 
 the press, the school, and the church must furnish the 
 moral and intellectual remedies against the social evil of 
 our day and generation. Why and how must they? 
 This categoric imperative has been hurled at them for 
 a great many centuries without visible effect. What 
 reason does my hopeful opponent have to assume that 
 they will respond to his challenge now ? 
 
 It seems to me quite clear that so long as the sources 
 of popular knowledge and faith and the organs of public 
 expression are monopolized by private capitalist interests, 
 so long will they serve the same purpose as the privately 
 owned tools of production to fortify the capitalist rule. 
 
 Thus the most serious defects in our scheme of social 
 arrangement may be readily traced to one common source 
 - the system which hands over to a relatively small 
 number of favoured individuals the very key to the life 
 and welfare of the whole people, the sources of life and 
 the tools of work, and allows them to monopolize wealth, 
 power, ease, and culture, leaving the majority of their 
 fellow-men to struggle in poverty, dependence, toil, and 
 ignorance the anarchistic, predatory, demoralizing, 
 and corrupting system of Capitalism. 
 
 It is no answer to the Socialist indictment to say that 
 with all its shortcomings modern civilization is superior 
 to all conditions of the past.
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 25 
 
 The modern or capitalist era has introduced certain 
 grave social problems unknown to the past. It has 
 increased the risks and the insecurity of the working 
 population, it has intensified social contrasts, and has 
 reared a new social power of unprecedented virulence 
 and menace, the money power. But with all that the 
 Socialists cheerfully admit that, on the whole, life is more 
 propitious to-day even to the masses than it was ^t any 
 time in the past. The very foundation of 
 mistic philosophy rests on the realization of the world's 
 never ceasing process of betterment. 
 
 The Socialists, however, refuse to admit that the 
 capitalist system is the ultimate and perfect form of 
 social development and the last word of history. The 
 criterion of their criticism is not the conditions of the past, 
 but the measure in which the present has taken advan- 
 tage or failed to take advantage of the available forces 
 of improvement. 
 
 When a nation is poor in natural resources and un- 
 skilled in the art of producing its sustenance by appro- 
 priate instruments and methods, the sum of supplies 
 produced or secured will naturally fall short of the norm 
 required to satisfy the needs of all inhabitants. Poverty 
 is legitimate under such circumstances, and struggles 
 for food among men are inevitable. 
 
 But when a people is abundantly blessed with fertile 
 soil, forests, minerals, and other sources of wealth, and 
 has developed a perfect system for the production, trans- 
 portation, and distribution of goods, it is placed in a 
 position to take care of the reasonable needs of all its 
 members. In such case poverty and brute fights for food 
 or wealth are no longer "natural" -they are purely
 
 26 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 artificial and evidence of a serious flaw in the organiza- 
 tion of the industrial system. 
 
 The Socialists contend that all modern civilized na- 
 tions are amply provided with natural wealth, and that 
 the development of the marvelous instruments of pro- 
 duction, transportation, and exchange within the last 
 century has increased the fertility of human labour to 
 such an extent that every nation is able to feed, clothe, 
 and house its inhabitants with perfect ease. 
 
 The reason that this is not done, and that the richest 
 nations present the most appalling scenes of poverty 
 and destitution among large sections of the population, 
 is to be found in the fact that in modern societies wealth 
 is not at all created for the satisfaction of human needs, 
 but for the purpose of enabling a number of chosen in- 
 dividuals, commonly styled capitalists, to hoard up for- 
 tunes. 
 
 In other words, our industrial machinery is organized 
 for private profit, not for public use. 
 
 Socialism proposes to abolish the capitalist industrial 
 monopoly and to organize and develop in its stead a 
 system of socialized industries, i.e. a system by which 
 the important industries of the country shall be operated 
 by the people, under rational and democratic forms of 
 organization and management, for the benefit of the 
 whole community, and not for the profit of individual 
 capitalists. The first step to such a system is the ac- 
 quisition by the people, through their government, of 
 all the general sources and resources of wealth and the 
 modern instruments of labour. More technically stated, 
 Socialism stands for the collective ownership of all social 
 sources and instruments of wealth production, to be
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 27 
 
 operated under democratic administration for the benefit 
 of the whole people. 
 
 II. THE SOCIALIST INDICTMENT is OVERDRAWN : THE 
 REMEDY is SOCIAL REFORM 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 The remedy for our social ills proposed by the Socialist 
 is, indeed, more radical than the programme of the social 
 reformer. But the Socialist criticism is not more scien- 
 tific. It is not scientific at all. It exaggerates the wrongs 
 and defects of the existing order because it considers them 
 without reference to the achievements of the past and 
 the possibilities of the present and future ; because it at- 
 tributes to human nature and human institutions a per- 
 fectibility that is not justified by experience ; and because 
 it makes social causality and social processes entirely too 
 simple. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit's indictment of our methods of wealth 
 production may be summed up in his own words, "an- 
 archy reigns supreme." As a consequence of this 
 anarchy we have : an enormous waste of energy and re- 
 sources; alternating periods of over-employment and 
 under-employment ; untold suffering by millions of 
 human beings; monopolistic concentration which exer- 
 cises "practically unrestricted powers over the workers 
 as well as the consumers," and which defies even the 
 government itself ; and, finally, a system of distribution 
 which doles out to the working population "just a little 
 less than is necessary to maintain it in physical fitness 
 for its task and to enable it to reproduce the species
 
 28 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 worker" a system of distribution which breeds "thou- 
 sands of powerful millionnaires, . . . and . . . mil- 
 lions of paupers with their disreputable dwellings, their 
 filth and rags." 
 
 Of these assertions some are true only in a figurative 
 sense; others are only half-truths; none is true ade- 
 quately or scientifically ; and all are misleading. 
 
 Figures of Speech. The nation, says my opponent, 
 is helpless before the trusts. 
 
 How does he know? The strength of the nation in 
 this respect has never been tested. 
 
 During the period of less than twenty years in which 
 the trusts were organizing, no systematic, comprehen- 
 sive, and persistent effort was set in motion to prevent, 
 control, or dissolve them. To assume that the partial 
 dissolution of the Standard Oil Company and the 
 American Tobacco Company by a court decree has ex- 
 hausted the power of the government, is to ignore the 
 greater part of its resources both in the field of preven- 
 tion and punishment. Thank God, we now have a na- 
 tional administration which does not believe either in the 
 craven doctrine of trust omnipotence or in the paralyzing 
 superstition of trust efficiency, and which will earnestly 
 and intelligently utilize all the powers of the nation 
 against Mr. Hillquit's "huge giants." 
 
 Not until this plan has met with decisive failure will 
 his pessimistic presentment of national helplessness be 
 within measurable distance of literal and scientific 
 statement. 
 
 Another purely figurative assertion is that " the work- 
 ing population as a whole gets just a little less than is 
 necessary to maintain it in physical fitness for its task
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 29 
 
 and to enable it to reproduce the species worker" There- 
 fore, the working-class must in time disappear, since its 
 ranks cannot be recruited indefinitely from the middle 
 class. That would be one solution of the class struggle. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the majority of the wage-earners 
 do marry and reproduce. Practically all the skille 
 workers, and a considerable portion of the unskilled, 
 get sufficient remuneration to command some leisure, 
 recreation, and amusement; some education, books, 
 and newspapers ; some religious advantages and church 
 affiliation; and some purely "social" intercourse and 
 benefits. 
 
 Even the statement that we have millions of paupers 
 is only figurative. When Professor Ely put the number 
 at three million in 1890, and Robert Hunter made it 
 four million in 1904, they were using the word "pauper" 
 in its technical, not in its general, sense. They were 
 attempting to estimate the number of persons who re- 
 ceived sustenance from charity for any portion of the 
 year, however short. Since the vast majority of these 
 persons suffered this hardship for only a very brief period, 
 they were not paupers in the general and ordinary 
 acceptation, nor did their .condition approach that dire 
 need which is suggested to the average reader by state- 
 ments like that of Mr. Hillquit. 
 
 Half-truths. Under this head comes my opponent's 
 description of the wastes, maladjustment, and suffering 
 involved in the competitive system. Even though his 
 presentation of these evils were literally accurate, it 
 would not follow that the system is economically and 
 ethically bankrupt. Such a conclusion would not be
 
 30 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 justified until the evils complained of had been shown 
 to be greater than those of any previous system, until 
 the present system had been proved incapable of improve- 
 ment, or until a certainly better system had been found. 
 None of these conditions is met by Mr. Hillquit. 
 
 Economic conditions are better for the masses than 
 they have been at any previous time. With the excep- 
 tion of perhaps the poorest one-tenth, the working-classes 
 are better fed, clothed, and housed, and better provided 
 with economic goods generally. Even the "submerged 
 tenth" is probably better fed and housed than was the 
 corresponding section of the population in the most 
 favourable period of the past, namely, the later Middle 
 Ages. The advances made by all divisions of the 
 working-class since the beginning of the capitalist sys- 
 tem, about a century and a quarter ago, constitute one 
 of the commonplaces of economic history. 
 
 Indeed, Mr. Hillquit admits that, "on the whole, life 
 is more propitious to-day even to the masses than it was 
 at any time in the past"; but he contends that the 
 present system has introduced certain grave evils of its 
 own, and has "failed to take advantage of the available 
 forces of improvement." That the position and liveli- 
 hood of large sections of the working population are less 
 secure under the existing arrangement than in the stable 
 and regulated conditions of mediaeval society, cannot 
 be doubted; but this defect is gradually diminishing, 
 and it can be entirely removed through the modern de- 
 vice of insurance. That our "money power" is a new 
 thing under the sun, is likewise unquestionable ; yet it 
 does not exercise the same minute control over the lives 
 and liberties of the people as the feudal aristocracy;
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 31 
 
 besides, its sway can be curtailed or destroyed as soon 
 as the national government seriously makes the at- 
 tempt. 
 
 That we have not taken "advantage of the available 
 forces of improvement," is most lamentably true; but 
 this fact does not justify the assumption that our eco- 
 nomic system is incapable of so doing. 
 
 Neither Mr. Hillquit nor any other critic has adduced 
 positive evidence to show that the present system can- 
 not be so reformed as to eliminate all the genuine evils 
 that he denounces. From the progress made in the 
 United States in the last twenty-five years in the matters 
 of collective bargaining between employers and employees, 
 the protection of women and children in industry, safety 
 and sanitation in work places, compensation for indus- 
 trial accidents, minimum-wage legislation, the attitude of 
 the public and of employers toward the rights and 
 claims of labour, the realization that the main abuses of 
 economic power proceed not from capital, but from privi- 
 leged capital, and other significant changes we con- 
 clude that our economic society is neither retrogressive 
 nor stagnant. 
 
 The extent to which the grosser evils of competition 
 have been removed through combination and coopera- 
 tion gives some indication of the immense progress that 
 is easily possible along these lines. Industrial crises 
 have steadily diminished in frequency and intensity. 
 All these are solid, definite, and substantial gains. To 
 ignore them is unjust. To assume that they have come 
 to an end is unwarranted and unscientific. 
 
 My opponent's indictment of the existing order be- 
 comes reasonable only on the assumption that a perfectly
 
 32 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 flawless economic system is practically attainable. Such 
 a system he thinks he has found in- Socialism. How 
 badly he is mistaken in this supposition, we shall see 
 in the next and later chapters. In the meantime I would 
 merely call attention to the fact that the "anarchy" 
 and waste of the present system may well be a smaller 
 social evil than the lack of individual liberty and incen- 
 tive which are inseparable from a rigidly determined 
 economico-political order. 
 
 Is it desirable that all workers should be compelled 
 to sell their labour to, and all consumers forced to buy 
 their goods from, one agency, the State ? 
 
 With regard to inadequate incentive, Professor Thor- 
 stein Veblen, who is by no means an unfriendly critic 
 of Socialism, writes : 
 
 "While it is in the nature of things unavoidable that 
 the management of industry by modern business methods 
 should involve a large misdirection of effort and a large 
 waste of goods and services, it is also true that the aims 
 and ideals to which this manner of life gives effect, act 
 forcibly to offset all this incidental futility. These 
 pecuniary aims and ideals have a very great effect, for 
 instance, in making men work hard and unremittingly, 
 so that on this ground alone the business system prob- 
 ably compensates for any waste involved in its working. 
 There seems, therefore, no tenable ground for thinking 
 that the working of the modern system involves a cur- 
 tailment of the community's livelihood. It makes up 
 for its wastefulness by the added strain which it throws 
 upon those engaged in productive work." l 
 
 If we compare the evils of our present system with the 
 
 1 "The Theory of Business Enterprise," p. 65 ; New York, 1904.
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 33 
 
 elements of an ideal economic order, we cannot condemn 
 them too strongly; if we compare them with what in 
 the light of experience seems to be practicable, we see 
 that they are not nearly so terrible as they appear in the 
 eloquent pages of Mr. Hillquit. Inasmuch as he employs 
 the former rather than the latter criterion, his picture 
 lacks perspective and proportion, and gives us only a 
 series of half-truths. 
 
 The same judgment must be passed on his descrip- 
 tion of those evils of present society which are not pri- 
 marily economic. Measured by the general diffusion 
 of culture among the masses, he says, "our modern civi- 
 lization is a miserable failure." This verdict is not 
 warranted if our standard of comparison is to be the 
 achievements of the past or an accurate interpretation 
 of the possibilities of the present and the future. Does 
 Mr. Hillquit think that the culture of, say, the university 
 professor could, through any feasible arrangement of 
 economic and social conditions, be brought within the 
 reach of every human being ? 
 
 "Millions of mine workers, factory hands, and street 
 labourers culturally still live in the fifteenth century." 
 Surely this is an overstatement. Only a small minor- 
 ity of these classes, in the United States at least, are en- 
 tirely without education, books, and newspapers. Only 
 a small minority of the fifteenth-century populations 
 possessed any of these things. On the whole, progress, 
 very great progress, has been made in the task of pro- 
 viding opportunities of culture for the masses. 
 
 According to my opponent, our present industrial 
 arrangements pit producer against consumer, tenant
 
 34 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 against landlord, and worker against employer. To a 
 large extent this is true. It is also inevitable. In some 
 degree it would prevail even under Socialism; for the 
 producers of any article would not be identical with the 
 whole body of its consumers. The former would seek 
 the highest possible remuneration ; the latter would for 
 the most part desire to keep down the price of the article, 
 and therefore the wages of its producers. The Socialists 
 make a great deal of this antagonism of interests, yet a 
 little reflection would show that it could be eliminated 
 only by a return to that primitive economy in which each 
 man produces only for himself, and buys nothing from 
 any one else. 
 
 Although much of the current talk about the harmony 
 of interests between employer and employee is just 
 what Mr. Hillquit calls it, "conventional cant," his own 
 figure of the wolf and the lamb is little better than a 
 caricature. Whether they realize it or not, both em- 
 ployer and employee prosper better in the long run by 
 so arranging their relations that the total product to be 
 divided between them shall be as large as possible. The 
 share of the capitalist will, in most instances, be greater 
 if he establishes liberal conditions of employment and 
 wages than if he rigorously strives "to secure the maxi- 
 mum of work for the minimum of pay." 
 
 That the majority of employers have not yet realized 
 this truth does not make it an untruth ; that a constantly 
 increasing number of them is realizing it, shows that it 
 need not remain forever undiscovered by the determining 
 mass of them. 
 
 The assertion that the toiler "instinctively hates his 
 employer" applies to only a small minority of the labour-
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 35 
 
 ing class. It is inaccurate to say that " ' industrial dis- 
 putes' are almost the rule"; for between no groups of 
 employers and employees do they prevail most of the 
 time. A fairly complete array of statistics shows that 
 in proportion to the wage-earning population strikes are 
 steadily decreasing. 1 The relations subsisting between 
 the average employer and his employees during the 
 greater part of any year are no more correctly charac- 
 terized by the term "dispute" than is the relation be- 
 tween the average housewife and the keeper of the corner 
 grocery. 
 
 Inevitable difference of interests does not imply con- 
 tinual warfare. 
 
 The demoralizing influence of business, especially 
 "big business," upon our political life is summarily, 
 though somewhat luridly, sketched by Mr. Hillquit. 
 I shall not quarrel with his account of the past, but I 
 cannot accept his inference that no substantial improve- 
 ment is visible or possible. To characterize the far- 
 reaching and fundamental changes for the better which 
 have occurred in the last five years, particularly in the 
 last presidential campaign, as no more than "greater 
 outward decency" is to substitute hyperbole for literal 
 and accurate statement. 
 
 Moreover, my opponent takes no account of the fact 
 that the really formidable corruption practised by the 
 great corporations is quite as recent as the corporations 
 themselves, and that time is required to acquaint the 
 people with the new conditions and the new dangers. 
 
 1 For proof of this statement see Adams and Sumner, "Labor Prob- 
 lems," p. 180; New York, 1905.
 
 36 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 That capitalists will always seek to corrupt politicians 
 is true; but the same will ever be true of any class 
 whose interests are affected by the activities of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Even under Socialism men would still desire certain 
 good things, such as larger incomes and better positions, 
 which would be within the power of political function- 
 aries. And these goods would be not less, but more, im- 
 portant to men with moderate salaries than are increased 
 profits to the present-day capitalists. The only essential 
 difference is that the bribes would be more numerous 
 and less liberal. 
 
 According to Mr. Hillquit, the press, the pulpit, and 
 the school are largely under the influence, if not directly 
 in the service, of the capitalists. Taken as it stands, 
 this is a gross overstatement. 
 
 Despite numerous and notorious instances to the con- 
 trary, the monthly and weekly periodicals do not support 
 all the main projects and desires of Capitalism. The 
 great daily newspapers are, indeed, more subservient; 
 yet a considerable portion of them are independent on 
 many important issues, for example, on the trusts and 
 the tariff. Not a little of the recently aroused public 
 opinion on these subjects, and on the subject of privi- 
 leged wealth generally, is due to some of the metropolitan 
 dailies. 
 
 To be sure, if my opponent merely means to say that 
 the press upholds the system of private ownership of 
 capital as against Socialism, he states the truth ; but it is 
 not, after all, a very illuminating truth. 
 
 His assertion that the churches are supported by the
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 37 
 
 money interest, and that the clergy "deliver the mes- 
 sage of Christ in the version of the factory superintend- 
 ent," is adequately true of only a small minority. It is, 
 however, true of practically all of them in the sense that 
 they do not preach the Gospel in the version of Karl 
 Marx. 
 
 To say that "the colleges and universities are often 
 founded, endowed, or supported by benevolent capital- 
 ists, on the tacit condition that science is to remain at 
 all times respectable and respectful," and to imply that 
 this alleged condition is fulfilled, is to disregard the actual 
 teaching of these institutions, particularly as given from 
 the chairs of sociology and economics. The statement 
 just quoted from my opponent is evidently based entirely 
 on a priori grounds. 
 
 His contention that only the "exceptionally vigorous 
 spirits" among journalists, clergymen, and college pro- 
 fessors resist "the corrupting influences of capitalist 
 economic pressure," is one for which he offers no sem- 
 blance of proof. All the evidence tends to show that 
 the contrary statement is nearer the truth; namely, 
 that it is the men who yield to these influences who 
 constitute the exceptions in these three classes. 
 
 His assertion that the press, the school, and the church 
 have for centuries failed to achieve anything worth while 
 toward remedying social evils is obviously pure rhetoric. 
 Let him soberly, and with an eye single to the facts of 
 history, eliminate from social progress the contributions 
 of these three agencies, and then tell us what remains. 
 
 That the press, the school, and the church have not 
 removed all social evils nor brought about ideal social 
 conditions is most true, but it does not warrant the. state-
 
 38 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ment that they have accomplished practically nothing, 
 nor the inference that they will have no success in the 
 future. Here, as in so many other parts of his paper, 
 my opponent has adopted an unreasonable and impossible 
 criterion of achievement. 
 
 To ascribe all the evils of the present order to a single 
 source, the private ownership of capital, is neither ante- 
 cedently plausible nor justified by fact. It offers us an 
 explanation that is entirely too simple. We are reminded 
 of the words of Professor Marshall : "Nature's action is 
 complex ; and nothing is gained in the long run by pre- 
 tending that it is simple, and trying to describe it in a 
 series of elementary propositions." 1 Inasmuch as the 
 situation that we are considering involves the action and 
 interaction of rational and non-rational nature in a hun- 
 dred different ways, we should expect its causes and 
 problems to be hi the highest degree complex. 
 
 A sober analysis of the facts shows that the evils de- 
 nounced by Mr. Hillquit are due to Capitalism only in 
 part, and that even this part is specifically chargeable 
 not to the system itself, but to its abuses. Many of our 
 social wrongs and maladjustments spring directly from 
 the limitations of human nature, such as ignorance and 
 greed ; these would exist and be effective under any sys- 
 tem whatever. The evils which are specifically trace- 
 able to Capitalism, for example, oppression of labour, 
 unrighteous and unearned incomes, and the insufficient 
 distribution of productive property, can all be eliminated 
 through measures of social reform. 
 
 According to my opponent, however, social reform 
 
 1 "Principles of Economics," p. x; first edition.
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 39 
 
 can afford only slight and temporary relief, and cannot 
 produce a "lasting or radical cure." The truth or un- 
 truth of this contention depends upon our definition of 
 terms and our standard of achievement. Measured by 
 any criterion taken from history and experience, the im- 
 provement in social conditions since the rise of the capi- 
 talist system is not "slight" ; judged by all the available 
 indications of our time, it is not "temporary." * 
 
 As to the future, every indication points to a great 
 acceleration of all movements for specific reforms. Such 
 will be the normal result of our increased knowledge of 
 social facts, forces, and possibilities, the awakening of 
 the social conscience, and the enlarged intelligence, de- 
 termination, and power of the less fortunate classes. 
 While I agree with my opponent neither as regards the 
 method nor the content of a "radical and lasting cure" 
 of our social evils, I believe that he is right in his state- 
 ment that our natural and technical resources are ade- 
 quate to provide all our people with abundant food, 
 clothing, and housing. I believe that we are moving, 
 slowly indeed, but steadily, toward this goal, and that 
 we shall reach it not by the futile way of Socialism, but 
 along the solid road of social reform. 
 
 In the light of past experience and present knowledge, 
 the direction of this road seems to be about as follows : 
 
 The three great economic defects of the existing sys- 
 tem are: insufficient remuneration of the majority of 
 wage-earners; excessive incomes obtained by a small 
 minority of capitalists; and the narrow distribution of 
 capital ownership. 
 
 1 See, for example, the historical review contained in Chapter XIII 
 of "Labor Problems," by Adams and Sumner.
 
 40 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 For insufficient wages the essential and appropriate 
 remedy is a legal minimum wage which will prevent any 
 person from being compelled to work for less than the 
 equivalent of a decent livelihood, including adequate 
 protection against all the contingencies of existence. 
 While awaiting the realization of this condition, the State 
 must make legislative provision for insurance against 
 sickness, accident, unemployment, and old age, and for 
 decent housing of all whose wages are still inadequate. 
 
 Other necessary laws are those which will effect a 
 better adjustment between the supply of, and the demand 
 for labour, abolish improper forms and conditions of 
 female labour, prevent excessive hours of labour among all 
 classes of workers, make rational provision for the ad- 
 justment of industrial disputes, and establish a thorough 
 and universal system of industrial education. The 
 ends sought by all this legislation can and should be 
 promoted by an indefinite increase in the extent and 
 power of labour organizations. 
 
 Excessive incomes and profits can be prevented through 
 the abolition of special privilege and unregulated monop- 
 oly. All monopolistic concerns except those which ex- 
 perience will prove to be natural and necessary must be 
 absolutely destroyed. Such natural monopolies as rail- 
 roads, telegraphs, street railways, and municipal utilities 
 generally should be either owned and operated by the 
 appropriate public authority, or so regulated that their 
 owners will receive no more than the prevailing rate of 
 interest on the actual value of the property. If the 
 future should demonstrate that, even outside this field 
 of public utilities, there are certain commodities which 
 can be most economically produced under the control
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 41 
 
 of a monopolistic concern, the State should either fix 
 the maximum prices at which these goods can be sold, 
 or become to some extent a competitor in their produc- 
 tion. A private unregulated monopoly is socially in- 
 tolerable. 
 
 Taxes should be gradually removed from production 
 and from the necessaries of life, and placed upon land, 
 incomes, and inheritances. If a considerable part of 
 the future increases of land values were appropriated 
 through taxation, land would become easier of access 
 to the landless, and unearned incomes would receive a 
 salutary check. As a result of the foregoing measures, 
 capital would be automatically restricted to the prevail- 
 ing or competitive rate of interest in all cases except 
 where the capitalist was able to secure more through 
 exceptional personal efficiency. In every instance, 
 therefore, the returns to the capitalist would not exceed 
 a fair and necessary payment for his social services. 
 
 The narrow distribution of capital ownership is more 
 fundamental than the other two evils, because it threat- 
 ens the stability of the whole system. That the majority 
 of the wage-earners should, in a country as rich as 
 America, possess no income-bearing property, have no 
 ownership in the means of production, is a gross anomaly. 
 It is not normal, and it cannot be permanent. No 
 nation can endure as a nation predominantly of hired 
 men. Until the majority of the wage-earners become 
 owners, at least in part, of the tools with which they 
 work, the system of private capital will remain, in Hilaire- 
 Belloc's phrase, "essentially unstable." 
 
 The condition in which only a minority of the em- 
 ployees participate in the ownership of the business that
 
 42 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 employs them, and which puts the responsible direction 
 of industry into the hands of a small number of very 
 powerful persons, is a pathological condition. It already 
 threatens the life of the present system. 
 
 To quote the historian Brooks Adams : 
 
 "The capitalistic domination of society, which has 
 prevailed for rather more than two generations, has 
 broken down, and men of the capitalist type have ap- 
 parently the alternative before them of adapting them- 
 selves to a new environment, or of being eliminated, as 
 every obsolete type has always been eliminated." l 
 
 One of the most important steps in this process of ad- 
 justment will be the distribution of a large measure of 
 capital ownership among the workers. This end can be 
 attained in a great variety of ways, but the two main 
 types must be copartnership and cooperative societies. 
 The change will necessarily come slowly, but such has 
 been the history of all fundamental and enduring im- 
 provements. 
 
 As I have already observed, a considerable part of our 
 social evils are not economic, but intellectual and moral. 
 For these the remedies must evidently be provided 
 through the mental and ethical education of the indi- 
 vidual, and the sources of such education are the press, 
 the school, and the church. The facts and relations 
 of industrial life must become better known, the moral 
 law must be more specifically applied to all phases of 
 economic activity, and the social and individual con- 
 science must be educated and quickened. 
 
 1 The Atlantic Monthly, April, 1913, p."43S-
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 43 
 
 III. REJOINDER 
 
 BY MR. HILLQUIT 
 
 While I cheerfully admit that some of the reform 
 measures proposed by Dr. Ryan are entirely sound and 
 highly desirable, I cannot accept his programme as an 
 adequate remedy for the existing economic evils. I con- 
 sider it, furthermore, quite unwarranted to advance any 
 proposal of minor and immediate social reforms in oppo- 
 sition to the ultimate Socialist programme. 
 
 Socialism is not opposed to genuine social reform. 
 Many of the measures advocated by Dr. Ryan as a sub- 
 stitute for Socialism are contained in the Socialist plat- 
 form, and some of them have been first formulated by 
 Socialists. The Socialists advocate and support every 
 measure calculated to better the lot of the worker or to 
 curb excessive wealth or profits ; but they realize that all 
 such reforms are, and in the nature of things must be, 
 mere makeshifts, useful but temporary. They consider 
 them in the nature of palliative remedies administered 
 to the patient to soothe his pains and to strengthen his 
 system pending the more radical treatment of the basic 
 disease, but entirely powerless to effect a complete cure. 
 
 Let us imagine that the programme of reforms advanced 
 by Dr. Ryan has been fully realized. A minimum wage 
 has been established by law, the length of the workday 
 has been limited to a reasonable number of hours, and 
 proper provisions have been made for the relief of workers 
 in case of sickness, accident, unemployment, and old 
 age. Is it to be assumed that after the enactment of 
 such reforms the workers would rest forever passive and
 
 44 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 contented ; that they would abandon all efforts toward 
 further betterment, and that the wheels of social progress 
 would come to a sudden stop ? 
 
 By no means. The capitalist would still make profits 
 from the labour of the worker, the worker would still 
 claim a larger share of the product. This movement can- 
 not logically stop until such time as complete social jus- 
 tice shall be established by returning to the working pop- 
 ulation as a whole the full product of their labour and 
 abolishing all "workless" incomes, except in the shape 
 of public support to the weak and disabled; in other 
 words, until Socialism shall be realized. 
 
 Thus Dr. Ryan and I start from the same premises, 
 the realization of the need of radical social changes. 
 The difference between us is the usual difference between 
 the Socialist and the non-Socialist reformer. The former 
 endeavours to follow the path of progress to the end, 
 while the latter remains faltering and inconclusive, 
 trying to accomplish the impossible task of establishing 
 a terminal at an indefinite point in the middle of the 
 road. 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER 
 
 BY DR. RYAN 
 
 My opponent contends that many of the proposals 
 set forth in my main paper are contained in the Socialist 
 platform, and that some of them were first formulated 
 by Socialists. The latter statement appears to me to 
 be very doubtful. Of late years the Socialist party 
 has been fairly enterprising in adopting among its 
 "immediate demands" reform measures which have
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 45 
 
 attained a certain degree of popularity, and claiming 
 them as its own. 
 
 For example, the legal minimum wage has been advo- 
 cated and agitated by different groups of social reformers 
 for several years, but it made its first appearance in an 
 American Socialist platform in 1912. When it was 
 embodied in the Progressive platform about a month 
 later, some of the leading Socialists claimed that Roose- 
 velt had stolen it from them ! 
 
 As a matter of fact, the German Socialists in the early 
 years of their parliamentary activity opposed some very 
 necessary social reforms; Socialists everywhere subor- 
 dinate such measures to party welfare and tactics.; and 
 no Socialist platform, so far as I am aware, contains a 
 single reform proposal which was not borrowed from 
 non-Socialist sources. From the Socialist viewpoint, 
 however, all these and similar policies are consistent and 
 logical. 
 
 The reformative principles and measures which have 
 been sketched in my preceding article are adapted to 
 meet specifically all the main abuses of our present in- 
 dustrial system. In greater or less degree they have 
 all withstood the test of experience. They can be made 
 effective as rapidly as is consistent with the limitations 
 of human nature, the lessons of history, and justice to 
 all classes of the community. 
 
 When their full results have been attained; when a 
 decent minimum of working and living conditions has 
 been secured to all persons ; when the great majority of 
 all the workers possess some share in the means of pro- 
 duction ; when economic opportunity has become equi- 
 tably distributed, through industrial education and the
 
 46 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 abolition of private monopoly ; when no capital is able 
 to get more than the competitive or ordinary rate of in- 
 terest; when unusual profits are possible only to those 
 directors of industry who in active competition with 
 their fellows can produce unusually large amounts of 
 product ; and when the working-class is in a position to 
 secure an ever increasing share of the national product, 
 up to the limit of industrial resources and social well- 
 being then there will be nothing left of the social 
 question except that healthy measure of discontent 
 which is a condition of all individual development and 
 social progress. 
 
 My opponent attributes to me the thought that, when 
 the reforms that I have advocated had been realized, 
 social progress would stop and the workers become 
 "passive and contented." But have I not explicitly re- 
 pudiated that supposition in the statement that the 
 workers would be in a position to go farther, and obtain 
 an indefinitely increasing share of the national product ? 
 How much farther they would be enabled to progress, 
 I cannot tell. I am not a prophet. I can only indicate 
 the next important step which seems to be continuous 
 with the past, and to be authorized by experience. Pos- 
 sibly the process will go on until interest as we now have 
 it will be for the most part abolished. I hope so, but I 
 believe that this result will be reached not through So- 
 cialism, but through the direct ownership of the greater 
 part of the instruments of production by the workers 
 themselves by such methods as copartnership schemes 
 and cooperative societies. 
 
 And I submit that this will be more democratic, more 
 conducive to individual initiative, freedom, and oppor-
 
 SOCIAL EVILS AND REMEDIES 47 
 
 tunity, and in a hundred ways more desirable than a 
 society in which the State has a monopoly of all social 
 power, and in which the individual can act only through 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit has, therefore, misunderstood my Posi- 
 tion when he says that I would establish a terminar 
 social progress "at an indefinite point in the middle ol 
 the road." I do not attempt to fix a terminal anywhere, 
 for the simple reason that the facts do not warrant such 
 an attempt. 
 
 My opponent does set a limit to industrial evolution, 
 namely, the Socialist State. In so doing he abandons 
 the position of the evolutionist for that of the Utopian. 
 I am the more consistent evolutionist because I do not 
 attempt to forecast any final or fixed industrial system. 
 The only Utopia of which I know anything is on the other 
 side of the grave. 
 
 My opponent contends that Socialism is the logical 
 and necessary outcome and terminus of industrial prog- 
 ress. I do not see either the necessity or the logic; 
 for I am unable to accept the a priori social philosophy 
 which underlies Mr. Hillquit's social faith and hope. 
 
 We shall see more of this in a later chapter. In the 
 meantime I would observe that this belief in Socialism 
 as the industrial finality is another proof that the Social- 
 ist is not more but less scientific than the social reformer.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 
 I. IMMORAL AND IMPRACTICABLE 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 THE most important feature of the many-sided thing 
 that we call Socialism is its proposed reorganization 
 of industrial society. This is the goal of Socialist phi- 
 losophy, Socialist action, Socialist hopes. Is it a desir- 
 able goal ? 
 
 It would replace the present system of private owner- 
 ship, operation, and distribution by collective ownership 
 and operation of the means of production, and social 
 distribution of the product of industry. Let us see in 
 some detail what this involves, as applied to land and to 
 capital. 
 
 "The nearest approach to a volte-face which Socialists 
 have made since Marx has been in relation to agrarian- 
 ism. Marx thought that the advantage of concentrating 
 capital would be felt in agriculture as in other industries, 
 but, in spite of temporary confirmation of this view by 
 the mammoth farms which sprang up in North America, 
 it now appears very doubtful. . . . Recognition of this 
 has led reformists to substitute a policy of actively 
 assisting the peasants for the orthodox policy of leaving 
 them to succumb to capitalism. Their formula is: 
 
 48
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 49 
 
 'Collectivize credit, transport, exchange, and all sub- 
 sidiary manufacture, but individualize culture.'" l 
 
 By a referendum vote of two to one, the Socialist party 
 in the United States adopted in 1909 the following dec- 
 laration : 
 
 "... The Socialist party aims to prevent land from 
 being used for the purpose of exploitation and specula- 
 tion. It demands the collective possession, control, 
 or management of the land to whatever extent may be 
 necessary to attain that end. It is not opposed to the 
 occupation and possession of land by those using it in a 
 bona-fide manner without exploitation. " 2 
 
 Exploitation, says Walling, m^ansr^the employment 
 of labourers, and this is the^entral point in the Socialist 
 policy. " 3 Accordingly, the Socialists of the United 
 States would permit individual occupation and cultiva- 
 tion of land by persons who employed no labourers. 
 Whether they would extend the same privilege to farmers 
 who hired one or two assistants is not certain. Nor 
 is it of great importance for our discussion. 
 
 According to John Spargo, only those instruments 
 which can be owned and operated more efficiently by 
 the State than by private persons or corporations will 
 need to come into the Socialist industrial organization. 
 During the transition to Socialism any private enterprise 
 that can survive in competition with the collectivist 
 concern in the same field may remain undisturbed. 4 
 
 Were this the ideal and method of "revolution" 
 
 1 Ensor, "Modern Socialism," p. xxxi. 
 
 2 Cited by Walling, "Socialism As It Is," p. 316. 
 8 Idem, p. 311. 
 
 4 Spargo and Arner, "Essentials of Socialism," pp. 242-270; New 
 York, 1912. 
 
 E
 
 50 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 accepted by the majority of authoritative Socialists, we 
 should not be much concerned about the purely eco- 
 nomic theories and projects of Socialism. We should be 
 comforted by the conviction that, outside the field of 
 natural monopolies, the great majority of industries 
 would be more capably conducted by private than by 
 collective agencies, and that all attempts to socialize 
 them by the method of competition would inevitably 
 fail. The average upholder of the system of private 
 capital fears not fair competition with State industries, 
 but forcible expropriation. 
 
 However, the great majority of Socialists would prob- 
 ably refuse to sanction this method. 
 
 And yet the dominant Socialist thought of the day 
 does seem to admit the possibility of a considerable 
 element of private capital during at least the earlier 
 period of the new order. The oft-quoted passage from 
 Kautsky shows how far even an "orthodox" member 
 of the party is willing to go in this direction : 
 
 "Nevertheless, it may be granted that the small 
 industry will have a definite position in the future in 
 many branches of industry that produce directly for 
 human consumption; for the machines manufacture 
 essentially only products in bulk, while many purchasers 
 desire that their personal taste shall be considered. . . . 
 The most manifold property in the means of production 
 national, municipal, cooperatives of consumption 
 and production, and private can exist beside each 
 other in a Socialist society; the most diverse forms of 
 organization bureaucratic, trades-union, cooperative, 
 and individual ; the most diverse forms of remuneration 
 of labour fixed wages, time wages, piece wages, par-
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE $1 
 
 ticipation in the economies in raw material, machinery, 
 etc., participation in the results of intensive labour; 
 the most diverse forms of circulation of products, like 
 contract by purchase from the warehouses of the State, 
 from municipalities, from cooperatives of production, 
 from the producers themselves, etc. The same mani- 
 fold character of economic mechanism that exists to-day 
 is possible in a Socialist society. . . ." l 
 
 Substantially the same views are expressed by Mr. 
 Hillquit 2 and Mr. Walling. 3 As in the matter of land, 
 however, so here, it is not clear whether these writers, 
 or representative Socialists generaUyy-^would permit 
 the private producer under Socialism to employ a small 
 number say, one, two, or three of wage-earners. 
 
 In view of the foregoing paragraphs, those objections 
 against Socialism which are based on the assumption 
 that the scheme would involve collective ownership of 
 all, even the smallest instruments of production, have 
 ceased to be pertinent or effective. Antiquated likewise 
 are the objections directed against complete confiscation 
 of all private capital ; collective ownership of all homes ; 
 compulsory assignment of occupations; equality of re- 
 muneration; and the use of labour-checks instead of 
 money. So far as I can learn, none of these proposals 
 is now regarded by authoritative Socialists as essential. 
 
 Other criticisms of doubtful validity assume the im- 
 possibility of forecasting the social demand for commodi- 
 ties and of managing industries of national magnitude. 
 In some fashion both of these difficulties have been met 
 
 1 "The Social Revolution," pp. 164, 166. 
 
 1 "Socialism in Theory and Practice," p. 113. 
 
 9 Op. cit.,p. 432.
 
 52 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 by the great trusts, such as the Standard Oil Company 
 and the United States Steel Corporation. 
 
 I shall, therefore, criticise only those features of the So- 
 cialist industrial programme which seem to be inherently 
 necessary, or which are so regarded by the dominant 
 thought of the Socialist movement to-day. All the ob- 
 jections that I shall urge may be reduced to two proposi- 
 tions, one of which is formally ethical, and the other of 
 which, though immediately concerned with problems 
 of expediency, is ethical fundamentally. The former 
 has to do with the manner of abolishing Capitalism; 
 the latter with the injury that would be done to human 
 welfare and human rights by an attempt to carry out the 
 industrial proposals of Socialism. 
 
 According to Mr. Hillquit, the majority of Socialist 
 writers now favour compensation of the displaced capi- 
 talists, instead of outright and universal confiscation. 1 
 But he is careful to state that they regard the question 
 not as one of justice, but only of expediency. Mr. 
 Walling tells us that Socialists would not interfere with 
 savings-bank accounts, life-insurance policies on a rea- 
 sonable scale, nor very small pieces of other property, 
 but that they regard as a matter of pure expediency the 
 compensation of the wealthier classes. 2 His understand- 
 ing of the Socialist position with reference to the latter 
 owners is that they would get at most only modest an- 
 nuities, which would cease with the lives of their then 
 living descendants. 
 
 If it were systematically carried out, the rule of paying 
 for the capital taken over by the State only when and to 
 
 1 Op. cit., pp. 103, 104. * Op. tit., p. 429.
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 53 
 
 the extent that this policy were found to be expedient, 
 would undoubtedly mean that many of the small and 
 weak owners would fare as badly as the rich proprietors. 
 That the principle of expediency would govern the entire 
 process of expropriation, is clearly seen from the refusal 
 of Socialists to commit themselves or the party to a defi- 
 nite programme of compensation, and from their practi- 
 cally unanimous contention that only the future can de- 
 termine whether and how much compensation shall be 
 allowed. 
 
 In principle, then, the Socialists deny that the capi- 
 talists have any moral right to compensation ; in prac- 
 tice they would carry out this principle to the extent 
 dictated by expediency. 
 
 This principle and this proposed policy are undoubtedly 
 immoral. To ascertain the ethical basis of this con- 
 clusion let us examine briefly the four main sources of 
 capital. 
 
 One part is the fruit of wages and salaries, and of 
 business gains or profits (as distinct from interest) re- 
 sulting from exceptional directive and inventive ability 
 in conditions of full and fair competition. Inasmuch as 
 this capital is specifically traceable to labour, whether 
 physical or mental, it has been honestly earned, and ought 
 to be paid for. 
 
 A second part of existing capital originated in natural 
 resources and opportunities, such as lands, mines, forests, 
 and franchises, which the State conceded to individuals 
 and corporations through the medium of free and honest 
 contracts. While these grants and contracts may some- 
 times have been socially unwise, they are as valid in 
 morals as similar acts of individuals. If at a later date
 
 54 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 the State repudiates them by the process of confiscation, 
 it perpetrates an act of bad faith and immorality. 
 
 Another part is the saved and invested proceeds of 
 interest which was obtained without paying unjustly 
 low wages to labour or charging unjustly high prices to 
 consumers. In the opinion of the Socialist this capital 
 was unjustly acquired because the interest from which 
 it sprang always represents a "part of the product of 
 the workers' toil." For the Socialist maintains that all 
 interest, no matter how small the rate or how liberally 
 its receiver has acted toward labourer and consumer, is 
 immoral. 
 
 In reply to this contention, I would say briefly that 
 interest on capital is justified either because capital has 
 contributed a share of the productive force which is real- 
 ized in the joint product of capital and labour, or because 
 under the system of private capital interest is necessary 
 in order to provide a sufficient amount of capital, or 
 because the abolition of interest could not be enforced 
 in a system of private enterprise. If the day should 
 ever come when private control of capital became detri- 
 mental to human welfare, the capitalist would no longer 
 have a right to function as such; but he would still 
 have a valid claim to compensation for the capital that 
 he had acquired through the receipt of interest which 
 had been at once free from extortion and socially neces- 
 sary. The effect would have the same justification as 
 the cause. 
 
 Finally, there is a fourth section of capital which has 
 come into being through various forms of injustice, such 
 as physical force, fraudulent contracts, oppression of 
 labourers, and extortion upon consumers. Through the
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 55 
 
 lapse of time, however, and the other long-recognized 
 conditions of prescription, a great part of this capital 
 has become the morally and legally valid property of 
 the present owners. 
 
 Prescription is a valid title of ownership for the simple 
 reason that it responds to the needs of social and human 
 welfare. To disregard it in the expropriation process 
 would in a very large proportion of cases inflict quite 
 as much injury on innocent individuals as^to^iisfegard 
 any of the other titles. As to that part of the unjustly 
 acquired capital which is not clothed with the title of 
 prescription, it could properly, provided that identifica- 
 tion of it were possible, be taken without compensation. 
 
 Consequently, it is probable that only a relatively 
 small part of capital could be confiscated with reason- 
 able certainty that the process was not immoral. 
 
 The fact that governments have occasionally taken 
 individual property without compensation does not 
 justify the practice ethically. On the other hand, I do 
 not mean to deny that it is ever morally legitimate, for 
 example, in some supreme national crisis when no other 
 course is physically possible. But it is a far cry from an 
 exigency of this magnitude to the Socialist principle 
 of mere expediency. By the latter theory the process 
 of confiscation is not required to wait for a critical 
 situation. It can be set in motion as soon as there exists 
 a balance, however slight, of expediency in its favour. 
 Thus the Socialist would entirely obliterate the distinc- 
 tion between right and might. 
 
 In his encyclical, "On the Condition of Labour," issued 
 May 15, 1891, Pope Leo XIII declared that Socialism
 
 56 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 is to be utterly rejected because "contrary to the natural 
 rights of mankind." From the words of the Latin text, 
 "praedium," "terra," "fundus," "ager," "solum," etc., 
 we know that he had in mind specifically the Socialist 
 proposals with regard to land. Moreover, he was in all 
 probability thinking of the more extreme plans of that 
 day, which embraced collective operation, as well as col- 
 lective ownership, of all the land of a country. 
 
 A regime in which all the cultivators should be em- 
 ployed by the State would certainly be less conducive 
 to human welfare than a system of full ownership and 
 secure possession by individuals. Experience has shown 
 conclusively that the large farm is considerably less 
 profitable than the small or medium-sized farm. If 
 this is the case under the direction of the private owner, 
 it would hold to a greater extent under salaried manage- 
 ment in a Socialist organization. 
 
 Moreover, the cultivators would not work as intelli- 
 gently or as energetically as they do under the incentive 
 of private ownership. Beyond all other workers, the 
 farmer is influenced by the desire to own and hold per- 
 manently the thing upon which and with which he labours. 
 Such a thoroughgoing form of agrarian collectivism would 
 undoubtedly be detrimental to individual and social 
 welfare. 
 
 Therefore, it would be a violation of natural rights. 
 As against other individuals and the State, man has 
 an inborn right to control and use the bounty of nature 
 in the way that will best secure the requisites of reasonable 
 life and self-development. That the existing system has 
 not yet enabled all individuals to attain this object does 
 not prove that it is not better adapted for the purpose
 
 57 
 
 than Socialism ; particularly when we consider its recent 
 history, its present trend, and its inherent capacity for 
 improvement. 
 
 Even the modified agrarian programme of Socialism 
 contains elements which involve a violation of individual 
 rights. Precisely how far this programme would extend 
 the individual control of "land of reasonable /dimensions 
 actually cultivated or used by the farmer without-em^ 
 ployment of hired help to any appreciable extent," is 
 not easy to say ; for the desire to make converts among 
 the fanners has brought American Socialists to a situa- 
 tion in which " there is a minority ready to compromise 
 everything in this question." l However, they still 
 seem to cling to the doctrine that the title to all land must 
 remain with the State. 
 
 This would mean that the State could turn out the 
 small farmer at any time deemed expedient, and could, 
 even while it allowed him to remain in possession, tax 
 the land at its full rental value. 
 
 That the majority of American Socialists would have 
 the State adopt the latter policy consistently from the 
 beginning, seems to be clear in view of the declarations 
 of the "Communist Manifesto," of Marx, and of other 
 leading members of the party, and in view of the general 
 Socialist principle which condemns private receipt of 
 rent and interest. 2 
 
 Now State retention of the title means uncertainty 
 of tenure, and therefore injury to the cultivator, while 
 the appropriation of economic rent means confiscation of 
 property values. 
 
 1 Walling, op. tit., p. 318. 
 
 2 Cf. Walling, op. cit., pp. 322, 323.
 
 58 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 So much for the morality of the Socialist programme with 
 regard to land. The proposals of the party concerning 
 artificial capital are somewhat more satisfactory to dis- 
 cuss because they have been more definitely and author- 
 itatively formulated. Their ethical character can be 
 determined only through an examination of their bearing 
 upon human welfare. This is the ultimate test of the 
 morality of any social system. In the matter of social 
 institutions, moral values and genuine expediency are 
 in the long run identical. The remainder of this paper 
 will, therefore, deal immediately with the practical side 
 of the socialist industrial order. 
 
 Under Socialism the great national industries, as steel 
 and petroleum, would be under the immediate direction 
 of commissions or boards of managers. Owing to the 
 number of these bodies and the varied character of their 
 functions, they could not be selected with advantage by 
 general popular vote. Conceivably they might be ap- 
 pointed by the national executive authority, but it is 
 unlikely that the people would intrust any group of 
 officials with this tremendous power. 
 
 Such an arrangement would enable a few men to con- 
 trol not merely the political, but the entire industrial, 
 life of the nation, to build up a bureaucracy more despotic 
 than anything of the kind that the world has ever seen, 
 to impose whatever harsh conditions they saw fit upon a 
 minority, yes, upon a majority occasionally, of the indus- 
 tries and workers, and to fortify themselves in a position 
 from which they could not be dislodged except by a rev- 
 olution. 
 
 Present Socialist opinion seems to favour selection of
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 59 
 
 the commissions by the workers in each industry. Even 
 this method has its own difficulties. In the first place, 
 the great mass of employees in, for example, the steel 
 industry would be much less competent to make an in- 
 telligent choice than is the relatively small number of 
 stockholders who at present determine the outcome of 
 an election for the board of directors. 
 
 The case is not parallel with the choice of political 
 officials. It is a question of getting technical experts, 
 and even the most democratic among us now realize that 
 such functionaries should be appointed by the mayor, 
 governor, or President, instead of being elected by popu- 
 lar vote. 
 
 In the second place, while the stockholders of a corpora- 
 tion have a direct pecuniary incentive to choose the most 
 efficient directors obtainable, the workers in a Socialist 
 industry would desire men who would make working 
 conditions easy, rather than men who would be bent 
 upon getting out the maximum amount of product. 
 
 Owing to the dependence of the industrial direction 
 upon the mass of the workers, and owing to the absence 
 of certain powerful incentives, the Socialist organization 
 of industry would be inefficient and unprogressive. 
 Directors, superintendents, foremen, and all others in 
 managerial positions would be afraid to punish loafing 
 or to exercise the power of discharge, except in rare and 
 flagrant cases. Even if they were sufficiently fearless 
 to exact a reasonable amount of work from all their 
 subordinates, they would lack the normal and necessary 
 incentive to such a course, and to efficient management 
 generally. They would not have the stimulus of com- 
 
 1 Cf. Hillquit, op. cit., p. 142.
 
 60 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 petition which to-day prevents public concerns from fall- 
 ing too far behind those under private control ; nor the 
 vital interest in their tasks which arises from ownership 
 and its opportunities of pecuniary gain ; nor the hope 
 of promotion and fear of discharge which operate so 
 promptly and powerfully in the present system. 
 
 The general spirit of the management would be to "let 
 well enough alone," to refrain from disturbing either the 
 personnel or the methods of industry, so long as things 
 moved on in the old routine way and continued to ap- 
 proximate a certain level of mediocrity. 
 
 Indeed, the deadening effect of the absence of compe- 
 tition has already appeared in the management of our 
 present "socialized" industries. In every great industry 
 there is a maximum size of plant which is efficient and 
 economical, and a maximum number of plants which can 
 be profitably combined under a single direction. Mr. 
 Brandeis has shown that in the United States Steel 
 Corporation the lack of competition has more than offset 
 the gains of combination, while Professor Meade sums 
 up the general failure of the trusts thus : 
 
 "During a decade of unparalleled industrial develop- 
 ment, the trusts, starting with every advantage of large 
 capital, well-equipped plants, financial connections, and 
 skilled superintendence, have not succeeded." 
 
 If this can happen when the management is financially 
 interested in the business, it would prevail to a far 
 greater degree in the absence of this powerful stimulus. 
 The driving force of competition and the hope of prompt 
 pecuniary rewards can be supplemented, but not sup- 
 planted, by other and loftier motives and stimuli. 
 
 1 The Journal of Political Economy, April, 1912, p. 366.
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 6 1 
 
 In the field of industrial invention the lack of adequate 
 incentive would be particularly harmful. Men who 
 were capable of inventing new machines, new processes, 
 new ways of combining capital and labour could expect 
 neither the gains that are obtainable under the system 
 of private ownership, nor that prompt and eager recogni- 
 tion by the industrial authorities which is such a con- 
 spicuous feature of privately directed concerns. 
 
 It is contended that the manager and the inventor will 
 be impelled to bring out the best that is in them by the 
 hope of public honour and recognition, and by the special 
 pecuniary compensations that will be possible even under 
 Socialism. The example of Colonel Goethals, who has 
 successfully directed the building of the Panama Canal 
 on a relatively moderate salary, is cited by way of illus- 
 tration. 
 
 It merely illustrates a typical Socialist fallacy, namely, 
 that what the exceptional man does in exceptional cir- 
 cumstances will be done by the ordinary man in ordinary 
 circumstances. Colonel Goethals is an officer in the 
 army. Now the traditions and training of the army 
 have for centuries impressed upon its members strong 
 conceptions of public service, honour, and professional 
 duty and responsibility. Moreover, the task upon 
 which he is engaged is conspicuous beyond all others, 
 and without any competitor for public honour and 
 esteem. 
 
 To assume that the average member of an industrial 
 board of managers, the average factory superintendent, 
 or the average floor-walker in a store would respond 
 as readily to the motive of public honour as the army 
 officer, and that the everyday activities of the tens of
 
 62 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 thousands of men in positions of industrial authority 
 would attract sufficient public notice and recognition 
 to be worth seeking or considering implies a childlike 
 faith that is touching but not convincing. The cold 
 fact is that there would not be enough public honour and 
 recognition to go round the circle of industrial manage- 
 ment, or it would have to be spread so thinly that very 
 few of its beneficiaries would hold it very precious. 
 
 As to the special pecuniary rewards that might be 
 given, they would lose much of their effectiveness be- 
 cause of tardiness in arriving. Merit is much more 
 promptly recognized in private than in public employ- 
 ments, on account of the direct financial interest of those 
 from whom the recognition must come. 
 
 Since the great mass of the workers would have the 
 ultimate control over the management and managers 
 of industry, they would strive to make the conditions of 
 employment as pleasing as possible to themselves. This 
 would mean that the majority of them would prefer an 
 industrial administration which would permit a consider- 
 able amount of "loafing on the job," and which would 
 separate them from their jobs only in the most flagrant 
 cases of shirking and inefficiency. Engaged as they 
 must be upon tasks which are monotonous, mechanical, 
 and relatively uninteresting, the great majority would be 
 impervious to the "joy of work," would fail to find that 
 pleasure and work were one, and would see no good reason 
 for putting forth anything like the degree of effort that 
 is to-day exacted under penalty of discharge. 
 
 This reasoning is not based on "the theological con- 
 ception that the sole human incentive to do right is the
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 63 
 
 fear of punishment or the hope of reward." In the first 
 place, there is no such conception; for the theologian 
 gives full recognition to the existence and efficacy of 
 higher motives. But he is not afraid to look facts in the 
 face, and to read therein the lesson that the higher mo- 
 tives can neither entirely supplant nor even reduce to 
 a secondary position the motives of reward and punish- 
 ment in the mind and will of the average man. The 
 theologian is sufficiently scientific to put a higher 
 value upon universal experience than upon enthusiastic 
 hopes. 
 
 The contention that the worker will find sufficient 
 incentive of a material character in being "a partner 
 in the industrial enterprise in which he will be employed " 
 is based on the fallacy that remote and general interests 
 affect the individual as powerfully as immediate and spe- 
 cific interests. There is a vast difference between "part- 
 nership" in a Socialist industry, which after all is owned 
 by the State, and ownership of a definite portion of a 
 private industry. 
 
 In the latter case the worker realizes that his energy 
 and efficiency have a direct bearing upon his income; 
 in the former he knows that he may take things easy 
 and still retain his place and his stipulated remunera- 
 tion. Although he may be convinced that in the long 
 run the policy of universal shirking will be harmful 
 to his industry, he feels that the "long run" is too long 
 and too remote to offset the immediate and practical ad- 
 vantages of being as lazy as he dares to be. Besides, 
 he expects that there will be other industries and other 
 jobs in the limitless expanse of Socialist economy. And 
 he has no assurance that if he were to put forth his best
 
 64 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 efforts, his example would be generally imitated by his 
 fellows in his own or in other industries. 
 
 To the average worker, partnership in a Socialist 
 industry would seem about as important as efficient 
 local or national government seems to the average citi- 
 zen. The latter is much less interested in civic welfare 
 than in his job, business, or profession. 
 
 To the objection that his scheme has never been justi- 
 fied by actual trial, the Socialist sometimes replies by 
 pointing to the successful cooperative establishments 
 under democratic management in Belgium, Germany, 
 and England. As a matter of fact, the history of the 
 cooperative movement in its entirety furnishes a rather 
 strong argument against Socialism. Practically all the 
 successful efforts in this field have been in connection 
 with cooperatives of distribution. Cooperative produc- 
 tion has been attempted hi many countries, but "the 
 record on the whole is one of failure." * 
 
 The simple and sufficient reason is that these enter- 
 prises are much more complicated and require a much 
 higher quality of leadership and management than dis- 
 tributive concerns. As yet, not many of the men who 
 possess these qualities can be induced to exercise them 
 without the spur of a dominating pecuniary interest in 
 the establishment. 
 
 Nevertheless, I believe that a sufficient number of such 
 men will in time be found to direct cooperative enterprises 
 over a considerable, though restricted, part of the field 
 of production. This result can be reached only very 
 
 ^aussig, "Principles of Economics," vol. n, p. 356; New York, 
 1912.
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 65 
 
 gradually, through appropriate industrial and moral 
 enlightenment. And it will, I believe, be realized only 
 in the smaller industries, those in which the individual 
 worker can easily see that his actions will have a vital 
 and direct bearing on the success of the whole enter- 
 prise. In the larger industries labour participation in 
 capital ownership will necessarily take the form of co- 
 partnership. That is, the worker will be a shareholder 
 rather than a genuine cooperator. 
 
 Even if productive cooperation had been invariably 
 successful, it would not be of much value as an argument 
 for Socialism. The differences between the two are 
 more important than the resemblances. In the former 
 each of the workers has direct ownership of a definite 
 share of the concern, and an immediate pecuniary inter- 
 est in its profits and its fortunes. Moreover, he realizes 
 that it must compete with similar enterprises under 
 both cooperative and private control. Under Socialism 
 none of these conditions is verified. The worker is in- 
 terested only in his job and his wages. 
 
 Of these the first depends ultimately upon a board of 
 managers chosen by the workers themselves, while the 
 second is fixed beforehand by the central executive or 
 legislative authority, and is only remotely and feebly 
 dependent upon the conduct of the individual labourer. 
 Consequently, the interest of the labourer in the financial 
 success of his industry is very general and very remote 
 as compared with that of the participant in a cooperative 
 concern. 
 
 To sum up the preceding paragraphs: Competition, 
 the hope of definite personal reward, and the fear of defi- 
 nite personal loss, which experience has shown to be
 
 66 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 extremely powerful forces in economic life, would either 
 disappear or be greatly diminished under Socialism. 
 And the Socialist is unable to provide adequate substi- 
 tutes. 
 
 In the present economic organization, the farmer, 
 labourer, manufacturer, merchant, etc., are not compelled 
 to deal as buyers or as sellers \vith any single individual 
 or association. Nor are they constrained in the majority 
 of instances to accept or to pay a predetermined price. 
 Through the process of bargaining they can exercise 
 some control over this supremely important economic 
 factor. While the trusts have greatly curtailed the bar- 
 gaining power of the individual with regard to many 
 commodities, they will cease to do so just as soon as the 
 people and the government seriously and systematically 
 undertake the task of checking them. This task has not 
 yet been fairly begun. 
 
 Under Socialism all prices, whether of labour or of 
 goods, except in the relatively unimportant individual 
 and cooperative enterprises, would be fixed beforehand 
 by the public authorities. For the great majority of 
 workers, wages and all other conditions of employment 
 would be determined by legislative or executive enact- 
 ment of the national or local governments. There could 
 be no competition in this field between the two govern- 
 mental jurisdictions. Hence the labourer would be com- 
 pelled to work for practically one employer. As con- 
 sumers, men would have to purchase at a predetermined 
 price from a single seller, and to take the kind and quality 
 of goods that the public authorities saw fit to produce. 
 
 At present a man can get anything that he has the
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 67 
 
 money to pay for. A Socialist regime would feel no in- 
 ducement to develop new wants nor to satisfy old ones 
 in new ways. The tendency would be overwhelming 
 to turn out only the old and standard kinds of goods. 
 The combined effect of all these restrictions on the buying 
 and selling power of the individual would be disastrous 
 to self-respect, self-development, social contentment, 
 and social stability. 
 
 To be sure, the ultimate control of all these industrial 
 arrangements would be in the hands of the people, who 
 could correct all possible abuses. In practice, however, 
 the people always means a part of the people. In the 
 Socialist State the majority would have unlimited power 
 over not merely the political, but also the economic, wel- 
 fare of the minority. To-day industrial life is controlled 
 by the government or the majority only indirectly, and 
 within well-defined limits. A hundred checks and coun- 
 terchecks are set up by private individuals, private 
 associations, private institutions. Under Socialism all 
 these safeguards would disappear, and substantially 
 all social power would be concentrated in the Leviathan, 
 the Omnipotent State. 
 
 The prediction that "there will be no fixed majorities 
 and minorities in all matters," is not reassuring in view 
 of the inevitable contrary tendency. A majority com- 
 posed of all the workers in the most powerful industries 
 could combine for the purpose of fixing all wages and 
 prices to favour themselves and oppress the minority. 
 Such a combination would be remarkably cohesive and 
 homogeneous, since it would represent the interests of 
 all its members in the matters of politics, industry, the 
 schools, and the press. Its personnel could easily re-
 
 68 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 main substantially unchanged until it and the entire 
 system was dissolved in a revolution. 
 
 To assert that at present " the capitalist minority domi- 
 nates the non-capitalist majority in all matters," is to 
 ignore the immense gains made by the masses on the 
 classes in the past, the very real limitations upon capi- 
 talist power to-day, and the far greater restrictions that 
 can and will be put upon it to-morrow, without recourse 
 to the other autocracy called Socialism. We are not 
 compelled to choose between the latter and a rampant 
 Capitalism. 
 
 Who is to own the printing-press? The danger of 
 handing them all over to the national Socialist authorities 
 is recognized by Kautsky : 
 
 "It is true that the governmental power will cease to 
 be a class organ, but will it not still be the organ of a 
 majority ? Can the intellectual life be made dependent 
 upon the decisions of a majority ?" 1 
 
 In this field, at least, he admits that "the people" is 
 not a homogeneous entity, that the interests of all its 
 parts are not identical. He would restrict the power of 
 the national majority by placing a party of the machinery 
 of printing and publication under the control of munic- 
 ipalities and of cooperative associations. But the cities 
 would likewise be dominated by the majority, while the 
 cooperative societies would require every worker to be 
 also a partial owner. 
 
 No individual could own or publish a newspaper, be- 
 cause he would not be permitted to "exploit" the num- 
 ber of workers necessary to operate the establishment. 
 
 l Op. cit., p. 177.
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 69 
 
 No group of individuals could do so unless they included 
 a sufficient force of labourer-proprietors. From the view- 
 point, not of the individuals who might desire to own 
 newspapers, but of social welfare, these restrictions 
 would constitute a very dangerous limitation upon the 
 freedom of printed expression. 
 
 While Socialists do not explicitly demand that all edu- 
 cation should be given in State schools, they would 
 evidently look with favour upon such an arrangement. 
 "Compulsory attendance at public national schools," 
 which is among the articles of the "Erfurt Programme," 
 would seem to leave little scope for private schools of 
 any sort. 1 When the average Socialist discusses educa- 
 tion in his future state, he is rarely able to conceal his 
 intention that there shall be only one kind of school and 
 one kind of scholastic training. This would be the most 
 blighting of all State monopolies. 
 
 To resume the main contentions and conclusions of 
 this article : The Socialist Industrial State must be set 
 down as immoral, inasmuch as it involves the doctrine 
 that compensation to capitalists is a matter of mere ex- 
 pediency, and because it would prove economically, polit- 
 ically, and intellectually injurious to individual and social 
 welfare. 
 
 II. A JUST AND RATIONAL ORDER 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 It is a pessimistic and uninviting picture which Dr. 
 Ryan sketches under the title, "The Socialist Industrial 
 
 1 Cf . the comments of Liebknecht on this demand in "Socialism: 
 What It Is and What It Seeks to Accomplish," pp. 56-58.
 
 70 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 State." But does the fault lie with the Socialist plan of 
 industrial organization, or is it to be found in the glasses 
 through which my distinguished opponent views it ? 
 
 A concise statement of the Socialist industrial pro- 
 gramme will help to answer that question. 
 
 Socialism stands for the collective ownership of the social 
 tools of work. Let us consider the two adjectives in 
 this definition in their inverse order. 
 
 A social tool is one used in the modern process of whole- 
 sale production and distribution of commodities. As a 
 rule, it is bulky, complex, and costly. The individual 
 tool, on the other hand, is independent and self-sufficient. 
 It is usually simple and inexpensive. 
 
 The distinction is vital, for the main raison d'etre of 
 the modern Socialist movement rests on the compara- 
 tively recent change in the character of the tool, from 
 individual into social. 
 
 Factory work and other forms of mass production, as 
 well as the prevailing system of wholesale distribution 
 of commodities, are of very modern origin, and they are 
 all based on the introduction of the social tool. The pre- 
 capitalist era is one of individual tools, independent 
 producers, and direct personal dealing. 
 
 The mechanic of the eighteenth century plies his trade 
 in his home or in a small workshop ; alone, or with one 
 or more apprentices. He owns the tools of his trade 
 and the raw material. He works for the "customer" 
 with whom he makes his own bargain ; he goes through 
 the entire process of manufacture, and his success and 
 prosperity depend solely on his own skill and industry. 
 
 But gradually the modern machine makes its appear- 
 ance, and the industrial structure of society and the social
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 71 
 
 relations of men are thoroughly revolutionized. The huge 
 steam- or electricity-driven machine, the "iron work- 
 man" of colossal frame, unerring aim, and a hundred 
 indefatigable arms throws the helpless individual tool 
 of former generations into the scrap-heap ; it shatters 
 the private workshop, and destroys the independence 
 of the worker. 
 
 The modern machine creates the factory, and the 
 factory assembles under its roof the toolless artisans 
 and mechanics, stripping them of their economic indi- 
 viduality and drilling them into an industrial army of 
 uniform rank and collective functions. And what the 
 factory does in the field of production, the railroad and 
 steamboat accomplish with equal thoroughness in the 
 sphere of distribution. 
 
 Henceforward the worker is separated from the tool. He 
 cannot pay the high cost of modern machinery and equip- 
 ment, and it would avail him little if he could, because 
 machine industry is not adapted to individual operation. 
 The logical solution of this predicament would seem to 
 be the joint ownership of all such machinery by all of the 
 workers, or, what amounts to the same, by the entire 
 nation organized for the management and control of 
 social production. 
 
 As the countless individual tools have gradually be- 
 come merged in the one great system of modern social 
 machinery, so should the tool-ownership of the individual 
 workers converge in the collective ownership by the en- 
 tire working fraternity. In other words, the ownership 
 and control of modern machinery should be socialized, 
 just as its use and operation have been socialized by the 
 inherent forces of industrial development.
 
 72 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 This is the claim of Socialism. 
 
 It is a claim based entirely on the social character of 
 the modern tool, and by parity of reasoning it extends 
 only so far as the tools are social in character. Socialism 
 demands the collective ownership and social operation of 
 such industries as depend on the use of social tools and 
 are organized on the basis of collective work ; it is not 
 concerned with purely individual pursuits or vocations. 
 
 The Socialist programme does not involve a centralized 
 national organization for the management of the indus- 
 trial processes of the country. The plan of collective 
 ownership and operation is quite consistent with a system 
 of graded authority and divided functions in accordance 
 with the peculiar situation and requirements of each in- 
 dustry. Thus the national government might well own 
 and operate all means of interstate transportation and 
 communication, such as railroad systems and telegraph 
 and telephone lines; all sources of general national 
 wealth, such as mines, forests, and oil wells; and all 
 monopolized or trustified industries already organized on 
 a basis of national operation. 
 
 Similarly, the state government might assume the few 
 industries confined within state limits ; while the munic- 
 ipal government would logically undertake the manage- 
 ment of the much wider range of peculiarly local busi- 
 ness, such as street transportation and the supply of 
 water, light, heat, and power. 
 
 Still other local industries, too insignificant or un- 
 organized even for municipal operation, might be left 
 to voluntary cooperative enterprises under proper regu- 
 lations for the protection of the cooperators and the con- 
 sumers, while, as Dr. Ryan quite properly states, a large
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 73 
 
 number of purely individual trades and callings might 
 continue to be exercised by private individuals or con- 
 cerns in competition with each other so long as their 
 operation does not involve the exploitation of labour. 
 
 Nor does the Socialist plan of industrial organization 
 contemplate a centralization of plants "under a single 
 direction" for every great industry. There is nothing in 
 the Socialist programme or plan of industrial organization 
 that would prevent the management of any industry 
 from several independent or coordinate centres, if such 
 management should prove more profitable and efficient. 
 
 And, finally, the proposed socialization of industries 
 does not necessarily involve the method of confiscation. 
 The people could well afford to compensate the capi- 
 talists to the full extent of the actual value of their in- 
 dustrial properties. The national indebtedness created 
 by such payment would be extinguished within a very 
 short time from the increased returns of the industries 
 themselves, and the nation left unencumbered and un- 
 shackled, free to work out its own destinies. 
 
 With this brief amplification of Dr. Ryan's outline of 
 the Socialist plan of industrial organization, let us pro- 
 ceed to the examination of his objections to it. 
 
 The first ground of Dr. Ryan's opposition to the So- 
 cialist programme relates to the methods by which the 
 collective ownership of the industries is to be acquired. 
 
 As I have stated above, and as Dr. Ryan admits, the 
 Socialists are not committed to the method of confisca- 
 tion. They advocate to-day, and under normal condi- 
 tions will continue to advocate, full compensation to the 
 expropriated capitalists. But the Socialists refuse to
 
 74 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 make bargains with the future, and point to the well- 
 known historical fact that some of the greatest advances 
 in human progress and popular liberty have been accom- 
 panied by summary confiscation of privileges and 
 property. Thus the sublimest act in American history, 
 the emancipation of the negro slaves, was accomplished 
 by the undisguised method of confiscation. 
 
 Dr. Ryan admits that in some supreme national 
 crisis, when no other course is "physically possible," 
 confiscation may be "morally legitimate"; but he as- 
 sumes that the Socialists would be ready to resort to 
 that process before the crisis should become sufficiently 
 acute, not as a matter of "physical" necessity, but as a 
 measure of social expediency. This view he brands as 
 "immoral." Is it? 
 
 The term confiscation may be defined as the legal 
 appropriation of a person's property without adequate 
 compensation. It may be accomplished by means of a 
 summary decree, or legislative enactment, or by a slow 
 and gradual process. In this, the only proper sense of 
 the term, the capitalist system owes its existence to a 
 series of continuous, wholesale, and unscrupulous acts of 
 confiscation, and the individual capitalists are expert 
 and habitual confiscators. Our landed aristocracy has 
 confiscated the land of the people by acts of fraud, vio- 
 lence, and corruption familiar to every student of Ameri- 
 can economic history, and our great manufacturers and 
 railroad magnates have similarly, though less obviously, 
 confiscated the national instruments of wealth produc- 
 tion and distribution. 
 
 In an effort to prove that the majority of the capi- 
 talists hold their wealth legitimately, Dr. Ryan men-
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 75 
 
 tions and attempts to justify four "main sources" of 
 capital. 
 
 Let us briefly examine these alleged sources. 
 
 The item of interest may be disposed of without much 
 argument, since the mention of interest as a source of 
 capital is obviously putting the cart before the horse. 
 Interest can only be drawn on previously acquired capi- 
 tal. It is the fruit of capital, not its source. 
 
 As to the modern fortunes made through "wages and 
 salaries," they figure very large in Sunday-school ser- 
 mons and conventional text-books of political economy, 
 but hardly ever in Dun's or Bradstreet's. Capitalist 
 wealth is made not by earning wages, but by paying 
 wages, and the greater the pay-roll of the capitalist, the 
 larger are his profits. In other words, the "wages and 
 salaries" which the capitalist saves are not his own, but 
 those of his employees. 
 
 The large manufacturer who does not owe his profits 
 to an artificial monopoly, an iniquitous protective tariff, 
 or corrupt government contracts is probably Dr. Ryan's 
 ideal type of the "honest" business man, and his profits 
 are legitimate "business gains resulting from exceptional 
 directive and inventive ability in conditions of full and 
 fair competition." But if such manufacturer should re- 
 turn to his employees the equivalent of all they produce, 
 he would soon go bankrupt. The only way by which 
 he can amass wealth is to pay to his workers a wage 
 amounting to less than the value of their product and 
 to retain the difference as profits. 
 
 Thus the honest capitalist confiscates part of the 
 product of the worker's toil. And this process of con- 
 fiscation is still at work among us ; it goes on uninter-
 
 76 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ruptedly day by day, and is directed against the most 
 needy and helpless. It robs the working man of the 
 comforts of life, the working woman of her home and 
 fireside, and the working child of youth and joy it is 
 the meanest of all methods of confiscation. 
 
 Another source of capital mentioned by Dr. Ryan is 
 "natural resources and opportunities, such as land, 
 mines, forests, and franchises, which the State conceded 
 to individuals and corporations through the medium of 
 free and honest contracts." My adversary defends all 
 wealth derived through that source as "valid in morals" 
 in the hands of the present owners, even though the 
 original grants may have been "socially unwise." 
 
 Thus, if an irresponsible ruler or an improvident legis- 
 lature several generations ago has seen fit to "give 
 away" the earth and its treasures to a few favoured in- 
 dividuals, we, who have come into this world a century 
 or more after the "grantors" have turned into dust, 
 must continue paying tribute to a new generation of men 
 who happen to descend from the fortunate original 
 "grantees." We must accept as "valid in morals" the 
 theory that the sources of life of the whole human race 
 and of all generations to come may be mortgaged to a 
 few chosen individuals and their offspring forever, and 
 that the people have no right to free themselves from this 
 most subtle form of indirect slavery except upon the pay- 
 ment of a heavy ransom. 
 
 And, finally, Dr. Ryan claims full compensation as a 
 right even for the majority of capitalists, whose wealth 
 has originated "through various forms of injustice, such 
 as physical force, fraudulent contracts, oppression of 
 labourers, and extortion upon consumers," on the ground
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 77 
 
 that property thus "acquired" has become legal and 
 valid in the hands of the present owners either because 
 they are "innocent" third parties or through prescription. 
 
 This doctrine has been asserted by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, and has probably caused greater 
 social disaster than any other decision of that august 
 tribunal. What the principle means in effect is this : 
 
 If you are robbed of your watch by one highwayman, 
 of your coat by another, and of your shirt by a third, 
 you may recover all these articles so long as each of the 
 .gentlemen of the road retains the identical article of his 
 original "acquisition"; but if they interchange the 
 articles between themselves, your claim is extinguished, 
 because your stolen property has passed into the hands 
 of " third parties." If no such exchange takes place, and 
 each thief holds on to the article of his choice long enough, 
 he acquires "title by prescription," which all future 
 generations are bound to respect. 
 
 The two doctrines which Dr. Ryan thus upholds the 
 perpetual validity of public grants and title by prescrip- 
 tion are the doctrines upon which all forms of robbery 
 and slavery have ever been defended. The Socialists 
 reject them as shockingly immoral, and against them 
 they assert the inalienable right of the human race to the 
 earth and the fulness thereof, and the equal claim to life 
 and enjoyment of every child born into the world. 
 
 If the Socialists nevertheless favour compensation 
 to the owners of capital, they do so purely for reasons 
 of social expediency acting on the same principle as 
 the man who has been robbed of his purse in a street-car, 
 and who offers a reward to the "honest finder" with the 
 significant assurance "and no questions asked."
 
 78 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The other moral ground of Dr. Ryan's objection to the 
 Socialist programme relates to its scheme of land owner- 
 ship. 
 
 As Dr. Ryan hints, Socialists regard land ownership 
 in a dual aspect. 
 
 Land of reasonable dimensions actually cultivated or 
 used by the farmer without employment of hired help to 
 any appreciable extent, is an instrument of labour analo- 
 gous to the individual tool, and land used for private 
 dwellings is an article of use rather than an instrument 
 of production. The Socialists are not opposed to the ex- 
 clusive private use and occupation of such lands; nor 
 would they tax them to the full extent of their value, as 
 Dr. Ryan assumes. 
 
 But they condemn utterly the private ownership and 
 exclusive control of land used for business purposes 
 rent-producing land and they insist that the ultimate 
 title to all land remain in the State. 
 
 Is this position really so revolting as to shock the 
 moral sense of good people? It seems to me quite 
 obvious that of all species of human wealth land is the 
 most "natural." Whether it was created in the peren- 
 nial process of cosmic evolution or at the sudden behest 
 of an Almighty Creator, it can hardly be argued that it 
 was intended as a special and exclusive gift to the land- 
 lord class, to be parcelled out by them into city lots and 
 acreage plots and let to their fellow-men in return for 
 heavy rents. 
 
 "As against other individuals and the State, man has 
 an inborn right to control and use the bounty of nature 
 in the way that will best secure the requisites of reason- 
 able life and self-development," maintains Dr. Ryan in
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 79 
 
 this connection. With this statement I fully agree, but 
 my distinguished opponent and I differ in the applica- 
 tion of the obvious ethical principle. 
 
 Dr. Ryan seems to employ the term "man" as synony- 
 mous with "landlord," while I am inclined to include 
 also within that designation the non-landed species of 
 the human. It is because the Socialists believe that all 
 men have the right "to control and use the bounty of 
 nature in a way that will best secure the requisites of 
 their reasonable life and self -development," that they 
 object to the system of private landownership, which 
 allows a minority of the population to monopolize that 
 bounty and to exclude the majority from its enjoyment. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's apprehension that a Socialist State would 
 "turn out the small farmer at any time deemed ex- 
 pedient," is quite gratuitous. Under a system of gov- 
 ernmentally owned land the tenure of the bona-fide tiller 
 of the soil will certainly be more secure than it is to-day, 
 when the majority of small farmers depend on the mercy 
 of the mortgagor or landlord. 
 
 Passing from moral considerations to practical grounds, 
 Dr. Ryan asserts that the Socialist plan of industrial 
 organization would be detrimental to the economic life 
 of the country. 
 
 Socialism advocates not only collective ownership, but 
 also democratic administration of the industries. In 
 practical application this principle must be interpreted 
 to mean that under a Socialist regime the workers in 
 each industry will have a voice in the selection of the 
 managing authorities and in the formulation of the main 
 features of industrial policy, subject to such general laws
 
 80 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 and regulations as will be necessary to safeguard the 
 interests of the community as a whole. 
 
 This, of course, does not imply that the workers will 
 elect each shop foreman or factory superintendent, or 
 that the managing authorities will fix in advance a uni- 
 form scale of wages or a uniform labour day for each 
 group of employees. It is not at all unlikely that in its 
 practical workings the Socialist industrial democracy 
 will be somewhat similar to the forms of our present 
 political democracy. The workers in each industry may 
 periodically select the managing authority with power to 
 make appointments and to fix rules. Such elected board 
 or body may consist of shop representatives, and these 
 would be better judges of the qualifications of the chief 
 manager or executive committee of the industry than 
 the bankers who now control the directorates of the great 
 corporations. 
 
 Dr. Ryan assures us that under such a system of 
 democratic administration the worker would "loaf on 
 the job," since he would have neither the hope of better 
 wages nor the fear of discharge to spur him on to the 
 proper performance of his duties ; the management would 
 be lax and inefficient, since the "directors of industry" 
 would have no direct, personal interest in its prosperity 
 and would be unduly subservient to the whims of the 
 working "rank and file"; the men of inventive genius 
 would not exert their talents for the advance of industrial 
 progress, since they would have no pecuniary incentive 
 to do so ; production would become stagnant in quality 
 and curtailed in quantity, since it would lack the vitaliz- 
 ing element of private ownership and competition. 
 
 The reasoning is based, on the one hand, upon the
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 8l 
 
 theological conception that the sole human incentive to 
 do right is the fear of punishment or hope of reward, and 
 the materialistic notion that the most stimulating reward 
 is a straight money compensation right here and now, 
 and, on the other, upon the assumption that a Socialist 
 order could offer no adequate reward for special efforts. 
 
 The Socialists maintain that the converse of both 
 propositions is true. Under the present system the 
 worker does not share in the benefits of increased or im- 
 proved production of labour. Such benefits go exclusively 
 to the capitalist in the shape of larger profits, and the 
 worker has nothing but his scant wage, his taxing, often 
 perilous, work, and his unattractive factory surroundings. 
 Under those conditions the sheer instinct of self-preserva- 
 tion necessarily impels him to "loaf on the job." 
 
 Under a system of Socialism each worker will be a 
 partner in the industrial enterprise in which he will be 
 employed, sharing in its prosperity and losses alike; 
 and, since he will have a voice in the management, he 
 will certainly see to it that his work is surrounded by 
 reasonable safeguards and sanitary and attractive 
 conditions. 
 
 Nor is there any reason why the individual employee 
 under Socialism should not be compensated in accord- 
 ance with his skill, diligence, and general merit. The 
 worker will thus have a direct pecuniary incentive as 
 well as a moral stimulus to put forth his best efforts. 
 The manager and the inventor will have the greatest of 
 all stimuli public honour and recognition, and there is 
 no reason why they should not also be rewarded by special 
 pecuniary compensations under a Socialist system. 
 
 It is thus as easy for the Socialist to draw an optimis-
 
 82 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tic picture of the Socialist Industrial State as it is for 
 the anti-Socialist to paint it in lurid colours. But while 
 the latter is only a cheerful guess, the former is based on 
 experience and proved examples. 
 
 The Socialist State has, of course, never been "tried" ; 
 but cooperative production under democratic manage- 
 ment, very much along the lines advocated by the Social- 
 ists for all industries, has been tested and has amply 
 demonstrated its superiority over capitalist enterprises. 
 
 The famous Belgian cooperative societies, the "Maison 
 du Peuple," the "Vooruit," and the "Progres," are 
 among the largest and most successful business concerns 
 of their country. They have been built up by working- 
 men from ridiculously small beginnings, and are still 
 managed by thousands of workers, their members and 
 employees, in the most efficient manner. The "Zentral 
 Verein" of Germany, a cooperative distributive society, 
 with an annual business of more than 300,000,000 marks, 
 is successfully managed by its more than 1,000,000 
 working-men members ; and the same tale may be told 
 of the English "Cooperative Wholesale Society," which 
 represents an accumulated capital of $37,000,000 and 
 employs 21,000 members; and of numerous cooperative 
 working-men's enterprises in many other countries of 
 Europe. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's retort that the workers have been more 
 successful in cooperative societies of distribution than in 
 those of production does not meet the point. It only 
 proves that the latter require more capital than the 
 former. But distributive cooperatives depend on man- 
 agement, skill, and industry as much as any other busi- 
 ness enterprises, and their success goes to show that these
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 83 
 
 factors may develop in a very large degree without the 
 alleged stimulus of capitalist competition. 
 
 And there is no lack of efficient and brilliant leadership 
 in these enterprises, nor is there such lack of leadership 
 even in present government work. 
 
 The most notable feat accomplished in modern times 
 is, beyond any doubt, the construction of the Panama 
 Canal. The United States government took hold of a 
 strip of land barren of life and civilization, of unendur- 
 able climate and pestilential atmosphere. Within a few 
 years the country was transformed as if by the touch of 
 the miracle-producing wand of the magician. The dread 
 epidemic of yellow fever was effectively checked ; large, 
 shady, and comfortable dwellings were erected ; railroads, 
 telegraph and telephone lines were constructed; and a 
 powerful working force of all grades of skill and ability 
 was assembled. 
 
 The workers in the Canal Zone received better wages 
 and better treatment than their fellow-workers in the 
 States ; they were provided with free furnished quarters ; 
 they received free medical treatment ; all articles of food 
 and clothing were sold to them at cost ; and they were 
 provided with club-houses, libraries, and other means of 
 diversion. 
 
 The efficiency of the management and of the working 
 force in the Canal Zone was probably never excelled, 
 and as a result the most stupendous engineering feat of 
 ages was accomplished within an incredibly short time. 
 
 This task was accomplished by the government of the 
 United States operating through a Canal Commission, 
 and the practical work was in charge of a government 
 employee Colonel George Goethals. A capitalist syn-
 
 84 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 dicate had attempted the task and abandoned it as 
 hopeless; a capitalist contractor had undertaken to 
 supply the requisite labour to the American government 
 and failed; a capitalist concern had contracted to pro- 
 vide the Canal workers with food, and had likewise failed. 
 And still our social philosophers prate about the "un- 
 progressiveness " and "inefficiency " of collective or gov- 
 ernment work, and the impossibility of securing adequate 
 industrial leadership without extortionate money com- 
 pensation. Colonel Goethals's salary is less than that 
 of many a successful commercial drummer, and the 
 efficient managers of the most stupendous cooperative 
 enterprises as a rule content themselves with salaries 
 ranging from twenty to forty dollars per week. 
 
 "But," says Dr. Ryan, in reply to this point, "the 
 construction of the Panama Canal is an exceptional case 
 and Colonel Goethals is an exceptional person. He is 
 an officer of the army, and the traditions and training 
 of the army have for centuries impressed upon its mem- 
 bers strong conceptions of public service, honour, and pro- 
 fessional duty and responsibility." 
 
 Quite so. Only this alleged objection to Socialism 
 seems to me rather to be one of the strongest arguments 
 in its favour. Take the army as seen by Dr. Ryan. It 
 is made up of average human beings, influenced by hu- 
 man motives and subject to all the laws of the familiar 
 bugaboo of "human nature." Still the army is not 
 dominated by motives of material gain. Through years 
 of training it has developed the higher stimuli of honour 
 and public responsibility. 
 
 Is Dr. Ryan quite sure that our captains of industry, 
 our inventive, directive, and executive geniuses are hope-
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 85 
 
 lessly impervious to these nobler motives of action ? Is 
 it not possible that they are to-day sordid and selfish 
 only because "their tradition and training have for cen- 
 turies impressed upon them strong conceptions" of the 
 all-importance of the dollar and of indifference to public 
 duties and responsibilities ? 
 
 The Socialists believe that the business of sustaining 
 life is a social function at least equal in importance to 
 that of destroying life; and they are convinced that a 
 sane and just economic regime will develop in the indus- 
 trial army conceptions of duty and honour superior to 
 those prevailing in the military army. 
 
 And finally Dr. Ryan expresses the fear that a Socialist 
 regime would curtail the individual liberty of the citizen. 
 He assures us that under Socialism the buying and sell- 
 ing prices of all commodities, as well as the scale of all 
 wages, would be determined by a "few men" or by "one 
 or at most two employing authorities," and that there 
 would thus be "no place for bargaining"; that the 
 majority would exercise undue powers over the minority, 
 and that the liberty of the press would be destroyed, 
 since no individual would be permitted to own and pub- 
 lish a newspaper. 
 
 There is nothing in the Socialist programme to warrant 
 the assertion that prices and wages would be fixed by an 
 independent or autocratic authority. It is more con- 
 sonant with the general Socialist plan of industrial 
 organization and management to assume that whatever 
 prices and wages will be fixed, will be fixed through 
 legislative enactment by authorized representatives of the 
 people and with due regard to the interests of the con-
 
 86 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 sumer and worker, somewhat after the manner in which 
 the charges and rates of certain public-service corpora- 
 tions are now determined by law. Is not that preferable 
 to having prices fixed arbitrarily and secretly by trusts 
 and monopolies ? 
 
 "Under the present system," Dr. Ryan observes, "a 
 man can get anything he has the money to pay for." 
 With equal truth he might have stated the negative of 
 the proposition : "Under the present system men can get 
 nothing unless they have the money to pay for it." And 
 mighty few persons have it. 
 
 I am also not very much alarmed over the prospect of 
 the majority dominating the minority. It is indispen- 
 sable for the stability of a social organization that a part 
 of the people defer occasionally to the opinions or wishes 
 of their fellow-citizens. Under Socialism the minority 
 will submit to the majority in matters of common con- 
 cern, but there will be no fixed majorities and minorities 
 in all matters, since there will be no fixed economic 
 classes with opposing interests. Under the present 
 regime the capitalist minority dominates the non- 
 capitalist majority in all matters at all times. Which is 
 to be preferred? 
 
 Nor are Dr. Ryan's fears of a Socialist "Monopoly of 
 Education" well grounded. A Socialist State would, of 
 course, make ample provisions for the education of chil- 
 dren, but there is no reason why it should not allow the 
 widest latitude to parents in the selection of studies and 
 instructors. The Socialist demand for compulsory at- 
 tendance at public schools relates to the present state, 
 and is made for the purpose of securing a minimum of 
 education to all children.
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 87 
 
 And finally, as to the imperilled liberty of the press. 
 It is probably true that under Socialism no individual 
 could own a newspaper. Nor could he own a church or 
 university. But it must be remembered that even under 
 Capitalism there are those of us who must forego the 
 convenience of owning a daily newspaper, and that under 
 Socialism there will be no reason why any organization 
 or school of art, science, politics, or religion could not 
 publish a periodical for the advancement of their views. 
 
 On the whole, it seems to me that the "tyranny" of 
 Socialism cannot but afford a very substantial relief 
 from the "individual liberty" of Capitalism.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 
 I. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MARXISM 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 THE Socialist movement is supported by a set of social 
 and economic doctrines which, taken together, constitute 
 its "theory" or "philosophy." 
 
 The theory occupies a large place in modern Socialism. 
 It lends scientific sanction to the movement, formulates 
 its aims, and aids in the shaping of its methods. But 
 with all that, its importance is not paramount. Social- 
 ism is not identified with its theoretical doctrines in the 
 same sense as a school of abstract philosophy or science. 
 The Socialist movement did not spring from a philosophi- 
 cal doctrine, and its fate does not depend entirely upon 
 the correctness or incorrectness of any of its social 
 theories. Socialism is a movement of living human 
 beings. It is directed toward definite economic and 
 political ends, and was engendered by concrete social 
 conditions rooted in modern society. The Socialist 
 philosophy takes the movement as it finds it. It an- 
 alyzes its causes, defines its goal, and maps out its 
 course. But it does not create it any more than as- 
 tronomy creates the planetary system. 
 
 Following the course of the practical movement, from 
 its first faltering steps in the beginning of the last cen- 
 
 88
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 89 
 
 tury to its present state of vigorous maturity, the So- 
 cialist philosophy has passed through many phases of 
 development until it has reached its modern definite 
 aspect. As in all other lines of thought, the evolution 
 was accomplished by a host of students and thinkers, 
 each contributing his mite to the general store of knowl- 
 edge and thus accumulating the material from which a 
 great synthetic mind could erect the solid structure of a 
 scientific system. 
 
 In the case of Socialism such a master builder appeared 
 in due course of time in the person of Karl Marx, a 
 German scholar of unusual attainments, whose prin- 
 cipal activity extended from the forties to the eighties 
 of the last century. To Karl Marx, his associates and 
 disciples, belongs the credit of having stripped theo- 
 retical Socialism of its original fantastic and visionary 
 garb, and having built up a system of Socialist philosophy 
 on solid and realistic foundations. This system, popu- 
 larly known as Marxism, is the accepted philosophy of 
 modern international Socialism, and I shall now attempt 
 to sketch its main outlines. 
 
 The corner stone of the modern Socialist philosophy 
 is its theory of social evolution. The conception of 
 social development as a process of gradual and logical 
 growth is comparatively new to human thought. Until 
 about the eighteenth century history was generally re- 
 garded as a succession of accidental events, mostly 
 brought about by the arbitrary will or whim of the high 
 and mighty of the world the kings, warriors, and 
 priests. But the end of the eighteenth century and the 
 beginning of the nineteenth brought a radical change in
 
 90 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 all domains of human thought and knowledge. Aprioris- 
 tic theories were discarded; speculation gave way to 
 research, and the sequence of cause and effect was sought 
 in all natural phenomena. 
 
 Ultimately this scientific method was transferred from 
 the natural sciences to the field of social research, and 
 by the middle of the last century the new " social science " 
 was fairly established. It was generally accepted that 
 human society is subject to certain laws of growth and 
 development, and that all social institutions are fashioned 
 by definite causes operating within society. 
 
 But what are the factors determining the course of 
 social development and the elements fashioning the social 
 and political structure of society ? These were the main 
 questions which agitated the minds of the adepts of the 
 new science. Karl Marx was the first to offer a definite 
 and rational solution of the momentous question. 
 
 "The form, contents and changes of every social 
 order," declared the founder of the modern Socialist 
 philosophy, "are determined by the economic basis upon 
 which such society is built." Let us examine this theory 
 more closely. 
 
 Frederick Engels, the friend and collaborator of Karl 
 Marx, formulates it in the following concise language : 
 
 "The production of the means of sustenance of human 
 life and the exchange of the things so produced form the 
 basis of all social structures. In every society known to 
 history the manner in which wealth is distributed and the 
 people divided into classes depends upon what is pro- 
 duced, how it is produced and how the products are ex- 
 changed. From this point of view the final causes of all 
 social changes and political revolutions are to be sought,
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 91 
 
 not in men's brains, not in men's better insight into 
 eternal truth and justice, but in the changes occurring 
 in the modes of production and exchange. They are 
 to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics. 
 of each epoch." 1 
 
 In the literature of continental Europe this theory is 
 known as the Materialistic Conception of History; in 
 English it is designated by preference by the apter phrase, 
 Economic Interpretation of History. 
 
 The somewhat fragmentary formulation of the doctrine 
 by Engels and its still terser statement by Marx have 
 subsequently been amplified by both, and further de- 
 veloped by their disciples. As the theory is understood 
 and interpreted to-day, it is exceedingly simple and may 
 be illustrated by a familiar example. 
 
 Under normal circumstances the first care of the in- 
 dividual human being is to assure his material existence 
 to gain a livelihood. The manner in which he makes 
 his living (his trade, calling, or economic state) deter- 
 mines to a large extent his income, habits, associations, 
 and notions his station in life, mode of life, and view 
 of life. A similar rule holds good for aggregations of 
 human beings organized in societies. The first instinc- 
 tive or conscious endeavour of every nation is to provide 
 the means of its material sustenance to produce 
 wealth; and the manner in which it produces its sus- 
 tenance ultimately determines its form of organization, 
 division of work or functions, and its notions of right 
 and wrong its politics, social classes, and ethics. The 
 government, social relations, and morals of a nomadic 
 tribe will naturally differ from those of an agricultural 
 1 " Socialism, Utopian and Scientific."
 
 92 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 people, a slave-owning community, a feudal society, or 
 a manufacturing and mercantile order, and in each case 
 they will adopt the forms best suited to the preserva- 
 tion and advancement of the prevailing economic in- 
 terests. 
 
 It is not contended that the economic mainspring is 
 the sole motive of national life and action. Idealistic 
 notions and intellectual or moral conceptions often ac- 
 quire the force of important and even guiding factors 
 in the progress of civilization ; but as a rule such notions 
 and conceptions are themselves primarily engendered by 
 material conditions. 
 
 The economic interpretation of history logically leads 
 to another important Marxian concept the doctrine of 
 the "class struggle." 
 
 As against the hostile forces of surrounding nature, 
 and sometimes also as against other nations competing 
 for the same bounties of nature, the economic interests 
 of each nation are harmonious and entire. But within 
 the nation itself no such general harmony of interests 
 exists. As soon as a society advances in its economic de- 
 velopment to the point of division of labour, its members 
 split into different groups of separate, often antagonistic, 
 economic interests. The contending interest-groups con- 
 stitute the "classes" of society, and the main division 
 among such classes is created by the possession or non- 
 possession of property. The possessors are the privileged 
 and ruling classes of society; the propertyless inhab- 
 itants constitute the inferior and dependent classes. 
 The members of each of such social divisions are united 
 in their economic interests and are antagonistic to those 
 of opposite economic interests.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 93 
 
 The dominant classes always strive to maintain and 
 fortify their economic advantages, while the dependent 
 classes instinctively or consciously endeavour to better 
 their social position by curtailing the power and privileges 
 of their exploiters. The Marxian Socialists contend 
 that the resultant conflicts between the opposing classes 
 in each civilization constitute the main substance of the 
 recorded history of the nations. 
 
 True to the method of economic interpretation, the 
 Marxist does not ascribe the causes of the modern social 
 evils to a "faulty" arrangement of society or to the 
 "unrighteousness" of the ruling classes or individuals, 
 nor does he seek to evolve a remedy from the depths of 
 his own wisdom. He maintains that both must be found 
 in the economic structure of modern society, in our 
 methods of producing and distributing wealth, and he 
 proceeds to analyze the mechanism of our industrial 
 system. It is significant that the chef-d'oeuvre of Karl 
 Marx, the "Bible" of modern Socialism, is not a specu- 
 lative philosophic or moral treatise, but a dispassionate, 
 scholarly work on political economy, entitled "Capital." 
 
 The character of modern wealth, Marx argues, differs 
 from that of the wealth of former ages. It is not repre- 
 sented by slaves or serfs, nor even principally by land 
 or agricultural products. Modern wealth consists mainly 
 of an accumulation of privately owned commodities and 
 of the instruments used for their production and dis- 
 tribution. Wealth in this form is capital and its owners 
 are capitalists. 
 
 The ultimate object of capital is to produce and ex- 
 change commodities and thus to increase its own volume 
 this is the substance of the industrial process. All
 
 94 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 industrial wealth is created in that process and all in- 
 dustrial profits are derived through it. But since all 
 commodities exchange for their full values, no accretion 
 of wealth can arise from the process of exchange, and the 
 source of all accumulations of industrial profits and 
 wealth must therefore be found in the process of pro- 
 duction. Let us try to trace it. 
 
 Marx adopts the classical "labour theory" of value, 
 i.e. the theory that the value of a manufactured com- 
 modity is determined by the quantity of average social 
 labour required for its reproduction. This doctrine was 
 formulated by the great classical economists Ricardo 
 and Smith, and was generally accepted at the time when 
 Marx wrote his "Capital"; but in the hands of the 
 founder of modern Socialism it led to a new economic dis- 
 covery entirely unforeseen by its original promulgators. 
 
 Since the value of all manufactured commodities is 
 measured by the aggregate amount of labour l embodied 
 in them, the capitalists could make no profits and accu- 
 mulate no wealth if they were to pay back to the workers 
 in the shape of wages or salaries the full equivalent of 
 their aggregate labour, i.e. all manufactured wealth. It 
 is therefore evident that as a matter of fact the money 
 wages of the workers represent less than the full equiva- 
 lent of the products of their labour. How are wages 
 determined, and how are profits made ? 
 
 1 The term "labour" as employed in Marxian economics comprehends 
 all kinds and grades of work required in the process of producing and dis- 
 tributing wealth mental as well as manual, and the work of manage- 
 ment and direction as well as that of execution. In that sense the labour 
 of the active capitalist produces as much as that of a hired employee 
 rendering similar services, and his compensation for such labour is quite 
 distinct from the workless income on his capital.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 95 
 
 "Labour," answers Marx, "in the present system is a 
 commodity, and is purchased by the manufacturing 
 capitalist in the open market, in the same way as raw 
 material or machinery on the basis of its market 
 value." The market value of labour is established sub- 
 stantially in the same manner as that of any other com- 
 modity by the cost of its production. In the case of 
 labour this formula means the equivalent of such quantity 
 of food, clothing, and other necessaries of life as will 
 enable the worker to rear offspring, to maintain his 
 health, and restore his working power from day to day 
 according to the established standard of living. 
 
 Thus if the necessaries of the working man's life per 
 day can be produced in six hours of average social labour 
 time, his average wages will represent the portion of his 
 labour equivalent to six hours, and if he works ten hours, 
 the product of the remaining four hours will go to his 
 employer. The portion of the labour product which the 
 capitalist thus retains for himself Marx styles "surplus 
 value." 
 
 The "surplus value" of the employing capitalist is by 
 no means his clear profit. From it he usually pays rent 
 to the owner of his factory site or interest to the banker 
 who advances his operating capital, or both. Thus all 
 forms of capitalist revenue, rent, interest, and profits, 
 depend ultimately on the production of "surplus value," 
 while the workers depend for their living on wages. 
 Since wages and "surplus value" are derived from the 
 same source labour employed in the production of 
 wealth it is evident that the portion of the one is 
 relatively smaller as that of the other is larger. 
 
 Hence arises a constant conflict of interest between
 
 96 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 the capitalist class and the working-class over their re- 
 spective shares of the product, and that conflict under- 
 lies all class struggles in modern society. In normal 
 times it smoulders under the surface, and expresses itself 
 in the instinctive efforts of the worker to save and con- 
 serve his sole valuable possession his labour power, to 
 "loaf on his job," as Dr. Ryan expresses it, and, on the 
 other hand, in the endeavour of the employers to secure 
 the maximum labour from his "hands" for a given wage 
 to "speed up." It is also at the bottom of the end- 
 less bickerings over wage scales and working hours, of 
 the predilection of the manufacturing capitalist for the 
 labour of women and children and of the workers' oppo- 
 sition to these forms of cheap labour. 
 
 The more acute stages of the ever present conflict of 
 interest between employer and worker find expression in 
 the "labour disputes" which have become inseparable 
 from our industrial order, the frequent and extensive 
 strikes, boycotts, lockouts, and blacklists. 
 
 Nor is the modern class struggle entirely confined to 
 the economic life of the nations. It always influences 
 and often determines their politics as well. The re- 
 spective attitudes of the contending political parties 
 toward capital and labour are among the most vital issues 
 in all modern political platforms, and the practical hand- 
 ling of the problems arising from the conflict of the two 
 economic categories often constitutes the main feature 
 of administrative policies and politics. 
 
 The struggles between capital and labour are not 
 based on lack of mutual understanding or on personal 
 hostility between the capitalists and the workers. The 
 private relations between an employer and his employees
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 97 
 
 may be very cordial, and both sides may even be uncon- 
 scious of the conflict of their interests ; but that conflict 
 is nevertheless firmly and fatally imbedded in their 
 economic relations, and no amount of personal good feel- 
 ing or harmony can remove it so long as the capitalist 
 system of production prevails. 
 
 The economic antagonism between capitalists and 
 wage-workers is not limited to their immediate every- 
 day concerns : it extends to their ultimate and more vital 
 social interests. 
 
 The capitalist owes his ability to extract "surplus 
 value" from the worker and thus to amass profits and 
 wealth to the fact that he owns the tools without which 
 no wealth can be produced. The worker is forced to 
 surrender a substantial portion of the fruits of his toil 
 to the capitalist because he possesses nothing but his 
 labour power, and that possession is worthless without the 
 modern tool. The private capitalist ownership of the 
 tools or instruments of production is thus at once the 
 source of the capitalists' strength and of the workers' 
 weakness ; and while it is in the interest of the former to 
 maintain the system, the salvation of the latter lies in its 
 abolition. 
 
 Socialism, which advocates the abrogation of private 
 ownership in the instruments of production, is thus the 
 logical philosophy and social goal of the working-classes. 
 
 This deduction from the analysis of the existing eco- 
 nomic system is one of the most important practical 
 results of the Marxian philosophy. It served to trans- 
 form Socialism from a vague humanitarian and classless 
 ideal into a practical economic and political movement 
 of the working-class.
 
 98 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The Socialists of the beginning of the last century 
 assumed that all social evils were due to a "faulty" 
 organization of society caused by lack of social intelli- 
 gence, and that society would be reorganized on a 
 "rational" and "just" basis as soon as men, and par- 
 ticularly those in power and authority, could be made 
 to realize the faults and iniquities of the prevailing 
 order. Hence the early Socialists addressed themselves 
 to the conscience of mankind in general and to the 
 generosity of the wealthy and powerful in particular, 
 trying to convert them to their views by arguments and 
 exhortation and by "practical demonstrations," i.e. the 
 establishment of experimental "socialistic" communities. 
 
 Thus Charles Fourier, the great French Socialist of 
 the primitive or "utopian" school, made a public appeal 
 to the men of wealth to furnish him with the means of 
 founding a model community, and every day during the 
 last ten years of his life he went to his house at noon- 
 time with the regularity of clockwork, expecting the 
 visit of a sympathetic millionnaire in response to his 
 appeal. Robert Owen, Fourier's illustrious English con- 
 temporary, even went so far as to submit his plans of 
 industrial reorganization of society to Czar Nicholas I 
 of Russia and to the Congress of Sovereigns at Aachen. 
 
 The philosophy of Karl Marx introduced a radical 
 change into the situation. It asserted the doctrine that 
 the workers could not hope for substantial relief from 
 the ruling classes, since the capitalists cannot give up 
 the private ownership of the tool without committing 
 economic suicide. It taught the workers that they must 
 depend on their own efforts for their social salvation. 
 Marxism thus substitutes enlightened class conscious-
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 99 
 
 ness and consistent class action on the economic and 
 political fields for the inarticulate class instinct and one- 
 sided activity of the purely economic organizations of 
 labour and the purely propagandist efforts of the early 
 Socialist schools. 
 
 In its general character and immediate promise So- 
 cialism is thus primarily a movement of the working- 
 class. But in its practical operations and ultimate 
 benefits it is by no means restricted to the wage-workers 
 alone. 
 
 While the capitalists and wage-workers are the most 
 important and best-defined interest groups or classes in 
 modern society, they are not the only classes. Between 
 them and alongside of them there are numerous and im- 
 portant economic groups usually designated by the general 
 term "middle classes." These consist of small farmers, 
 manufacturers, and merchants; professionals or "free 
 practitioners" of all callings, such as physicians, lawyers, 
 writers, artists, and clergymen; and "intellectuals" 
 directly employed by the capitalist class, such as super- 
 intendents, accountants, and clerks. The direct eco- 
 nomic interests of many of these classes are more closely 
 allied with those of the workers than of the capitalists, 
 and in the social struggles of the classes they may fre- 
 quently be found siding with the former. 
 
 Furthermore, while the working-class would be the 
 most direct and immediate beneficiary of the contem- 
 plated Socialist transformation, the benefits of the latter 
 would ultimately accrue in a very large measure to man- 
 kind at large. It is not the aim of Socialism to put the 
 workers in power over other classes of society, to sup- 
 plant one dominant class by another. Since wage labour
 
 100 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 represents the last form of economic dependence and 
 exploitation, the victory of the workers in the pending 
 class struggle must result in the abolition of all classes 
 the economic emancipation of the entire human race. 
 
 In the process of evolving an ever higher civilization, 
 history often selects one social class as its chosen instru- 
 ment. The capitalist class in the period of its militant 
 youth was such an instrument of civilization in demolish- 
 ing the antiquated feudal system; and the Socialist 
 working-class is the instrument of an impending superior 
 civilization in striving to abolish capitalism and to usher 
 in the higher order of cooperative effort and general 
 enjoyment. It is this larger aspect of the Socialist 
 movement which attracts numerous persons outside of 
 the ranks of the wage-working classes. For while a class 
 as such can never act in opposition to its direct and 
 immediate economic interests, the individual often is 
 guided in his sympathies and actions by the broader 
 consideration of ultimate public benefit. 
 
 One of the fundamental propositions of the economic 
 interpretation of history is that the form of society at 
 any given time cannot be changed unless the economic 
 development has made it ripe for such change. To 
 complete his case, the Socialist theoretician must there- 
 fore prove not only that it is in the interest of the work- 
 ing-class to introduce the system of Socialism, but also 
 that it has the power and ability to do so, and that the 
 current of economic development favours such change. 
 
 The Marxian Socialist contends that the requisite 
 conditions for the transition to Socialism are ripening 
 within the framework of modern society, and that the
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM IOI 
 
 working-class is fast developing the ability to effect the 
 change. 
 
 By the inexorable laws of its own evolution Capital- 
 ism gradually wipes out the individual factor in pro- 
 duction and management. The machine and factory 
 system make production a social and cooperative process, 
 while the large corporations and trusts organize the 
 management of the industries on broad national lines. 
 And the laws of capitalist development are still at work, 
 busily undermining the very foundation upon which the 
 system rests. The competitive warfare fattens its 
 victors and destroys its victims every day. Every day 
 capital and economic power concentrate hi the hands of 
 an ever narrowing circle of industrial and financial 
 interest groups. 
 
 In the United States we can already point out a small 
 number of combines and individuals who together con- 
 trol the main sources and products of the national wealth. 
 This process has proceeded with gigantic strides within 
 the last twenty-five years. What heights will it reach a 
 quarter of a century hence? Will one great money 
 octopus be allowed to fasten its greedy tentacles on the 
 life and existence of the hundred million inhabitants of 
 the country, or will the nation develop a power of suffi- 
 cient strength and intelligence to free itself from the 
 menace by reorganizing society on a new and sounder 
 basis ? 
 
 The Socialists assert that the Socialist movement of 
 the working-class is developing into such a power. The 
 ranks of the workers are steadily extending, their num- 
 bers are rapidly increasing. The process of capitalist 
 concentration results among other things in the elimina-
 
 102 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tion of the independent small producers and traders, who 
 are forced in ever increasing numbers into the state of 
 dependent "salaried" employees, and the cohorts of 
 industrial wage-earners are further augmented by accre- 
 tions from the farming population, whose life becomes 
 more and more precarious. The story of this irresist- 
 ible movement is writ large in the records of every de- 
 cennial census. 
 
 Nor is the growth of the working-class to be measured 
 by numbers alone. The workers advance steadily in 
 social intelligence, in the spirit of revolt, and in political 
 wisdom and power. This is the real significance of the 
 tremendous growth in recent times of the Socialist, 
 trade-union, and cooperative movements, and of the 
 "socialistic" and "semi-socialistic" measures of all 
 modern legislatures. The growth of the Socialist and 
 labour movement keeps pace with that of capitalist 
 concentration and power, and the time is bound to 
 come when these two main and contending factors in 
 modern civilization will be forced into a trial of 
 strength. 
 
 Which will prevail? The small group of the "in- 
 terests" or the large masses of the workers? 
 
 "The workers, beyond a doubt," answer the Socialists. 
 For the power of the ruling classes is purely artificial, 
 and is based on the tolerance, ignorance, and apathy of 
 the masses. It cannot survive the awakening of the 
 populace ; it cannot continue against their opposition.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 103 
 
 II. AN EXPLODED PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 Concerning the relation and importance of the So- 
 cialist philosophy to the Socialist movement, I am in 
 substantial agreement with my esteemed opponent. 
 While economic Socialism is not necessarily dependent 
 upon the fundamental theory elaborated by Karl Marx, 
 it has historically been made to rest upon that founda- 
 tion, and not upon another. That basis, therefore, that 
 "set of social and economic doctrines, . . . lends scien- 
 tific sanction to the movement, formulates its aims, and 
 aids in the shaping of its methods." Yes ; and is mainly 
 responsible, as we shall see hereafter, for its ethical, re- 
 ligious, and other non-economic doctrines and affinities. 
 
 In the words of Mr. Hillquit, "the corner-stone of the 
 modern Socialist movement is its theory of social evolu- 
 tion." And the core of the theory is the doctrine of 
 historical materialism, or economic interpretation of 
 history, or to adopt the title that seems to me most 
 precise and suggestive economic determinism. 
 
 According to its original formulation by Marx and 
 Engels, "the form, contents, and changes of every social 
 order" and "all social changes and political revolutions" 
 are determined, caused, shaped by economic factors, by 
 the methods of proprietorship, production, and exchange. 
 Later on the theory was so modified by Engels as to 
 admit the influence of political, legal, philosophical, and 
 religious factors. 1 
 
 1 See Seligman, "The Economic Interpretation of History," pp. 142, 
 143; New York, 1902.
 
 104 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Nevertheless, he continued to hold that the economic 
 factor was the decisive one in the last instance. This 
 implies that the influence of the non-economic social 
 factors is all derived and instrumental, not original and 
 independent. Consequently the extent and direction of 
 their causal action is ultimately governed by the eco- 
 nomic factor, just as the operation of the hammer upon 
 a nail or the saw upon a board is produced and regulated 
 by the carpenter. Inasmuch as he was a philosophical 
 materialist, Engels could not logically admit that non- 
 material and non-economic factors, such as religion and 
 ethics, were capable of exerting any original and inde- 
 pendent force or causality. Therefore, his modification 
 of the theory of economic determinism does not mean as 
 much as an uncritical perusal of his words might lead 
 one to infer. It merely makes explicit what was from 
 the beginning of the theory implicit, namely, that non- 
 economic factors do exert a real and important, though 
 secondary and derived, influence upon social evolution. 
 
 This revised but not essentially changed form of the 
 theory is the one apparently accepted by my opponent. 
 While he admits that "idealistic notions and intellectual 
 and moral conceptions often acquire the force of im- 
 portant and even guiding factors in the progress of civili- 
 zation," he maintains that "the manner in which it [a 
 nation] produces its sustenance ultimately [italics mine] 
 determines its form of organization, division of work or 
 functions, and its notions of right and wrong its 
 politics, social classes, and ethics." 
 
 Now it is undeniable that economic conditions do 
 exercise a large influence upon social life, ideas, institu- 
 tions, and development. Discerning men no longer
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 105 
 
 think that a nation's history can be written in terms of 
 its spectacular events and its great warriors, diplomats, 
 and statesmen. To know adequately the life and achieve- 
 ments of a people we must study their social institu- 
 tions, and among the latter a very large part is taken by 
 economic institutions. If the economic factor had played 
 no r61e in the Protestant Reformation, the American 
 Revolution, the making of our Constitution, our Civil 
 War, and the Irish struggle for self-government, the 
 history of these events would have been vastly dif- 
 ferent. 
 
 To-day almost all our political problems and activities 
 are entirely or fundamentally economic. Even the 
 ethical notions of men vary considerably according to 
 their industrial interests. Consider, for example, the 
 different moral judgments passed respectively by em- 
 ployers and employees upon the strike, the boycott, 
 the closed shop, judicial injunctions, and the definition 
 of fair wages and fair profits. 
 
 To admit and insist that economic conditions very 
 largely influence the politics, morals, and even the 
 religious life of peoples and social classes is, however, 
 to fall far short of the Socialist position. Whether he 
 be a philosophical materialist or not, the average Socialist 
 magnifies the role of the economic factor beyond all 
 plausibility. Particularly is this true with regard to 
 religion and ethics. Witness the extravagant and fan- 
 tastic attempts of Kautsky and Loria to "explain" the 
 origin and subsequent history of Christianity on purely 
 economic grounds, and the crude and superficial efforts 
 of so many Socialists to reduce all vice, crime, and sin to 
 economic causes and motives.
 
 106 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 That phase of the theory of economic determinism 
 which we have just been considering describes the general 
 causality of the economic factor. It deals with the in- 
 fluence of economic conditions and changes upon other 
 social conditions and changes. There is, however, 
 another phase of the theory which has to do with the 
 manner in which the dominant economic factors operate 
 within the economic field, and bring about social evolu- 
 tion. According to this part of the theory, the method 
 or instrument through which changes in the social struc- 
 ture of society are effected is the class struggle. 
 
 Hence economic forces operating through the class 
 struggle are the primary determinants of all social evolu- 
 tion. It was in the light of these two sides of the eco- 
 nomic-determinism theory that Marx and Engels wrote 
 in the "Communist Manifesto": "The history of all 
 hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." 
 
 Obviously this sentence contains an enormous amount 
 of exaggeration. The great international wars, the rise 
 and growth of Christianity, the development of educa- 
 tion, law, science, and invention were only feebly and 
 remotely determined by struggles between different 
 economic groups. This is a fine formula for simpli- 
 fying history, but it ignores too many inconvenient 
 facts. In Mr. Hillquit's acceptation of the theory, class 
 struggles appear as the "main substance of the recorded 
 history of the nations." This statement will not stand 
 the test of a comprehensive review of historical events. 
 
 Even when we confine our attention to the purely 
 economic field, we see that the class-struggle doctrine 
 unduly simplifies the relations and exaggerates the an- 
 tagonisms of the different economic classes. The latter
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 107 
 
 cannot, as so many Socialists would have us believe, 
 be properly reduced to two, capitalists and "workers." 
 Indeed, Mr. Hillquit enumerates under the general des- 
 ignation of "middle classes" several economic groups, 
 such as small farmers, manufacturers, and merchants, 
 the professional classes and the salaried classes. How- 
 ever, he maintains that their economic interests are 
 "often more closely allied with those of the workers than 
 of the capitalists." "Often," perhaps; certainly not 
 always. 
 
 But my opponent contends that the main division 
 among these classes is created not so much by economic 
 occupation or function as by "the possession or non- 
 possession of property." Even this basis of division 
 does not yield material for a class struggle of any great 
 importance. 
 
 Professor Streightoff estimates that there are about 
 twenty-four million individuals in the United States 
 who possess some income-bearing property other than 
 government and corporation securities. 1 Combining 
 with this number those persons who own the latter two 
 kinds of securities, and making a liberal allowance for 
 duplications, we seem to be warranted in putting the 
 total number of income-bearing property owners at a 
 majority of the fifty-one million persons whose age is 
 twenty years and over. 2 Between these and the proper- 
 tyless minority an active or economically important con- 
 flict is quite unlikely. Should one arise it would evidently 
 not terminate in the way desired by the Socialists. The 
 possessing section is too numerous and too powerful. 
 
 1 "The Distribution of Incomes in the United States," p. 146; New 
 York, 1912. 2 Census of 1910.
 
 108 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Finally, if the line of cleavage is to be drawn, as many 
 Socialists contend, between those who get their living 
 mainly from wages and those who derive most or all of 
 their incomes from capital, the conditions of a genuine 
 struggle would still be wanting, because a very large 
 proportion of the former division would refuse, and do 
 refuse, to become involved. They do not believe that 
 their interest lies in that direction. 
 
 Class divisions based upon divergent economic interests 
 are an indisputable fact. In his recent work entitled 
 "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the 
 United States," Professor Beard of Columbia University 
 has shown that the Constitution was not the work of 
 altruistic and doctrinaire political scientists, but of the 
 personal property and creditor classes. In writing it 
 they zealously protected their own interests against the 
 interests and designs of the merchant, mechanic, farmer, 
 and debtor classes. But it happened that their interests 
 were, so far as the making of a constitution was con- 
 cerned, in harmony with the broad principles of economic 
 and political equity. 
 
 In our time the average member of a legislative body 
 primarily represents not an abstraction called his entire 
 constituency, but the economic class with which he is 
 most closely affiliated. Hence the practical need of each 
 class to have its own representatives in every legislature. 
 Numerous other instances of the influence of class sym- 
 pathies and class interests upon social and political life 
 will readily occur to the intelligent observer. 
 
 But the man who tries to see things as they are will 
 realize that the number of economic classes cannot use- 
 fully nor correctly be reduced to two, and that a very
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 109 
 
 large part of the population is not definitely aligned in 
 a single class conflict. There exists, indeed, a certain 
 sort of class struggle between a large section of the wage- 
 earners and a large section of the capitalists ; but other 
 large sections hold persistently aloof, or engage in it 
 only feebly and intermittently, and even then not uni- 
 formly on the same side. Hence the struggle, such as it 
 is, is much less general, less intense, and less uniform 
 than it appears in the average Socialist picture. 
 
 The proposition that labour does not get the full equiv- 
 alent of its product is in one sense a platitude, and in 
 another sense unprovable. 
 
 It is a platitude inasmuch as it states that labour does 
 not obtain the whole of the product created by present 
 labour combined with capital, or "crystallized labour." 
 It is unprovable inasmuch as it implies that capital 
 contributes to the joint product only sufficient utility or 
 sufficient value to replace the capital, and that all the 
 remaining value of the product is the creation of present 
 labour. Since the product would not have come into 
 existence at all if either capital or labour were wanting, 
 and since every part of it is due in some degree to the 
 action of both, to determine how much of the product 
 is specifically attributable to either factor is quite as im- 
 possible as to find out what proportion of the animal 
 has come from either parent. 
 
 Wherefore Marx's "new economic discovery" turns 
 out to be the discovery either of the obvious or of the un- 
 discoverable. 
 
 The statement that wages are determined by the cost 
 of maintaining labour in conformity with " the established
 
 110 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 standard of living" is under one aspect unimportant, 
 and under another aspect untrue. It is unimportant 
 because it does not necessarily imply that the scale of 
 living of the labourer is unreasonably low, and because it 
 is true of other than the working-classes. "The estab- 
 lished standard of living " is quite elastic and relative. For 
 a large part of the workers it means a reasonable and com- 
 fortable existence, and often includes savings and invest- 
 ments for the future. Their "established standard of 
 living," interpreted in this broad sense, absorbs likewise 
 all the incomes of the great majority of those who are 
 not wage-earners. 
 
 On the other hand, the statement in question is untrue, 
 inasmuch as it asserts that wages are in all cases strictly 
 determined by the established standard of living. The 
 latter is an effect rather than the cause of most of those 
 incomes which are above the cost of bare subsistence. 
 
 In a word, the whole Marxian surplus-value theory is 
 a pedantic and mystifying formulation of things which 
 are either obvious, unprovable, unimportant, or untrue. 
 It does not explain economic facts, nor contribute to the 
 study of economic justice, nor indicate the trend of 
 economic evolution. 
 
 In the division of a product already in existence, 
 the interests of labour and capital are opposed, inasmuch 
 as a greater share to the latter (including the business 
 manager and the landowner) will mean a smaller share 
 to the former. The fact is, however, that the division 
 is made before the product comes into being. Within 
 certain limits the terms of the division may decide not 
 only the proportion of the product that will go to each 
 recipient, but the total amount that will be available
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM III 
 
 for distribution. An attitude of good-will on both sides, 
 particularly on the part of the employer with regard to 
 wages and other conditions of the labour contract, gener- 
 ally results in a larger share for both parties. Therefore 
 the antagonism between them is neither so fundamental 
 nor so extensive as represented by my opponent and 
 Socialists generally. 
 
 From the fact that the capitalist takes a part of the 
 product of industry it does not follow that the labourer 
 should seek to abolish the regime of private capital. 
 The inference is not logical, nor is Socialism " the logical 
 philosophy of the working-class." The flaw in the in- 
 ference is the assumption that Socialism would be able 
 to give the labouring class better conditions than are at- 
 tainable under the present system. 
 
 The truth that the progress of the working-class de- 
 pends mainly upon their own united efforts was not dis- 
 covered by Karl Marx. As the history of trade-unionism 
 attests, it was fairly well known to the labouring people 
 even before the rise of modern Capitalism. In England 
 and the United States the trade-unions have done far 
 more to diffuse this knowledge than have the Socialists. 
 The influence of the latter in educating the labouring 
 people need not be denied, but over against it must be 
 set the fact that Marx and his followers have exaggerated 
 the power of the workers, minimized the assistance ob- 
 tained and obtainable from other classes, and led the 
 wage-earners whom they have captured into a blind 
 alley. 
 
 "In proportion as capital accumulates," said Marx, 
 " the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low,
 
 112 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 must become worse." l With regard to the middle 
 classes, both Marx and Engels thought that "the small 
 tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen gen- 
 erally, the handicraftsmen, and the peasants all these 
 sink gradually into the proletariat." 2 In my oppo- 
 nent's statement of the concentration theory, these two 
 phases are passed over in silence ; yet they were funda- 
 mental in the forecast of Marx and Engels. How far 
 have they been verified ? 
 
 Between 1853 and 1893 3 rea -l wages increased in Great 
 Britain 88 per cent; in France, 81 per cent; and in 
 the United States, 85 per cent. 4 In his second paper 
 of this series, Mr. Hillquit admits that, "on the whole, 
 life is more propitious to-day, even to the masses, than it 
 was at any time in the past." 
 
 The middle classes have likewise refused to make 
 good the Marxian prediction. Between 1851 and 1891 
 England's population increased but 30 per cent, while 
 the number of her families in receipt of from 150 to 
 1000 annual income was enlarged by 233 per cent. 
 According to Mr. Chiozza Money, the number of persons 
 receiving from 180 to 700 per annum in 1904 was more 
 than twice as large as the number of families getting 
 from 150 to 1000 in 1891. The population of Prussia 
 doubled between 1854 and 1894, but the number of per- 
 sons obtaining above 150 annually was multiplied 
 seven times. Eduard Bernstein, the Revisionist Social- 
 ist from whose "Evolutionary Socialism" 5 most of these 
 
 1 "Capital," I, 406, 407 ; Humboldt Edition. 
 
 2 "The Communist Manifesto," p. 26; Kerr's Edition. 
 "The "Communist Manifesto" appeared in 1848. 
 
 4 Professor Bowley in the Economic Journal, viii, 488. 
 B Pp. 46, sq.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 113 
 
 figures are taken, declares that the other countries of 
 Europe "show no materially different picture," and that 
 the members of the possessing classes are increasing both 
 absolutely and relatively. 
 
 In the United States we have unfortunately no definite 
 statistics regarding the numbers of persons in receipt 
 of any particular range of incomes, or in possession of 
 particular amounts of property. For our present pur- 
 pose the most significant available figures are the follow- 
 ing: Between 1875 and 1911 the number of savings-banks 
 depositors quadrupled, while the population merely 
 doubled; from 1880 to 1905 the wealth of the country 
 increased two and one-half times, but the amount of 
 savings-banks deposits three and three-quarters times; 
 the average size of farms fell from 206 acres in 1850 to 
 138 acres in 1910; and between 1900 and 1910 the pro- 
 portion of our agricultural land in farms of more than 
 1000 acres decreased more than six and one-half per cent. 1 
 
 Although the wage-earners have shown no tendency 
 toward progressive deterioration, nor the middle classes 
 toward progressive disappearance, has not the concen- 
 tration phase of the Marxian prediction been justified ? 
 "The large capitals beat the smaller," said Marx. Is 
 the bulk of the world's wealth and capital becoming 
 concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer great cap- 
 italists and combinations ? 
 
 Since the middle classes, the owners of medium 
 amounts of productive property, are continuously in- 
 creasing, it would seem that the question just asked 
 ought to be forthwith answered in the negative. And 
 this answer would be correct on the whole; however, 
 
 1 See Bulletins of the Census of 1910. 
 I
 
 114 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 it needs considerable qualification, owing to the different 
 conditions and tendencies in different parts of the in- 
 dustrial field. 
 
 In agriculture, as we saw above, the tendency is away 
 from instead of toward concentration. The large 
 American farms are breaking up, and the smaller farms 
 are rapidly increasing. The same movement is going 
 on in Europe. From a brief but comprehensive cita- 
 tion of statistics Bernstein concludes that "in the whole 
 of Western Europe . . . the small and medium agri- 
 cultural holding is increasing everywhere, and the large 
 and very large holding is decreasing." l 
 
 In the field of distribution the department store and 
 the mammoth wholesale concern have in some places 
 gained on the smaller establishments; yet the small 
 retailer is everywhere increasing faster than the popula- 
 tion. 
 
 In manufactures, the concentration prediction has to 
 some extent been verified. The proportion of the total 
 product turned out by very large manufacturing estab- 
 lishments, and by combinations of many establishments 
 under a single management, has increased in practically 
 all progressive countries. In the United States this pro- 
 cess has moved faster and farther than elsewhere, espe- 
 cially during the last fifteen years. Every decennial 
 year since 1840, except two, has shown a considerably 
 greater increase in the amount of capital than in the 
 number of establishments. Between 1904 and 1909 
 the proportion of the total output coming from establish- 
 ments having a product of one million dollars' worth or 
 over increased nearly six per cent, while the proportion 
 1 Op. cit., p. 71.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 115 
 
 turned out by all the smaller establishments suffered 
 a decrease. 
 
 Nevertheless, we must note two mitigating circum- 
 stances. First, the number of the smaller establishments 
 and the amount of business done by them continue to 
 grow absolutely, thus showing that the absorption of 
 them by the great industries is still in the distant future. 
 In the year 1909 56 per cent of the manufactured prod- 
 ucts of the United States were turned out by concerns 
 having an annual output of less than a million dollars' 
 worth. Second, concentration of industry is not the 
 same as concentration of capital ownership. The joint- 
 stock company has made possible a great diffusion of 
 property titles in industrial concerns. As a consequence, 
 the number of shareholders in our railways and manu- 
 facturing concerns is increasing faster than the concen- 
 tration of capital, and faster than the size of the business 
 establishment. 1 
 
 Like most other intelligent Socialists of to-day, my 
 opponent recognizes the exaggerations of the theory 
 of concentration as formulated by Karl Marx. Hence 
 he says nothing about the impoverishment of the work- 
 ing-classes or the disappearance of the middle classes. 
 Nevertheless, he believes that the concentration process 
 moves steadily forward by the inexorable laws of capi- 
 talist evolution. "Every day capital and economic 
 power concentrate in the hands of an ever narrowing 
 circle of industrial and financial interest groups. In 
 the United States we can already point out a small num- 
 ber of combines and individuals who together control 
 the main sources and products of the national wealth." 
 
 1 Cf. Streightoff, op. cit., pp. 35, sq.
 
 Il6 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Apparently my opponent has in mind not merely the 
 combination of many corporations into a few great trusts, 
 but the substantial control of a large part of the entire 
 industrial field by a small number of financial concerns, 
 through such devices as interlocking directorates and 
 the monopoly of credit accommodations. The magni- 
 tude assumed by these phenomena during the last quar- 
 ter of a century suggests to him the conclusion that a 
 great industrial and financial oligarchy will in the near 
 future either dominate completely the lives of the people, 
 or be overthrown by Socialism. 
 
 And yet there is a third alternative. The great indus- 
 trial trusts have all been organized within the last fifteen 
 years, practically without interference or regulation by 
 the government. As I observed in my last paper, 
 it is by no means certain that these combinations are 
 really efficient and economical. Professor Meade and 
 Mr. Brandeis think that, as compared with concerns of 
 moderate size, they are inefficient and wasteful. In 
 the opinion of Professor Taussig, "it seems certain that 
 in the ordinary manufacturing industries, even in those 
 where large-scale operations prevail, nothing but a pre- 
 carious and limited monopoly can result. " 1 All our 
 available experience tends to show that the maximum of 
 efficiency, whether in a single establishment or in a com- 
 bination of establishments, is reached long before the 
 concern becomes a monopoly. Our great trusts have 
 not been produced merely by superior efficiency. They 
 have been built, at least in part, upon many forms of 
 special privilege, and upon predatory methods of com- 
 petition. 
 
 J " Principles of Economics," ii, 432.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 117 
 
 To assume that the government is powerless to check 
 and destroy these abnormal combinations and monopolies 
 through the abolition of special privilege and the restora- 
 tion of fair methods of competition, is hasty and unwar- 
 ranted. The thing has never been seriously or intelli- 
 gently attempted. Unless all present signs fail, the right 
 kind of effort will be made under the administration of 
 President Wilson. If it should prove futile and wasteful, 
 the State will have to recognize and encourage these 
 combinations. It will have to regulate them, even to 
 the fixing of maximum prices. If this method should in 
 turn fail, the State can itself become a competitor in 
 that part of the industrial field occupied by the trusts. 
 
 Not until all these devices have been thoroughly tried 
 and found wanting will there be sufficient reason for as- 
 serting that economic development leads inevitably 
 to the control of industry by a few great combinations, 
 and thence to Socialism. 
 
 That indirect form of centralization which consists 
 not in complete ownership, but in interlocking directo- 
 rates and a monopoly of credit, and which seems to en- 
 able a few powerful groups of men virtually to dominate 
 a large part of the economic life of America, is even more 
 recent than the development of the trusts. The as- 
 sumption that it cannot be prevented or adequately 
 controlled by action of government is even less war- 
 ranted than in the case of the latter. Here, again, I 
 would advise my opponent to "wait and see." 
 
 The second factor upon which Mr. Hillquit relies to 
 bring about the Socialist reorganization of industrial 
 and political society is the rapidly increasing power of the 
 working-class. "The process of capitalist concentration
 
 Il8 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 results among other things in the elimination of the in- 
 dependent small producers and traders, who are forced 
 in ever increasing numbers into the state of dependent 
 'salaried' employees, and the cohorts of industrial wage- 
 earners are further augmented by accretions from the 
 farming population, whose life becomes more and more 
 precarious." 
 
 Now, this "elimination" of the small manufacturer 
 and dealer is a very slow and relative process. While 
 the large concerns are encroaching upon the territory of 
 the smaller, the latter are increasing absolutely. In 
 the field of merchandising the small dealers are probably 
 growing quite as fast as the urban population. More- 
 over, the displaced small independents become receivers 
 of salaries rather than wages, and consequently more 
 closely affiliated with the capitalist class than with the 
 proletariat. 
 
 As to "accretions from the farming population," we 
 find that between 1900 and 1910 the number of farms in 
 the United States increased at the same rate as the rural 
 inhabitants, while the increase in the number of farmers 
 who owned the land that they tilled was only 3 per cent 
 less than that rate. Since farming has never been so 
 prosperous as in recent years, the majority of those who 
 abandon the rural regions are not driven to do so because 
 life there is becoming more "precarious," but because 
 of the lure of the city, with its real or fancied opportu- 
 nities. 
 
 With regard to the magnitude and growth of the labour- 
 ing class in America, we have unfortunately no definite 
 or satisfactory statistics. While our wage-earners and 
 salary receivers combined undeniably constitute a ma-
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 119 
 
 jority of all the persons engaged in gainful occupations, 
 they are not a very large majority. In all probability 
 they do not aggregate more than seven-tenths. Were 
 all the voters among them to unite at the ballot-box, 
 they could undoubtedly introduce, for the moment at 
 least, a regime of Socialism. 
 
 But there is no likelihood that they would all thus 
 unite. A considerable section of them can never be con- 
 vinced that Socialism is feasible ; another large section 
 will continue to oppose the project on religious and moral 
 grounds ; a third numerous group hope to become inde- 
 pendent business men under the present system ; while 
 a fourth section, including the majority of those who re- 
 ceive salaries rather than wages, will never believe that 
 Socialism, even if practicable, would be economically 
 and otherwise better for them than the conditions and ad- 
 vantages that they enjoy under the present regime. 
 
 Although it is probably true that the labouring class in 
 the wide sense here denned is increasing faster than the 
 independent farming and business classes, this increase 
 will probably be more than neutralized by the improve- 
 ments in their condition that are certain to come through 
 social legislation, and through participation in the own- 
 ership of productive property. 
 
 Even in the more moderate statement of my opponent, 
 therefore, the reasons for an irresistible "trend toward 
 Socialism" are neither clear nor convincing. 
 
 It was the opinion of Engels that the two main doc- 
 trines of the Marxian social philosophy, economic deter- 
 minism and surplus value, had converted Socialism from 
 a Utopia into a science. The average Socialist never
 
 120 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 wearies of assuring us that his beloved system is founded 
 upon the inexorable conclusions of science, not upon mere 
 Utopian aspirations. 
 
 In truth, this so-called scientific basis, this philosophy 
 that we have been examining, is not scientific at all. It 
 is for the most part an a priori concoction ; for it is the 
 product of a misuse of the deductive method, an a priori 
 theory of reality, and a partial analysis of experience. 
 It represents an ingenious but unsuccessful attempt to 
 force the facts of economic and social life into the Pro- 
 crustean bed of theory. We must remember that its 
 elaborator, Marx, was a student of philosophy, a disciple 
 of Hegel, before he became a Socialist. His method al- 
 ways remained that of the metaphysician rather than the 
 scientist. Professor Simkhovitch calls him a "nineteenth- 
 century materialist in the garb of a thirteenth-century 
 schoolman." If he had said a "fifteenth-century school- 
 man, " he would have been more accurate and suggestive ; 
 for the subtleties in which Marx so often indulges call to 
 mind scholasticism in its decadence. 
 
 Marx's bad use of the deductive method is well illus- 
 trated in his discussion of value and surplus value. By 
 arbitrarily eliminating the factors of utility and scarcity, 
 he rigorously concludes that the one element common to 
 all commodities in exchange is labour, and therefore that 
 labour is the sole determinant of value. By reasoning 
 logically from this false premise, he concludes that capital 
 contributes to the product only sufficient value to repro- 
 duce itself. His discussion of these subjects and of many 
 others gives the impression of a man dealing with a world 
 of abstractions, a world made to order, not the actual 
 world of industry that we know.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 1 21 
 
 His a priori theory of reality and his inadequate 
 analysis of concrete fact are evident in the theories of 
 economic determinism and the class struggle. A priori 
 he held to the Hegelian doctrine of social evolution 
 through the clash of contradictory elements terminating 
 in a final and absolute synthesis ; observation led him to 
 an exaggerated notion of the class struggle ; therefore, 
 he seems to have concluded, the final synthesis is Social- 
 ism, and Socialism is inevitable. A priori he believed 
 that all that exists is matter ; observation assured him 
 that the economic factor is extremely important in social 
 life ; therefore, he seems to have concluded, economico- 
 material forces ultimately and necessarily dominate 
 and determine all social processes, ideas, and institutions. 
 
 Because of its a priori materialism the Socialist phi- 
 losophy is fatalistic. As expounded by practically all its 
 prominent advocates, it makes the economic element the 
 original and decisive element in social life, and excludes 
 the reality of spirit. It does not attribute our economic 
 evils to a "faulty" arrangement of society, but to the 
 inexorable operation of economic forces and economic 
 evolution. In the mind and imagination of the thorough- 
 going scientific Socialist, the social evolutionary process 
 seems to be a huge and unrelenting mechanical movement 
 which cannot be checked by any mere action of human 
 beings. Hence he refuses to become discouraged when the 
 term that he sometimes sets for the arrival of Socialism 
 has gone by, or when his prophecies concerning the trend 
 of industrial forces are falsified by the logic of events. 
 He blithely replies that he was mistaken as to the exact 
 time, but that he is quite certain of the inevitable out- 
 come.
 
 122 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Faith, not science, is the soul of the Socialist philos- 
 ophy ; but it is faith suspended in the vacant air. 
 
 III. REJOINDER 
 
 BY MR. HILLQUIT 
 
 On the whole, my opponent's reply is stronger in ad- 
 missions than in denials. The main foundations of the 
 Marxian philosophy, as I have outlined it, consists of 
 the Economic Interpretation of History, the Class- 
 struggle doctrine, and the theory of Surplus Value. Let 
 us see how my opponent deals with these propositions. 
 
 Dr. Ryan recognizes that economic conditions "exer- 
 cise a large influence upon social life, ideas, institutions, 
 and development" ; that "almost all our political prob- 
 lems and activities are entirely or fundamentally eco- 
 nomic," and that "even ethical notions of men vary con- 
 siderably according to their industrial interests." He 
 claims, however, that the Marxian Socialist "magnifies 
 the r61e of the economic factor beyond all plausibility." 
 This criticism would be vastly more illuminating if he 
 would or could inform us at what point the economic 
 factor loses its efficacy as a propelling cause hi social 
 development. 
 
 It is true that he condemns the efforts of Achille Loria 
 and Karl Kautsky to analyze the economic factors which 
 in their opinion led to the origin and determined the 
 growth of the Christian religion as extravagant and 
 fantastic, and that he characterizes the alleged inclina- 
 tions of "so many" Socialists to reduce all vice and 
 crime to economic causes as crude and superficial; but
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 123 
 
 these adjectives come more properly within the province 
 of rhetoric than the category of proof. 
 
 With similar candour Dr. Ryan admits that "class 
 divisions based upon divergent economic interests are an 
 indisputable fact." He even concedes that "there exists 
 'a certain sort of class struggle between a large section 
 of the wage-earners and a large section of the capitalists," 
 and goes so far as to accept the purely Socialist view that 
 the average member of the legislature represents the 
 economic interests of the class with which he is most 
 closely affiliated, and to indorse the practical Socialist 
 conclusion that each class (consequently also the working- 
 class) must have "its own representatives in every legis- 
 lature." 
 
 What remains of his opposition to the Marxian view 
 of the class struggle seems to me to be based partly on 
 a misunderstanding of that view and partly on a faulty 
 estimate of the social forces at work in modern society. 
 
 Socialists do not attempt to reduce the number of 
 existing economic classes to two, as erroneously assumed 
 by Dr. Ryan. The existence of "numerous economic 
 interest groups between and alongside of capitalists 
 and wage- workers " was specifically pointed out by me 
 in the main paper on this subject. What the Socialists, 
 however, do claim, is that the two last-mentioned classes 
 are the most important factors in modern society, and 
 that the conflict between them constitutes the dominant 
 issue and tends to determine the ultimate alignment 
 of all other classes. 
 
 But Dr. Ryan assures us that the conditions of a 
 "genuine class struggle" would always be wanting, for 
 the reason that a very large portion of the wage-workers
 
 124 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 "would refuse, and do refuse, to become involved." 
 In reply to this I take the liberty of reminding him that 
 the class struggle is not a polite social function. It 
 issues no invitations and accepts no declinations. The 
 "class struggle," in the Marxian interpretation of the 
 term, does not necessarily involve overt, conscious, or 
 violent conflicts it signifies an antagonism of economic 
 interests, created by the inexorable conditions of capital- 
 ist production and not by the will or disposition of in- 
 dividuals ; and in this, the only true sense of the term, 
 every wage-worker is already deeply involved in the class 
 struggle. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's assertion that the class divisions in the 
 United States "do not yield material for a class struggle 
 of any great importance" must be taken to mean that 
 the majority of the population are economically inter- 
 ested in upholding the present system of private Capital- 
 ism, and would therefore oppose the Socialist plan of 
 cooperative production. In support of this contention 
 he quotes Mr. Streightoff, who is alleged to have made 
 the discovery that " about twenty-four million individuals 
 in the United States possess some income-bearing prop- 
 erty other than government and corporation securities." 
 Mr. Streightoff himself does not make his claim quite 
 so strong. He says : 
 
 "There are probably nine millions of individuals re- 
 ceiving some returns on savings accounts, and upward 
 of five millions indirectly obtaining profit from partici- 
 pating life-insurance policies. About five million per- 
 sons possess agricultural land and perhaps as many more 
 hold residential real estate." l 
 
 1 " The Distribution of Incomes in the United States," p. 146.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 125 
 
 Mr. Streightoff's figures are somewhat misleading. 
 According to the census returns of 1900, 3,653,323 
 farmers owned all or part of their land. The estimate 
 of five million owners of residential real estate is quite 
 arbitrary. A considerable portion of farm owners prob- 
 ably appear again as owners of "residential" real estate, 
 and the possessors of the two classes of property un- 
 doubtedly comprise a large part of the savings-banks 
 depositors and policy-holders. Mr. Streightoff seems to 
 appreciate the inconclusiveness of his figures, and sums 
 up his speculations in one terse and telling sentence : 
 "To attempt to estimate the distribution of income 
 from property would be absurd." 
 
 But Dr. Ryan takes the estimates as proven truths, 
 adds the full figures, elevates every individual who 
 chances to have a dollar in a savings-bank or to carry 
 a small insurance policy to the rank of an owner of 
 "income-bearing" property, and with one bold stroke 
 of the pen creates twenty-four million property holders 
 outside of the uncounted millions who possess govern- 
 ment securities and securities of corporations. If our 
 population were so overwhelmingly capitalistic as these 
 figures would indicate, this country would indeed offer 
 little room for class struggles. 
 
 But what are the facts ? 
 
 According to the census of 1900 the total number of 
 persons, ten years old and over, engaged in gainful 
 occupations in the United States, was a little over 
 29,000,000. 
 
 Of the persons engaged in manufacture 5,373,108 were 
 classified as "wage-earners," while 708,738 were desig- 
 nated as proprietors and firm members. According to
 
 126 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 the Report on Manufactures of 1909, 63.2 per cent of 
 the manufacturing establishments produced less than 
 $20,000 per annum, while the remaining 36.8 per cent 
 produced upward of $20,000. Let us classify the pro- 
 prietors of the former as "small producers" or "middle- 
 class" manufacturers and those of the latter as "large 
 producers" or capitalists. On this basis we obtain ap- 
 proximately 254,810 capitalists and 447,928 members of 
 the middle class in the manufacturing industries. 
 
 For the 10,472,011 persons enumerated under the two 
 heads of "Domestic and Personal Service" and "Trade 
 and Transportation" the census does not give a similar 
 division by classes, but the subenumerations of specific 
 occupations furnish a tolerably reliable guide to the 
 economic status of the persons engaged in them. 
 
 Thus we may consider as capitalists all persons desig- 
 nated as bankers and brokers, officials of banks and 
 companies, and wholesale merchants and dealers. To 
 the hybrid middle class we may relegate all small inde- 
 pendent business men, such as barbers ; hotel, restaurant, 
 boarding-house, livery-stable, and saloon keepers; re- 
 tail merchants, "hucksters and pedlers," and even 
 undertakers ; also all individuals engaged in professional 
 and semi-professional service, including free practitioners, 
 clerks, bookkeepers, foremen, commercial travellers, 
 agents, soldiers, policemen, and housekeepers. 
 
 The column of "wage-earners" will be made up ex- 
 clusively of hired manual labourers. 
 
 The agricultural population consisted of 10,410,877 
 persons. Of these about 4,530,000 were "farm hands" 
 or other hired labourers, while the remainder consisted of 
 "farm operators." Only 527,637 farms had an area of
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 127 
 
 260 acres or more. We will assume that each of these 
 farms had a separate owner, and will consider such big- 
 farm owners as agricultural capitalists, classifying the 
 owners or cultivators of the smaller-sized farms with the 
 all-embracing "middle class." 
 
 On this basis we reach the following class division of 
 the active American population : 
 
 Capitalists: 
 
 Manufacturing and Mechanical 254,810 
 
 Trade and Transportation 189,675 
 
 Farmers 527,637 
 
 Total 972,122 
 
 Middle Class: 
 
 Manufacturing and Mechanical 447,928 
 
 Trade and Transportation 2,242,397 
 
 Domestic and Personal Service 790,834 
 
 Professional Service (all) 1,258,538 
 
 Farmers 5,880,877 
 
 Total 10,620,574 
 
 Wage-earners: 
 
 Manufacturing and Mechanical 5,373,108 
 
 Trade and Transportation 2,334,892 
 
 Domestic and Personal Service 4,789,823 
 
 Farm Labourers 4,530,000 
 
 Total 17,027,823 
 
 To complete our calculations we must add the "un- 
 employed" of both classes, capitalists and wage- workers. 
 To be generous with the former we will assume that one- 
 third of their total number follow the sole and exclusive 
 vocation of being idle, while two-thirds are engaged in 
 some "gainful" occupation thus adding another
 
 128 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 500,000, in round figures, to their numbers. On the 
 other hand, the number of wage-earners enumerated 
 in the census is based on the "average" actually em- 
 ployed on specified days, and does not take into account 
 the workers temporarily or permanently without jobs. 
 Since the number of persons unemployed during some 
 time of the year amounted, according to the same census, 
 to no less than 6,468,964, it is safe to add an average of 
 1,500,000 to the column of wage- workers. 
 
 Thus the total number of American capitalists does 
 not exceed in round numbers 1,500,000; that of the 
 "middle classes" may reach about 10,500,000, while the 
 number of wage-workers must be conservatively esti- 
 mated at about 18,500,000. 
 
 Of the 30,500,000 persons figuring in our estimate 
 only 1,500,000 are unquestioned beneficiaries of the capi- 
 talist system and interested in its con tinuation ; 18,500,000 
 are its victims and economically interested in its abro- 
 gation. Of the remaining 10,500,000 persons, designated 
 as the middle class or classes, the majority are in revolt 
 against the existing system. More than a third of the 
 American farmers are mere tenants, whose lot is often 
 worse than that of the wage-worker, and the greater 
 part of the farm-owners are exploited by the mortgagees, 
 railroad companies, and other capitalist agencies almost 
 as much as the wage-worker. The professional men and 
 "salaried" employees likewise feel the burdens of eco- 
 nomic pressure weighing on them ever more heavily under 
 Capitalism. It is safe to assert that at least one-half 
 of the persons embraced within the general category 
 of the "middle classes" are justly dissatisfied with the 
 existing order.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 129 
 
 Adding these to the number of the wage-workers, we 
 obtain about 23,750,000 persons, or about 78 per cent 
 of the entire active population, who are materially in- 
 terested in a change of the present economic system and 
 may be regarded as possible candidates for enlistment in 
 the Socialist movement. 
 
 Dr. Ryan admits that the economic dependents con- 
 stitute a large majority of the population and have it 
 within their power to bring about a " regime of Socialism " 
 by united action ; but he consoles himself with the placid 
 assumption that they would not make use of that power, 
 for various reasons. The assumption is rather unwar- 
 ranted in view of the steady and rapid growth of Socialism 
 and other radical economic movements in all advanced 
 countries of the world. 
 
 Toward the Marxian theory of Surplus Value Dr. 
 Ryan is less conciliatory than toward the doctrines of 
 Economic Determinism and of the Class Struggle. He 
 dismisses it summarily as "a pedantic and mystifying 
 formulation of things that are either obvious, improvable, 
 unimportant, or untrue." 
 
 Dr. Ryan's own theory of the origin of wealth is stated 
 in the following terse sentence: "Since the product 
 would not come into existence at all if either capital or 
 labour were wanting, and since every part of it is due in 
 some degree to the action of both, it is quite impossible 
 to determine how much of the product is specifically 
 attributable to either factor." Let us examine this 
 seemingly plausible statement. 
 
 Every modern commodity or "product" is created by 
 the concurrence of three factors raw material, machin-
 
 130 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ery, and human labour. It is the first two factors which 
 my opponent comprehends under the term "capital." 
 Now raw material and machinery are themselves "prod- 
 ucts" created by the application of labour to objects 
 found in a "raw" or "natural" state in or on the earth, 
 and in the last analysis every commodity thus owes its 
 existence to the free gifts of nature plus various succeed- 
 ing processes of human labour, manual or mental. If 
 by his assertion that capital and labour are equally re- 
 quired for creating the product Dr. Ryan merely intends 
 to say that under the present system the capitalists 
 have monopolized the resources of the earth in their 
 original or "raw" form as well as in the more perfected 
 form of modern machinery, and that labour is helpless 
 without that monopolized "raw " material and machinery 
 and must yield part of its fruit for their use, he states 
 what is truly "obvious"; and if he means to imply 
 that there exists some mysterious active factor in pro- 
 duction known as "capital," and independent of natural 
 resources and instruments of work, he states what is 
 obviously "untrue." 
 
 It is not claimed that Marx discovered the very patent 
 fact that the capitalist's ownership of the instruments of 
 production enables him to exploit the worker. It is 
 the formulation of the mode and process of such exploi- 
 tation which constitutes Marx's politico-economic dis- 
 covery known as the theory of "surplus value." 
 
 Dr. Ryan takes exception to the part of the surplus- 
 value theory which holds that wages are determined by 
 the cost of maintaining the worker in conformity with 
 his established standard of life, on the ground that such 
 standard is quite "elastic and relative." So it is, and so
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 131 
 
 is practically every other social standard. The Socialists 
 are the first to recognize this undeniable truth, hence 
 their constant efforts to raise the standard of the workers' 
 life. But apart from the slight and slow oscillations, the 
 "established standard of life" of a specified class of people 
 is a tolerably concrete and measurable factor, as we will 
 readily perceive by a comparison of the lives and require- 
 ments of the American mechanic and the Chinese labourer. 
 And it is quite as unprofitable in this connection to specu- 
 late whether wages first determined the standard of life 
 or vice versa, as it is to try to establish the chronological 
 priority between the hen and the egg. 
 
 The Economic Interpretation of History, the doctrine 
 of Class Struggle, and the theory of Surplus Value con- 
 stitute the main features of the Marxian philosophy and 
 are generally accepted by all its adherents. But within 
 the ranks of the Marxists themselves there have recently 
 developed two divergent schools of thought. The older 
 school of "orthodox" Marxians has for its spiritual head 
 the well-known Socialist writer Karl Kautsky, while 
 the newer school of "revisionists" or "neo "-Marxians 
 is represented most prominently by the Socialist member 
 of the German Reichstag, Eduard Bernstein. The 
 controversy between the two contending schools turns, 
 among other things, on the merits and interpretation of 
 a brief passage from Marx's "Capital," which reads sub- 
 stantially as follows : 
 
 "Along with the constantly diminishing number of 
 the magnates of capital who monopolize all advantages 
 of this transformation (the economic development of 
 capitalism), grows the mass of misery, oppression, sla-
 
 132 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 very, degradation and exploitation of the workers ; but 
 with it also grows the revolt of the working-class, a class 
 always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united 
 and organized by the mechanism of the process of capi- 
 talist production itself. . . . Centralization of the 
 means of production and socialization of labour at last 
 reach a point where they become incompatible with their 
 capitalist shell, which is burst asunder." 
 
 The "revisionist" Socialists deny that the general con- 
 dition of the working-classes shows a tendency toward 
 progressive deterioration ; they maintain that the wage- 
 workers are not increasing in numbers as fast as Marx 
 predicted ; that they do not absorb the "middle classes," 
 and that the latter have lately taken a new lease of life 
 by changing their economic form and function dis- 
 appearing as independent small business men, but 
 reappearing as stockholders and officers of large corpora- 
 tions. The "revisionists" finally deny the alleged ten- 
 dency of capital to concentrate in the hands of a "con- 
 stantly diminishing" number of individuals. 
 
 On the other hand, the orthodox Marxians, while they 
 are ready to admit an absolute process of improvement 
 in the lot of the worker, claim that his condition is one 
 of relative social and economic deterioration, that his 
 share in the total product is steadily diminishing, and that 
 his subsistence grows ever more precarious. They main- 
 tain that the progressive process of transformation of the 
 middle classes from independent producers or traders 
 into salaried employees tends to alienate them more and 
 more from the capitalist class and to couple their for- 
 tunes with those of the wage-earning classes, thus sub- 
 stantially justifying Marx's prediction. And, finally,
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 133 
 
 they contend that while the predicted concentration of 
 capital has not been materialized in the shape of an ever 
 decreasing number of wealthy individuals, it has been 
 brilliantly fulfilled through the concentration and con- 
 trol of capital in the hands of the powerful modern trusts 
 and business combines. 
 
 Personally, I am inclined toward the "orthodox" 
 view, but I purposely omitted the controversy from my 
 introductory statement of the Socialist philosophy for 
 the reason that it is a big and complex subject which can- 
 not be adequately treated in a popular discussion on 
 the general subject of Socialism, and for the still stronger 
 reason that the subject is entirely foreign to the present 
 debate. The controversy between the "revisionist" 
 and "orthodox" Marxians is an internal affair of the 
 Socialist movement. It may influence the Socialist 
 tactics and methods, but it does not affect the general 
 Socialist viewpoint or the ultimate aim and objects of 
 the movement. 
 
 The best proof of this assertion is the fact that Eduard 
 Bernstein, whom Dr. Ryan cites as his principal 
 authority, is and remains an active and militant Socialist. 
 If the facts and figures so elaborately compiled by Dr. 
 Ryan on the subject above indicated be sustained, they 
 support the position of the "revisionist" Socialist, Ed- 
 uard Bernstein ; if they be disproved, the position of 
 the "orthodox" Socialist, Karl Kautsky, is vindicated; 
 but in no event do they offer any solace or comfort to the 
 anti-Socialist, John A. Ryan.
 
 134 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER 
 
 BY DR. RYAN 
 
 In his rejoinder my opponent declares that I have not 
 specifically supported my contention that the Marxian 
 philosophy exaggerates the social importance of economic 
 factors. Such specific proof could not be given, owing 
 to lack of space, and need not be given, inasmuch as the 
 subject will come up again in the articles on morality 
 and religion. It seemed to me that the mere statement 
 of Kautsky's theory of the development of Christianity, 
 and of the theory that all vice, crime, and sin are due 
 to economic causes, was a sufficient refutation of these 
 extraordinary views. 
 
 Here I shall simply call attention to two important 
 and incontestable facts : 
 
 First, the authentic documents which describe the rise 
 of Christianity show no trace of an industrial or social 
 reform movement; and, second, the most typical and 
 widespread vices, crimes, and sins, such as intemperance, 
 unchastity, lying, calumny, indolence, revenge, violence, 
 and greed, permeate all classes in approximately the same 
 degree, and would continue in any form of society that 
 could be devised. 
 
 In connection with the first of these points I would 
 call attention to the brief but convincing refutation of 
 Engels' explanation of the Protestant Reformation and 
 of Calvinism, given on pages 34-41 of Professor Sim- 
 khovitch's recent work, "Marxism versus Socialism." 
 
 I am reminded by my opponent that the class struggle 
 "is not a polite social function, . . . but an antagonism
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 135 
 
 of economic interests, created by the inexorable condi- 
 tions of capitalist production." But the antagonism 
 between the buyers and sellers of labour power no more 
 implies a struggle for the overthrow of the wage system 
 than the similar antagonism between the buyers and 
 sellers of goods means a contest to abolish the system 
 of economic exchange. In the American trade-union 
 movement the majority are quite well aware of the antag- 
 onism of interests existing between themselves and their 
 employers, but they are contending for higher wages and 
 other improvements in their economic condition, not for 
 the destruction of Capitalism. Should this contest for 
 better conditions within the present order continue to 
 be successful, they may refrain forever from making 
 the conflict so intense or carrying it so far as Mr. Hillquit 
 assumes and hopes. 
 
 The inference that the class struggle must go to this 
 extreme is not warranted by the mere fact of interest- 
 antagonisms. Both parties may find that they have a 
 common interest in maintaining the present system, just 
 as the buyers and sellers of goods realize that exchange 
 is better than independent and isolated production. 
 My opponent's forecast of a class struggle for the over- 
 throw of Capitalism is based, not upon tendencies ex- 
 perimentally evident in contemporary industry, but 
 upon an apocalyptic theory of those tendencies. It is 
 a lingering echo of that Marxian aprioristic fatalism 
 and utopianism which had a vision of economic deter- 
 minism leading inevitably to concentration of capital, 
 impoverishment of labour, social revolution, and final 
 reconciliation of the warring elements in the golden age 
 of Socialism.
 
 136 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Turning from theory to statistics, Mr. Hillquit ques- 
 tions Professor Streightoff's and my own estimates of 
 the number of persons who own income-bearing property 
 in the United States. While he points out that the 
 census of 1900 reported only 3,653,823 farmers (in 1910 
 the number was 3,948,722) as owning all or a part of 
 their farms, he fails to note that the census covers only 
 farmers, farm operators, not farm owners. 
 
 It reports only those owners who are also cultivators, 
 paying no attention to those rural proprietors who are 
 not themselves engaged in farming. According to the 
 same census, there were more than two million tenant 
 farmers. Now it is entirely probable that the majority 
 of the owners of the rented farms were not themselves 
 farm operators, and therefore do not appear in the census 
 figures. When these are added to the 3,948,722 culti- 
 vating owners (census of 1910) the sum will undoubtedly 
 reach 5,000,000. Moreover, this number omits entirely 
 the hundreds of thousands of owners of rural land which 
 has not yet been brought under the plough. 
 
 If my opponent's objections to the other items in 
 Professor Streightoff's estimates have no sounder basis 
 than the one just examined, they may be summarily set 
 aside. That many owners appear more than once in 
 the different totals I have already admitted; but I 
 insist that when all reasonable deductions on this account 
 are made from the grand total of 24,000,000, and when 
 the remainder is increased by the "uncounted millions 
 who possess government securities and the securities of 
 corporations," the final result may be put quite conser- 
 vatively at 26,000,000. This is a majority of the persons 
 in the United States whose age was twenty years and
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 137 
 
 over in 1910. It will stand as a reasonable estimate until 
 it is overthrown by specific statistics and arguments. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit submits an analysis of the census report 
 of 1900 on "Occupations," from which he deduces the 
 following conclusions : 
 
 Capitalists 1,500,000 
 
 Members of Middle Classes 10,500,000 
 
 Wage-earners 18,500,000 
 
 To these estimates I would take only a single excep- 
 tion. Of the four and one-half million farm labourers in 
 the census tables, 2,366,313 are described as "members 
 of family." 1 At least one million of these are surely 
 more akin to the middle classes in ideas and condition 
 than to the wage-earners. When we transfer them to the 
 former division, we have 11,500,000 members of middle 
 classes, and 17,500,000 in the wage-earning class. 
 
 Probably the most painstaking attempt to discover 
 from the census tables the relative strength of the differ- 
 ent economic classes is seen in two articles by Isaac A. 
 Hourwich in Volume XIX of the American Journal of 
 Political Economy. The writer is, I believe, a Socialist. 
 According to his computations, the total number of 
 wage-earners is a little less than sixteen million (p. 205), 
 or a little more than half the number of persons in all 
 gainful occupations. As Mr. Hourwich took no account 
 of the unemployed, his estimate of the number of wage- 
 earners proves to be about the same as that of Mr. 
 Hillquit, when the latter is corrected by eliminating one 
 million members of farm families. 
 
 However, Mr. Hourwich estimates the number of 
 
 1 "Occupations," p. xxiii.
 
 138 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 industrial wage-earners, that is, the manual workers en- 
 gaged in urban and strictly capitalist industries, at a little 
 less than ten million. In his view only these are likely 
 to become actively engaged in a working-class movement. 
 The other six million wage-earners, together with the 
 salaried classes, the professional and quasi-professional 
 classes, the agents and the travelling men, are grouped 
 by him under the head of the "public," or the middle 
 classes. His conclusion as to the relative strength of 
 the three great economic groups is : industrial wage- 
 earners, 34.8 per cent; the public, 31.3 per cent; entre- 
 preneurs, or the business class, 27.7 per cent. 
 
 Professor Commons arrives at a very similar conclu- 
 sion. In his opinion, only one-third of the adult males 
 of the country are available for a class conflict, nor are 
 the other two-thirds likely to be drawn into it in the 
 near future. 1 
 
 These estimates of the proportion of our industrial 
 population which is likely to be drawn into an active 
 class conflict conform much more closely to the facts 
 than does the view of Mr. Hillquit. The economic 
 grievances of the farming, salaried, and professional 
 classes, and the growth of "radical economic move- 
 ments," upon which he relies, mean nothing more than 
 a need and a demand for reforms. At present they do 
 not express nor consciously include a desire for Socialism. 
 The various groups of persons who feel these grievances 
 are "possible candidates for enlistment in the Socialist 
 movement" only in the sense that all things are possible. 
 
 1 The American Journal of Sociology, May, 1908. Cf. the excellent 
 analysis of the situation by Simkhovitch in "Marxism versus Socialism," 
 pp. 216-224.
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 139 
 
 Not until their demands and hopes for social reform 
 within the present system have been proved futile will 
 any important percentage of them become probable 
 candidates for Mr. Hillquit's movement. His faith that 
 they will sooner or later reach this position is, of course, 
 based upon his hope that mere social reform will fail. 
 This is a purely a priori assumption. 
 
 Concerning the "steady and rapid growth of Social- 
 ism," which is another element in the foundation of his 
 faith, there are many signs that it has already received 
 a serious check. The numerous desertions from the 
 organized movement in more than one country of Eu- 
 rope, but especially in Germany, and even in the United 
 States, the bitter internal dissensions created by Syn- 
 dicalism, I.-W.-W.-ism, and other elements, and the 
 better education of the public with regard to the real 
 nature, arms, and affinities of Socialism, are some of the 
 more important facts which point to this conclusion. 
 
 Of course, I never had any intention of denying that 
 capital springs ultimately from the union of labour and 
 the raw material of nature. In passing, I would observe, 
 however, that the "crystallized labour " in capital is not 
 the labour of the men who now work with the capital. 
 Hence their labour has not created the whole product. 
 My real point was that Marx's assertion is unprovable, 
 to wit: "The means of production never transfer more 
 value to the product than they themselves lose during 
 the labour process." 1 The contribution of the two fac- 
 tors, labour and capital, to the product cannot possibly 
 be distinguished. Consequently we have no means of 
 *" Capital," i, p. 116; Humboldt Edition.
 
 140 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 knowing how much of the product's value is due to 
 either present or "crystallized" labour. 
 
 Not the fact, but the "mode and process," of capitalist 
 exploitation, says my opponent, constitute the "dis- 
 covery" in the theory of surplus value. Yet the mode 
 and process have always been quite as obvious as the 
 fact itself. The statement of the "discovery," either 
 in my opponent's pages or in Part III of the first volume 
 of "Capital," merely amounts to this : Since only a part 
 of the product of industry is needed to support the 
 labourer in conformity with his established standard of 
 living, the capitalist takes the remainder because he has 
 the power to take it. The truth in this formula was 
 surely quite as obvious to intelligent men before the 
 days of Marx as it has since been to those who have 
 never read a line of "Capital." 
 
 The "established-standard-of -living theory" is fre- 
 quently so presented in Socialist propaganda as to imply 
 that the worker gets only a bare subsistence. Of course, 
 this is not true, nor did Marx himself ever include it in 
 his statement of the theory. In the second place, 
 wages are not always regulated by the standard of living. 
 When wages are forced up by a strong labour union, or 
 down by a commercial crisis, they become, with reference 
 to the standard of living, cause instead of effect. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit is right in his statement that the "re- 
 visionist" controversy is outside the issue in this debate. 
 Hence I did not bring it in. I barely alluded to it in 
 connection with the name of Bernstein. 
 
 To that part of the Marxian theory about which the 
 controversy rages I did, however, give considerable 
 space. I wanted to discuss the Socialist philosophy in
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 141 
 
 its entirety as expounded by Marx, rather than confine 
 myself to a version from which all the troublesome and 
 controverted elements had been tenderly expurgated. 
 
 The most concrete and appealing part of the Marxian 
 philosophy is the theory of the class struggle ; the most 
 vital and popular element of the latter is the prophecy 
 of "increasing misery." It supplies the ordinary 
 Socialist, "the man in the street," with an easily grasped 
 reason for his indictment of the present order, and for 
 his faith in the near approach of the Collective Common- 
 wealth. It still plays an important part in the Socialist 
 propaganda, is still in substance accepted by the ma- 
 jority in the Socialist movement. 
 
 Take away this prophecy, and the class struggle be- 
 comes "Marxism with Marx left out." Convert this 
 prophecy into the statement that the working classes 
 are advancing less rapidly than the capitalists, and 
 that the middle classes are becoming salary receivers, 
 and you make the class struggle, perhaps not a "polite 
 social function," but a sham battle, a sort of social 
 wrist-slapping contest. You have taken out of the 
 class-struggle theory all those emotional, catastrophic, 
 and revolutionary features which have always exhibited 
 it to its faithful disciples as the pledge and the prelude 
 of the imminent fall of Capitalism. 
 
 In the opinion of my esteemed opponent, the facts 
 and figures that I have marshalled against the increasing 
 misery doctrine tend to support the position of Bern- 
 stein, the Socialist, but give no solace or comfort to 
 Ryan, the anti-Socialist. Were I combating the Social- 
 ism of Bernstein, I should not, indeed, make use of these
 
 142 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 data. Neither would he employ them in defence of 
 Socialism. He has used them not as an advocate, but 
 as a critic. Are they not quite as effective in the hands 
 of any other critic ? While they do not overthrow the 
 entire Socialist argument, they are good and pertinent 
 against the majority of Socialists. For the majority, 
 like my opponent, are still "inclined toward the orthodox 
 view." 
 
 To Kautsky, the most authoritative of present-day 
 Socialists, these facts and figures seemed to have a tre- 
 mendously ominous significance. "If they are true, 
 then not only is the day of our victory postponed, but 
 we can never reach our aim. If capitalists are on the 
 increase and not the propertyless, then development is 
 setting us back further and further from our goal, then 
 capital intrenches itself and not Socialism, then our 
 hopes will never materialize." 1 
 
 Moreover, the Socialism of Bernstein for, as my 
 opponent triumphantly reminds me, the revisionist 
 leader remains "an active and militant Socialist" 
 does not differ appreciably from the programme of the 
 advanced social reformer. It is a sort of denaturalized 
 and devitalized Socialism, as may be seen in his book, 
 ' ' Evolutionary Socialism . ' ' 
 
 It would seem, then, that the refutation of the theory 
 of increasing misery is well worth while. 
 
 ^'Protokoll des Stuttgarter Parteitags," 1898, p. 128.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 
 
 I. SOCIALIST MORALITY is IMMORAL 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 SOCIALIST ethics comprises four main elements: its 
 general principle, and its specific doctrines concerning 
 the individual, the family, and the State. 
 
 According to the general principle, the rules of morality 
 are neither eternal nor immutable. Not only the moral 
 notions and conduct of men, but the moral laws them- 
 selves, are temporary and variable. In other words, 
 the moral law has no objective existence apart from the 
 codes of conduct that .have prevailed among nations and 
 classes throughout history. 
 
 That this is the ordinary Socialist view is evident 
 from the pages of both the classical and the more popu- 
 lar writers of the movement. It is defended by Marx, 
 Engels, Dietzgen, Bebel, Kautsky, Hillquit, La Monte, 
 Herron, Untermann, Ladoff, and many others. 
 
 This doctrine of ethical relativity rests upon two 
 main grounds in Socialist theory ; namely, philosophical 
 materialism and economic determinism. 
 
 Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, and most of the other great 
 expounders of Socialism conceived all reality in terms 
 of force and matter. Their materialism was not merely 
 
 us
 
 144 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 historico-economic, but metaphysical. 1 For them there 
 is no such reality as God or spirit. The thoughts and 
 principles in the mind's of men are merely functions or 
 motions of the brain. All things are in constant process 
 of change; nay, the process itself is the only reality. 
 Consequently, moral rules are like all things else, tem- 
 porary and variable. Murder, lying, theft, rape, 
 treachery, and disobedience may be morally good at 
 some time and in some place. 
 
 Individual Socialists who are better than their philo- 
 sophical creed will, of course, refuse to accept this con- 
 clusion, but they will do so at the expense of logic and 
 consistency. 
 
 As we saw in Chapter IV, the theory of economic de- 
 terminism traces all the non-economic institutions, 
 beliefs, and processes of society, such as the family, law, 
 religion, ethics, and education, to economic conditions 
 and causes. "The mode of production in material life," 
 says Marx, "determines the social, political, and spiritual 
 processes of life." 2 To quote the words of my opponent, 
 "the manner in which it [a nation] produces its suste- 
 nance ultimately determines its form of organization, 
 division of work or functions, and its notions of right 
 and wrong its politics, social classes, and ethics." 
 
 Evidently men who believe that the universe is com- 
 posed only of matter and force, that all things are in- 
 cessantly changing and evolving, and that economic 
 forces and changes govern and determine moral ideas, 
 
 1 Cf. "Feuerbach : The Roots of Socialist Philosophy," by F. Engels; 
 PP- S3, 57, 59, and passim. 
 
 *"A. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," p. n; 
 New York, 1904.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 145 
 
 practices, and changes, cannot logically admit the ex- 
 istence of an invariable and universal body of moral 
 precepts and principles. In their view we have merely 
 a group of varying moral codes which develop in, and 
 respond to, the needs of different classes, nations, and 
 ages. Moral laws are merely social laws. 
 
 According to this view, the most contradictory codes 
 and practices can be equally true and good, or equally 
 false and bad. There is neither a uniform standard of 
 moral truth nor a moral law in the traditional sense. 
 What we call moral laws are exactly like economic laws ; 
 that is, they are merely statements of the way in which 
 different classes of men act or tend to act in a given 
 set of circumstances. No longer is the moral law a 
 categorical imperative, an obligatory rule of conduct, 
 an enactment of Divine Reason. Men are morally free 
 to act as they please, and to set up,. either individually 
 or by classes, their own codes of conduct. 
 
 This theory is opposed not only to the Christian con- 
 ception, but to the convictions of every person who 
 recognizes God as the Ruler of the Universe. Moral 
 laws are unchangeable because they are based ultimately 
 upon the unchangeable nature of God, and immediately 
 upon the unchangeable elements of human nature. In 
 other words, they are the rules of conduct which God 
 necessarily lays down for the guidance of beings whom 
 He has made after the human pattern, just as physical 
 laws are the rules by which He directs the non-rational 
 universe. And they are as immutable as human nature 
 is in its essentials immutable. 
 
 The conception of an eternal and unvarying moral 
 law finds expression in the pages of innumerable Chris-
 
 146 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tian writers from St. Paul 1 to Hooker 2 and Cathrein. 3 
 Among other names that readily suggest themselves are 
 those of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, and Hugo 
 Grotius. The doctrine is also clearly stated in the 
 pages of such pagan writers as Plato, 4 Sophocles, 5 
 and Cicero. 6 
 
 The primary truths, relations, and actions which this 
 standard of conduct describes and prescribes have 
 always been in some degree understood by the majority 
 of mankind. While the natural moral law is correctly 
 said to be written in the human heart, it is not displayed 
 in flaming head-lines. Its primary and most essential 
 provisions are intuitive to the human mind, just as are 
 the elementary propositions of mathematics. Anything 
 like a complete comprehension of its principles, applica- 
 tions, and conclusions can be attained only after con- 
 siderable study, by trained intellects, in an enlightened 
 society. 
 
 The differences which have existed and still exist in 
 the moral notions and practices of various peoples and 
 classes prove nothing against the immutability of the 
 law itself. Man's conception of the law is one thing; 
 the law itself is quite another thing. Just as the race 
 varies and grows in its comprehension of speculative and 
 physical truths, so it makes progress in its perception 
 of ethical truths and principles. Ethical evolution is 
 undeniable ; but it affects man's knowledge of the law, 
 not the structure and content of the law. That indi- 
 viduals and nations have changed their moral estimate 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 14, 15. 4 "The Republic," iv. 
 
 '"Ecclesiastical Polity," I, passim. 6 "Antigone," v, 446-460. 
 * " Moralphilosophie." " Pro Milone," iv, 10.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 147 
 
 of certain practices for example, slavery no more 
 indicates a variation in the objective moral law than 
 an improved knowledge of disease and its treatment 
 implies a change in the fundamental laws of hygiene. 
 That men for a long time failed to perceive or recognize 
 certain moral precepts, does not demonstrate the non- 
 existence of the latter, any more than the universal 
 ignorance of the heliocentric theory proves that the 
 earth first began to travel round the sun in the days of 
 Copernicus. 
 
 The first specific doctrine of Socialist ethics is that 
 the science has nothing to do with the purely self- 
 regarding actions of the individual. Ethics deals only 
 with man's social relations. 
 
 If purely individual conduct is outside the scope of the 
 moral law, then it follows with absolute logical rigour 
 that the rational part of man is not essentially superior 
 to his animal nature, that soul is not intrinsically nobler 
 than sense, that man has no more duties to himself 
 than has a pig, that, so long as he does not injure his 
 neighbours, he is morally free to live like a pig, and that 
 his personality is not a sacred thing which he is morally 
 obliged to develop, and which his fellows are under 
 moral compulsion to respect. Lacking moral (as dis- 
 tinguished from intellectual, physical, and aesthetic) 
 value, the human individual has no more intrinsic worth 
 and dignity than a chimpanzee. And society does him 
 no moral wrong when it treats him accordingly. 
 
 According to the Christian and Theistic conception, 
 all conduct, whether pertaining to self, the neighbour, or 
 God, falls within the sphere of the moral law. When a
 
 148 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 man destroys his energies and shortens his life by dis- 
 sipation, even though he thus injures no one but him- 
 self, he violates the moral law quite as definitely as when 
 he steals or kills. To tell a man that actions of the former 
 kind are devoid of ethical quality, is to assure him that 
 he has no genuine obligation to avoid them. It assures 
 him that no moral stigma attaches to the most degrad- 
 ing acts of personal impurity, gluttony, or bestiality. 
 Conduct of this kind becomes as free from moral blame 
 or guilt as the process of digestion. Socialists may shrink 
 from this ugly conclusion, but only by throwing logic 
 overboard. 
 
 If only those actions which are injurious to the neigh- 
 bour or to society can be called immoral, all unions and 
 relations between the sexes which are not followed by 
 offspring are without moral aspects. They are neither 
 good nor bad. In such cases, says Belford Bax, the 
 sexual act "does not concern morality at all. It is a 
 question simply of individual taste." * The same con- 
 clusion is drawn by Bebel: "The gratification of the 
 sexual impulse is as strictly the personal affair of the 
 individual as the gratification of every other natural 
 instinct." 2 
 
 Again, the theory of economic determinism logically 
 requires a new form of domestic society under Socialism. 
 If the methods of production and exchange determine 
 the character of all non-economic institutions, and if 
 the present monogamous family is the necessary out- 
 come of the present economic arrangements, the entirely 
 different economic scheme provided under Socialism will 
 
 1 " Ethics of Socialism," p. 126. 
 
 2 "Woman," p. 154; San Francisco, 1897.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 149 
 
 necessarily bring with it a different kind of family. All 
 the logical and courageous Socialists who have dealt 
 with the subject accept this conclusion. 
 
 Engels writes thus: "With the transformation of the 
 means of production into collective property, the monog- 
 amous family ceases to be the economic unit of society. 
 . . . The indissolubility of marriage is partly the con- 
 sequence of the economic conditions under which 
 monogamy arose, partly tradition from the time when 
 the connection between the economic situation and 
 monogamy, not yet fully understood, was carried to 
 extremes by religion. To-day it has been perforated a 
 hundred times. If marriage founded on love alone is 
 moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long 
 as love lasts. The duration of an attack of individual 
 sex love varies considerably according to individual 
 disposition, especially in men. A positive cessation 
 of sex fondness, or its replacement by a new passionate 
 love, makes separation a blessing for both parties and 
 society." l 
 
 In the preface to the volume from which these ex- 
 tracts are taken, Engels intimates that his view of the 
 family is likewise that of Marx. 
 
 Forecasting the position of woman under Socialism, 
 Bebel declares : 
 
 "In the choice of love she is free, just as man is free. 
 She wooes and is wooed, and has no other inducement 
 to bind herself than her own free will. The contract 
 between the two lovers is of a private nature as in primi- 
 tive times, without the intervention of any functionary. 
 . . . Should incompatibility, disappointment, and dis- 
 1 "The Origin of the Family," pp. 91, 99; Chicago, 1902.
 
 150 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 like ensue, morality demands the dissolution of a tie 
 that has become unnatural, and therefore immoral." * 
 
 The foregoing passages were written about thirty 
 years ago. Kautsky, the ablest and most authoritative 
 living Socialist, gave expression to the following senti- 
 ments as late as 1906 : 
 
 "The same phenomenon, say, of free sexual inter- 
 course or of indifference to property, can in one case be 
 the product of moral depravity in a society where strict 
 monogamy and the sanctity of property are recognized 
 as necessary ; in another case it can be the highly moral 
 product of a healthy social organism which requires for 
 its social needs neither property in a particular woman, 
 nor property in a particular means of consumption and 
 production." 2 
 
 Similar views are defended by Morris and Bax, 3 
 Edward Carpenter, 4 Ernest Untermann, 5 Charles H. 
 Kerr, 6 and many others among the lesser lights of the 
 Socialist movement. 
 
 These pestiferous notions concerning the institution 
 of the family continue to be widely diffused through 
 Socialist books, Socialist publishing houses, and Socialist 
 authorities of every description; nor have they ever 
 been repudiated by any significant number of prominent 
 Socialists. In these circumstances it seems not unfair 
 
 1 "Woman," p. 154. 
 
 J " Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History," pp. 193, 194; 
 Chicago, 1913. 
 
 3 "Growth and Outcome of Socialism," pp. 299, 300; New York, 
 1893. 
 
 4 "Love's Coming of Age," p. 67 ; New York, 1911. 
 8 Preface to "The Origin of the Family," p. 7. 
 
 "The Folly of Being Good," p. 23.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 151 
 
 to say that marital unions dissoluble at the will of the 
 parties is the approved Socialist doctrine. 
 
 In any case, the views in question are so generally 
 circulated and accepted within the movement that no 
 intelligent Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or other believer 
 in the traditional marriage is justified .in giving aid or 
 countenance to present-day Socialism. 
 
 As a natural corollary to their doctrine of "marriage 
 for love," Socialists subscribe more or less generally and 
 definitely to the theory that the child belongs to the 
 State. Hence their demand for State monopoly of edu- 
 cation. The most authoritative of all the Socialist 
 platforms, the "Erfurter Program," demands "seculari- 
 zation of the schools; compulsory education in the 
 public schools." While this demand was addressed to 
 the present "capitalist" State, its objects would un- 
 doubtedly be quite as warmly desired by the Socialists 
 when they had established the Collectivist Common- 
 wealth. Even that plausible and persuasive com- 
 promiser, John Spargo, is of opinion that the Socialist 
 regime would probably not tolerate private elementary 
 schools, nor permit religious teaching in any kind of 
 schools, "up to a certain age." * 
 
 The rearing of children, especially those of dissolved 
 "love" unions, would become to a much greater extent 
 than to-day the business of the State. While a Socialist 
 industrial order might conceivably require all parents to 
 provide for the future of their young children by some 
 kind of insurance, the current thought of the movement 
 seems to contemplate no such arrangement. 
 
 1 " Socialism," p. 238; New York, 1906.
 
 152 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Socialists expect that their proposed reorganization of 
 society will bring about a condition of general happiness. 
 This is the ideal that they desire to realize. It is also, 
 in their view, the guide and law for present-day conduct. 
 "All factors that impede the path to its approximate 
 realization are anti-ethical and immoral; contrariwise, 
 all factors and movements which tend in its direction are 
 ethical." l 
 
 In passing, I would observe that this statement looks 
 very much like an attempt to formulate a universal 
 ethical law. The task of reconciling it with his general 
 denial of universality to moral rules, I shall leave to the 
 ingenuity of my opponent. The really important point 
 about this rule of conduct is its logical soundness from 
 the viewpoint of the practical aims of Socialism. If the 
 Socialist reconstruction of things be the supreme goal of 
 humanity, all existing actions ought to be subordinated 
 and directed to the furtherance of those causes and 
 movements which make for the Collectivist Common- 
 wealth. 
 
 Hence all persons except the capitalists and their 
 allies will adopt this as the supreme standard of conduct. 
 "As fast as they become class conscious, they will 
 recognize and praise as moral all conduct that tends to 
 hasten the social revolution, and they will condemn as 
 unhesitatingly immoral all conduct that tends to pro- 
 long the dominance of the capitalist class." 2 
 
 Consider this gem from the pen of the usually mild 
 and soft-spoken John Spargo : 
 
 l Hillquit, "Socialism in Theory and Practice," pp. 59, 60. 
 'La Monte, "Socialism, Positive and Negative," p. 64; Chicago, 
 1907.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 153 
 
 "If the class to which I belong could be set free from 
 exploitation by violation of the laws made by the master 
 class, by open rebellion, by seizing the property of the 
 rich, by setting the torch to a few buildings, or by sum- 
 mary execution of a few members of the possessing 
 class, I hope that the courage to share in the work should 
 be mine." 1 
 
 To promote the advent of the Socialist State is, there- 
 fore, according to the current Socialist view, the final 
 end of conduct and the ultimate determinant of morality. 
 All actions that contribute to the overthrow of Capital- 
 ism and the establishment of collectivism are reasonable 
 and good. The grossest deeds of violence against per- 
 sons and property, the crudest confiscation of capitalist 
 goods, are morally justified if they are really conducive 
 to this end. While the majority of Socialist leaders 
 apparently condemn the destructive methods of Syn- 
 dicalism, they are not actuated by moral principles, but 
 by considerations of expediency. 
 
 I do not recall having read a single Socialist condem- 
 nation of such practices on the ground that they are 
 morally wrong. 
 
 Against this restatement of the ethics of savagery the 
 Christian and the Theist proclaim the everlasting truth 
 that life and property are morally inviolable. Whatever 
 economic changes are necessary (and they are many and 
 various) must be effected by orderly processes which 
 will respect the right of ownership as well as other kinds 
 of rights. 
 
 The theory that social welfare is the determinant of 
 morality would be fatal to the rights and welfare of the 
 
 1 "Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, and Socialism," pp. 172, 173.
 
 154 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 individual. At no given time is the well-being of the 
 State identical with the well-being of all its members. 
 Hence the Socialist Commonwealth might quite con- 
 sistently and expediently kill off the feeble-minded, the 
 physically incurable, and all persons who did not pro- 
 duce their keep. 
 
 The minority would have no rights that the majority 
 would feel morally bound to respect. 
 
 II. IF THIS BE IMMORALITY 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 Socialists generally accept the definition of Ethics as 
 the art or science of right conduct of men toward their 
 fellow-men. This conception is by no means peculiar 
 to them. Practically all authoritative modern writers 
 agree that ethical or moral conduct must have a social 
 implication. 
 
 In this view the highest moral conduct on the part of 
 man is that which is most conducive to the general 
 happiness and welfare of the community, and, con- 
 versely, the highest moral conduct on the part of the 
 community is such as is most conducive to the happi- 
 ness and welfare of each and every individual member 
 of it. There is nothing new or startling in this doctrine. 
 It is merely the more modern and scientific formulation 
 of the Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have 
 them do unto you. 
 
 This great moral ideal has never been generally 
 attained for the reason that the existing social and eco- 
 nomic conditions have made it impossible of full realiza- 
 tion.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 155 
 
 All history of mankind up to the present has been 
 tainted with national and class struggles. In the con- 
 stant endeavour to secure their material existence, to 
 enhance their wealth and resources, and to increase their 
 domain, the nations of the world have always been in a 
 state of intermittent war with one another. The ma- 
 terial interests which prompted this strife and warfare 
 were, as usual, spontaneously translated into ethical 
 notions, and each nation accordingly developed a dual 
 standard of morality, one applicable to its own mem- 
 bers, and the other, diametrically opposed to it, to 
 "hostile" nations. 
 
 Thus while every civilized nation abhors crimes against 
 the person or property of its own members and brands 
 them as revoltingly immoral, it glorifies murder, pillage, 
 and many unspeakable crimes if committed on members 
 of other nations as acts of warfare. 
 
 And just as the material needs of the contending 
 nations determine the code of international ethics, so do 
 the material exigencies of each nation within its own 
 domain determine its national code of ethics. 
 
 Let us illustrate that theory by an analysis of the 
 prevailing or "capitalist" morality. 
 
 In modern society each individual is sent out into the 
 world to secure his existence, not in cooperation, but in 
 competition, in war with his fellow-men. The prime 
 task of "making a living" naturally and necessarily 
 degenerates into the ambition to "make money." The 
 amount of wealth accumulated by the individual is the 
 generally accepted measure of his "success in life." 
 The "pauper" is an object of social contempt, and the 
 millionnaire invariably has the esteem and obsequious
 
 156 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 veneration of his fellow-citizens, who rarely stop to in- 
 quire into the origin or social significance of his acquired 
 wealth. Practically everything is permissible and even 
 praiseworthy so long as it makes money. 
 
 Thus we abhor murder in all its forms in the 
 abstract; but when our factory, mine, or mill owners 
 daily undermine the health and shorten the lives of 
 tender-aged children by overwork and pestilential sur- 
 roundings, or permit the killing of employees by prevent- 
 able accidents, in the ordinary and "legitimate" course 
 of their business, we are not inclined to attach the 
 slightest moral stigma to their conduct. 
 
 The wretch who in the heat of passion would put 
 poison into another man's food is despised by the com- 
 munity as a cowardly assassin; but the wealthy manu- 
 facturer or dealer who systematically adulterates and 
 poisons foodstuffs and other articles intended for general 
 consumption, in the cold-blooded pursuit of profits, is a 
 perfectly respectable member of society. 
 
 No language can express the depth of the loathing and 
 execration with which we regard the white-slave trafficker 
 who lures or forces women into lives of shame for paltry 
 profits to himself; but the department-store owner, 
 who drives hundreds of poor struggling girls into lives of 
 prostitution by low pay, as a mere incident in his process 
 of fortune building, is often of the material of which are 
 made our church deacons and Sunday-school superin- 
 tendents. 
 
 Socialists are not inclined to place the blame for these 
 perverse capitalist notions of ethics on the individual 
 "malefactors." As believers in the economic interpre- 
 tation of history they realize that ethical notions and the
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 157 
 
 conduct of individuals, classes, and nations are primarily 
 determined by material conditions, which exist inde- 
 pendently of the personal will and inclinations of man. 
 Self-preservation is the supreme law of nature for 
 nations as well as individuals. The conditions of such 
 preservation depend upon the material surroundings, 
 and nothing short of a change of these surroundings can 
 alter human habits and notions. The man-eating cus- 
 toms of certain savage tribes and their practice of killing 
 their feeble and aged members are not to be ascribed 
 to a savage predilection for murder, but to scarcity of 
 food among them. As soon as such tribes develop to the 
 point of increasing their food supply by artificial means, 
 they begin to realize that cannibalism and the killing of 
 parents are immoral. 
 
 Socialism aims to establish an order of society based 
 on cooperative effort and collective enjoyment in place 
 of the present individual competitive warfare. The 
 Socialists also maintain that all modern nations are 
 economically self-sufficient or nearly so; that inter- 
 national wars have ceased to have the justification of 
 necessity, and are now conducted mainly in behalf of 
 the profit-seeking capitalist classes for the conquest 
 of new markets. The introduction of the Socialist 
 order would put an end to the perennial economic and 
 social strife between individuals, classes, and nations, 
 and would for the first time in history create an economic 
 order in which the welfare of each individual would be 
 truly linked with that of all of his fellows, or society at 
 large. 
 
 The reason why the abstract principles of Christian 
 ethics have been preached for well-nigh two thousand
 
 158 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 years with so little practical success is just that they 
 have been preached in the abstract, and have failed to 
 take into account the impelling power of material con- 
 ditions and needs. Socialism endeavours to lay the solid 
 economic foundation upon which alone the sublime moral 
 doctrines of the Nazarene can be actually realized. 
 
 In spite of the fact that Socialist morality may thus 
 be said to be truly "Christian," my distinguished op- 
 ponent rejects it in every part and phase. 
 
 Modern science regards the development of the moral 
 sense as a part or phase of the general process of human 
 evolution. As the advance of human civilization is 
 signalized by ever improving methods of wealth produc- 
 tion, by ever increasing efficiency of social and political 
 organizations, and by the ever growing keenness and pro- 
 fundity of the individual human mind, so is it accom- 
 panied by an ever rising level of human morality, or 
 sense of duty of man toward man. 
 
 The Socialists accept this theory as modified and sup- 
 plemented by the economic interpretation of history. 
 They recognize that ethical notions are subject to 
 changes and development, but they hold that such de- 
 velopment is primarily determined by economic condi- 
 tions, i.e. that a low economic order will result in poor 
 ethics, while improved economic conditions and rela- 
 tions are conducive to better morals. 
 
 Dr. Ryan grows morally indignant over the theory 
 that "the rules of morality are neither eternal nor im- 
 mutable," and that "moral rules are temporary and 
 variable." According to his notion, this theory leads to 
 the principle that "murder, lying, theft, rape, treachery,
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 159 
 
 and 'disobedience' may be morally good at some time 
 and in some place." My esteemed opponent seems to 
 confound a mere objective and dispassionate statement 
 of fact with a declaration of a principle or conviction. 
 Evolutionists in general and Socialists in particular do 
 not approve of the horrid string of crimes enumerated 
 by Dr. Ryan. But they cannot shut their eyes to the 
 notorious fact that these crimes have been considered 
 moral or indifferent "at some time or in some place" 
 in the past, and that they are still so considered in some 
 forms and under some conditions. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's own view of the nature of ethics is ex- 
 pressed in the following language : 
 
 "Moral laws are unchangeable because they are based 
 ultimately upon the unchangeable nature of God, and 
 immediately upon the unchangeable elements of human 
 nature. In other words, they are the rules of conduct 
 which God necessarily lays down for the guidance of 
 beings whom He has made after the human pattern, just 
 as physical laws are the rules by which He directs the 
 non-rational universe." 
 
 The statement is emphatic, but unfortunately it is 
 somewhat lacking in meaning and can hardly be squared 
 with the known facts and conditions. 
 
 Dr. Ryan is too keen a thinker to ignore the dis- 
 crepancy between the theory of "immutable" rules of 
 ethics and the history of constant changes in the moral 
 conceptions and practices of men ; and in an attempt to 
 reconcile the contradiction he advances a very subtle 
 metaphysical theory. The failure on the part of men 
 to recognize the eternal and immutable ethical truth, 
 he argues, does not prove the non-existence of such truth
 
 160 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 "any more than the universal ignorance of the helio- 
 centric theory proves that the earth first began to travel 
 round the sun in the days of Copernicus." 
 
 The comparison is not very happy. The immutable 
 law of planetary rotation always expressed itself in the 
 uniform conduct of the heavenly bodies. The earth 
 revolved around the sun at all times and under all con- 
 ditions even before Copernicus first perceived it, but 
 the moral notions and moral conduct of men always 
 varied in spite of the alleged immutable ethical law, i.e. 
 rule of human conduct. 
 
 "Just as the race varies and grows in its comprehen- 
 sion of speculative and physical truth, so it makes prog- 
 ress in its perception of ethical truth and principles," 
 concludes Dr. Ryan. This is a very substantial conces- 
 sion on his part. For if it be admitted that the human 
 race gradually improves and changes its notions of right 
 and wrong, and fashions its conduct accordingly, it 
 matters but little if we assume for our amusement or 
 solace that at the same time there always exists an 
 abstract, inactive, and ineffective code of final and im- 
 mutable ethics, illegibly written somewhere "in the hu- 
 man heart." The changes in moral notions and moral 
 conduct, which are thus recognized by both of us, con- 
 stitute the essence of "variable ethics." 
 
 Another theory which provokes my opponent's in- 
 dignation is that morality is concerned only with man's 
 social relations. 
 
 "If purely individual conduct is outside of the moral 
 law," he exclaims, "then it follows with absolute logical 
 rigour that the rational part of man is not essentially su- 
 perior to his animal nature, that soul is not intrinsically
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 161 
 
 nobler than sense, that man has no more duties to him- 
 self than has a pig." 
 
 Dr. Ryan wastes his good rhetoric on this proposition. 
 Without assuming to pass upon the respective rank or 
 degree of nobility of man's "rational part" and his 
 "animal nature," his "soul" and his "sense," and with- 
 out attempting to defend the deplorably low state of the 
 ethics of the pig, I will say that the Socialists do not 
 neglect or underestimate the spiritual side of man's 
 existence. 
 
 Socialism aims at the highest development of all hu- 
 man capacities, physical, mental, spiritual, aesthetic, and 
 moral. But the mere enumeration and differentiation 
 of these attributes shows that they belong to distinct 
 and separate domains. The physical health, intellectual 
 attainments, and aesthetic sense of the human being are 
 his individual attributes ; his moral notions and con- 
 duct pertain to his social relations. We strive for per- 
 fection in all spheres of human existence, but nothing 
 can be gained, save confusion in thought and action, by 
 an attempt to throw them all within the one sphere of 
 morality. 
 
 The second half of Dr. Ryan's paper is devoted very 
 largely to the criticism of the Socialist attitude toward the 
 family. Let us examine his objections under that head. 
 
 One of the gravest counts in the Socialist indictment 
 of the prevailing order is that it poisons the purity and 
 destroys the sanctity of family life among all classes of 
 society. The working-man's "household" is in a vast 
 number of cases miserably shattered by the precarious 
 condition of its material foundation. When the man's 
 
 M
 
 162 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 earnings are insufficient for the support of the family, the 
 wife and mother is inevitably driven from her "womanly " 
 functions at the fireside and in the nursery into the coarse 
 atmosphere and exacting toil of the factory room. The 
 "home" degenerates into mere night lodgings where the 
 mates meet for short intervals, mostly in a condition of 
 physical exhaustion and in a gloomy, irritable mood. 
 
 And the children ? They grow up as best they can in 
 the streets and gutters while they are very young, 
 and they follow their parents into the factory the 
 all-powerful and all-absorbing temple of Capitalism 
 before they are strong enough for continuous physical 
 work. This is the typical working-man's "home" as it 
 exists in the slums and tenement districts of our large 
 and numerous industrial centres it is vastly different 
 from the sentimental picture habitually drawn by the 
 complacent moral philosopher. 
 
 Among the "middle classes," in which the woman as 
 a rule does not work, and is entirely dependent on the 
 man for her material needs, being married is her sole 
 gainful occupation. Marriage is at least as often a 
 matter of business as it is a matter of love, and the poor 
 feminine victim of our irrational social system is often 
 tied for life to a man repulsive and disgusting to her, 
 but indispensable as a provider for her needs. 
 
 Among the classes of the wealthy, on the other hand, 
 the women can often indulge in the luxury of purchasing 
 in marriage a foreign title attached to a dissipated and 
 dilapidated specimen of mankind, while the men can 
 afford to support hosts of mistresses. 
 
 Marriage and marital cohabitation thus become 
 unhappy partnerships in economic misery, business
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 163 
 
 arrangements, purchases, or sales anything but unions 
 of love. Of course, there are still very numerous cases 
 of marital happiness based on genuine mutual affection, 
 but such true unions persist in spite of the prevailing 
 social and economic conditions, not because of them. 
 
 Socialism will vastly raise the economic level of the 
 masses and will put an end to the material dependence 
 of normal adult human beings on others. It will thus 
 remove all sordid mercenary motives from marriage, and 
 will naturally leave but one basis of marital union 
 mutual love. It is a logical corollary of the proposition 
 that a union based on love can only endure so long 
 as love continues. Most Socialists therefore favour 
 dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the 
 contracting parties. 
 
 Dr. Ryan may call this doctrine "pestiferous," but I 
 hold that marital cohabitation without love is positively 
 immoral and quite akin to prostitution. He maintains 
 that "the theory of economic determinism logically re- 
 quires a new form of domestic society under Socialism." 
 It would be more correct to say that Socialism would 
 introduce a new type of marital relations the type of 
 actual and lasting monogamy. Just because under 
 Socialism marriage will be based on true love rather than 
 economic considerations, the chances are that it will 
 endure in undimmed and lifelong purity in a much 
 larger number of cases than to-day. 
 
 Nor do Dr. Ryan's fears that the Socialist state would 
 monopolize the rearing and education of the children 
 seem to me at all well-founded. A Socialist administra- 
 tion would certainly provide an ample number of ade-
 
 1 64 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 quate and efficient public schools for all grades and 
 kinds of instruction, and would retain and extend the 
 system of compulsory education ; but there is absolutely 
 no warrant in the Socialist programme or philosophy for 
 the assumption that the government would withdraw 
 the education of children from the control and super- 
 vision of the parents, or interfere with any desire on the 
 part of the latter to give their children the benefit of 
 supplemental private or school instruction in any subject 
 they may choose. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's final attack is aimed at what he conceives 
 to be the practical code of Socialist ethics. He main- 
 tains that in the Socialist view " all actions which further 
 the overthrow of Capitalism . . . are reasonable and 
 good. The grossest deeds of violence against persons 
 and property, the crudest confiscation of capitalist goods, 
 are morally justified if they are really conducive to this 
 end." 
 
 As to the bugaboo of "confiscation," the subject has 
 been fully disposed of in the third chapter of this book, 
 and as to "deeds of violence," it is sufficient to state 
 that the International Socialist movement is clearly and 
 emphatically committed to the view that they are not 
 "conducive to the overthrow of Capitalism." 
 
 Socialism is an evolutionary philosophy. It affirms 
 that great social changes can only be brought about 
 when all social factors required for the change, i.e. 
 economic conditions, popular opinion, organization of 
 the masses, etc., have fully matured. Violence cannot 
 hasten the process of social development, and if adopted 
 as a method of the Socialist propaganda, it could only 
 result in confusion and demoralization within the ranks
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 165 
 
 of the active Socialists, and in strengthening the position 
 of their opponents. 
 
 Dr. Ryan quotes my good friend John Spargo as pray- 
 ing for the courage to do sundry violent and desperate 
 things, if by doing so he could bring about the social 
 salvation of the working-class. But my opponent neg- 
 lects to inform the reader that the blood-curdling hypo- 
 thetical prayer of the "usually mild and soft-spoken" 
 Socialist author is only a rhetorical introduction to his 
 very emphatic assertion that violence cannot accom- 
 plish anything good, and that if applied by the working- 
 class it would only leave it "more hopelessly enslaved 
 than ever" and would "destroy its morale as a fighting 
 force." In fact, Spargo's entire book from which the 
 disjointed passage is quoted was written in defence of 
 lawful methods in the struggle for social betterment. 
 
 The Socialist movement has always fought the anar- 
 chists and advocates of violence within the labour move- 
 ment as it fights the more numerous and dangerous 
 anarchists and perpetrators of violence within the ranks of 
 the capitalist class. The international Socialist conven- 
 tions admit no organizations whose programmes are not 
 based on the peaceful methods of working-class politics, 
 and the Socialist Party of the United States has formally 
 adopted a rule providing for the expulsion of any mem- 
 ber who may advocate violence in connection with the 
 Socialist propaganda. 
 
 "But," says my opponent, "these actions are based 
 on mere considerations of expediency and not on moral 
 grounds." To this I can only answer Blessed is the 
 movement whose practical notions of expediency coincide 
 so well with the abstract precepts of the highest morality.
 
 1 66 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 m. REJOINDER 
 
 BY DR. RYAN 
 
 In his reply to my main paper, Mr. Hillquit admits 
 substantially that I have stated correctly the essentials 
 of Socialist ethics. Naturally he disagrees with me con- 
 cerning the validity and value of those ethical doctrines. 
 In the following pages I shall attempt to meet some of his 
 more important arguments, and to bring out somewhat 
 more clearly the sinister significance of the moral theories 
 which permeate the Socialist movement. 
 
 Applying the theory of economic determinism to in- 
 ternational relations, my opponent asserts that material 
 interests have led the nations to adopt dual and "dia- 
 metrically opposite" standards of morality, one for 
 themselves and another for the peoples without. 
 
 Have they? Civilized nations forbid the killing of 
 their own citizens except on account of capital crimes. 
 A "diametrically opposite" rule in relation to foreigners 
 would permit the assassination of the latter in the 
 absence of any such offences. Will my opponent cite a 
 single civilized people that has explicitly adopted or 
 defended this principle? 
 
 Nor have the civilized peoples sanctioned this prin- 
 ciple implicitly. Waging war on foreign nations no more 
 implies approval of murder than does the legal execution 
 of criminals, or individual homicide. In every war one 
 of the belligerents is necessarily contending for ad- 
 vantages to which it has no moral right, and is there- 
 fore in the position of an unjust aggressor. Sometimes 
 the wrongful nation realizes the immorality of its course,
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 167 
 
 just as the individual murderer sometimes recognizes 
 the wickedness of his action. Perhaps in the majority 
 of cases the offending nation thinks that it has a proper 
 grievance, that it is merely defending its genuine rights. 
 Its mistaken interpretation of the moral law no more 
 involves approval of the principle of murder than does 
 the homicidal performance of a lynching party or a 
 Kentucky feudist. 
 
 On the other hand, the nation that is in the right 
 defends its position by force of arms on quite the same 
 solid moral ground as it puts to death capital offenders 
 among its own citizens, and with quite the same justifi- 
 cation as that which authorizes the individual to protect 
 his own life against the murderous attack of a highway- 
 man. 
 
 Perhaps the simplest and clearest indication that war 
 does not imply approval of murder, is the fact that 
 civilized belligerents refrain, even to their own disad- 
 vantage, from killing women and other non-combatants. 
 
 In the field of industrial relations, continues my 
 opponent, we likewise see the all-determining influence 
 of material interests upon moral conceptions. By the 
 rules of the "prevailing capitalist morality," "prac- 
 tically everything is permissible and praiseworthy so 
 long as it makes money." 
 
 As a matter of fact, the current moral conceptions 
 condemn all the industrial evils enumerated in Mr. 
 Hillquit's lurid paragraphs. In proof of this statement 
 I would call attention to the mass of corrective legisla- 
 tion already enacted, and certain to be enacted. Not 
 even the capitalist class has ever formally accepted the 
 principle that practically everything is lawful which
 
 1 68 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 "makes money." If they frequently act in such a way 
 as to suggest to the uncritical that they believe in this 
 principle, they are influenced by several other considera- 
 tions than crude and simple greed. 
 
 One cause of such conduct has been the prevalence of 
 the plausible but fundamentally false ethical theory pro- 
 pounded with more or less definiteness by the classical 
 economists, that every free contract is a fair contract. 
 Another is the failure of many employers to realize the 
 existence or the extent of the industrial evils in question. 
 Moreover, a large class of employers either lull to sleep 
 or deliberately violate their better moral perceptions. 
 Another large group, possibly the majority, are unable, 
 on account of the keenness of business competition, to 
 remedy the bad conditions. Finally, employers as a 
 whole realize both the evils and their own responsibility 
 much more fully than they did half a century ago. 
 
 As I have more than once observed in the course of this 
 debate, the economic interests and conditions of individ- 
 uals and of classes do prevent them from estimating 
 fairly and accurately the morality of many kinds of con- 
 duct. But this is quite a different statement from the 
 assertion that moral notions and practices are primarily 
 determined, caused to be what they are by material 
 conditions and interests. So long as men admit that 
 they are obliged sometimes to subordinate their own in- 
 terests to the welfare of their fellows or to moral principle, 
 they show conclusively that material conditions are not 
 the supreme determinant of ethical beliefs and conduct. 
 
 In passing, I would note that according to Socialist 
 theory moral ideas and actions are determined by mate- 
 rial conditions not only primarily, but necessarily. " So-
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 169 
 
 cialists," declares my opponent, "are not inclined to 
 place the blame for these perverse capitalist notions of 
 ethics upon the individual 'malefactors.'" Hence the 
 moral beliefs and deeds of men are beyond the control 
 of the human will. Hence the labour-crushing capitalist, 
 no less than the bomb-throwing exemplar of sabotage, 
 is relieved of all strictly moral accountability. Both 
 are helpless instruments of material forces ! 
 
 I did not say, nor even intimate, that any Socialist 
 "approves of the horrid string of crimes" which I enu- 
 merated in the fourth paragraph of my principal paper. 
 What I said was that the Marxian who is logical must 
 admit the possibility that all these may sometime be- 
 come legitimate ; but I did not venture the assertion that 
 all Socialists are logical. 
 
 In the opinion of my opponent, the ethical standard 
 which I have defended is " somewhat lacking in meaning." 
 It is, indeed, somewhat abstract and technical, but so 
 are all summary statements of fundamental truth. And 
 yet it is more concrete and practical than his standard 
 of general happiness. When we say that man's rational 
 nature is the unvarying rule of conduct, we mean : 
 first, that he must not use his faculties in such a way as 
 to frustrate their natural end, or the natural end of his 
 entire being ; second, that his animal or sense nature 
 must be subordinated to his rational or spirit nature; 
 third, that by nature all men are essentially equal, and 
 have substantially equal claims upon one another; 
 fourth, that they are inferior and owe unqualified obedi- 
 ence to God ; and, fifth, that they are essentially superior 
 to the brute creation.
 
 170 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 In his endeavour to establish the variableness of the 
 moral law, my opponent rejects the distinction which I 
 drew between the law and the understanding of it by 
 human beings. This distinction he calls "a subtle meta- 
 physical theory." It is neither subtle nor metaphysical, 
 but obvious and logical. Quite as aptly might he apply 
 this phrase to the effort to distinguish between a civil 
 law and the varying popular knowledge of it, or between 
 the established principles of medical science and the 
 various conceptions of them prevailing throughout a 
 community. 
 
 The immutable law of planetary rotation, continues 
 Mr. Hillquit, always expressed itself in the uniform 
 "conduct" of the heavenly bodies, but the moral notions 
 and conduct of men varied in spite of the "alleged immut- 
 able laws." 
 
 But the moral law likewise expressed itself at all times. 
 Its provisions could be read in man's nature and in his 
 essential relations to other beings. And the majority 
 of mankind did perceive this objective expression, this 
 enduring record, of the moral law long before any of them 
 discovered the law of planetary rotation. 
 
 If we admit that the race makes moral progress, con- 
 tends my opponent, it matters little whether we believe 
 in the objective existence of a code of "final and im- 
 mutable ethics." But how can we know whether the 
 changes in moral notions and actions to which we give the 
 name of progress are properly so called, unless we have 
 some permanently valid code of ethics, some supreme 
 standard, some moral ideal, by which we can distinguish 
 the good from the bad in conduct, and the genuine from 
 the imitation in moral progress ? Precisely because men
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 171 
 
 have possessed the conception of such a standard, how- 
 ever denned, they have been able to discern and to follow, 
 however dimly and haltingly, the way of improvement. 
 
 Nor can my opponent save the situation by bringing 
 in his standard of general welfare or general happiness. 
 If there be no such thing as objective and immutable 
 ethical rules, on what rational ground can the individual 
 be required to subordinate his own welfare or pleasure 
 to that of the community? Why should this standard 
 suddenly become morally binding upon its adoption by 
 the Socialist State ? It is quite in order for the individual 
 to remonstrate : 
 
 "On your own principle your ethical code is funda- 
 mentally relative ; for it is but the expression of what 
 you conceive to be the needs of your present form of 
 society. It has no more genuine moral force, authority, 
 or obligation than any other code that has ever been set 
 up by any other society or social class. I claim the right 
 to make my own ethics." 
 
 To this objection the only possible reply of the Socialist 
 State would be the enforcement of the argument of 
 superior brute force. Might and right would have be- 
 come identical. 
 
 My opponent declines to commit himself to the view 
 that the rational is nobler than the animal element in 
 man, or that soul is intrinsically superior to sense ; yet 
 he asserts that Socialists do not underestimate the 
 spiritual side of man, and that they strive for perfection 
 in all spheres of human existence. 
 
 By the very fact that he refuses to recognize the in- 
 trinsic superiority of the rational over the sense facul-
 
 172 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ties, he does underestimate the spiritual element. By 
 putting the rational or spiritual on the same level of 
 importance with the physical nature, he declares im- 
 plicitly that to exercise the latter, to indulge the 
 physical appetites, in those purely individual acts of 
 dissipation and sensuality which atrophy the intellect 
 and brutalize the will, constitutes conduct that is 
 quite as laudable and reasonable as the loftiest ac- 
 tivity of the intellect or the firmest control of the 
 passions. Since there is no difference of moral impor- 
 tance or worth between the two sets of faculties, each man 
 enjoys full liberty, moral as well as physical and psycho- 
 logical, to choose for himself which faculties he shall exer- 
 cise most, to choose whether he shall live like a man or 
 like a brute; and no moral stigma can attach to one 
 choice more than to the other. 
 
 If individual conduct be outside the moral law, then 
 no man has any moral obligation toward himself ; hence 
 his "striving for perfection" is not a moral obligation, 
 but an entirely optional performance. It is no more 
 good, reasonable, or laudable than the practice of the 
 most degrading personal debauchery. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit admits that the monogamous family, 
 understood as a permanent union, would and should 
 disappear under Socialism. For he advocates, not 
 indeed sexual promiscuity, but unions dissoluble at the 
 will of the parties themselves. By removing all mer- 
 cenary motives from marriage, he will leave but one basis 
 of conjugal union mutual love. To quote his own 
 words : "A union based on love can endure only so long 
 as love continues. In other words, most Socialists,
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 173 
 
 in common with most sensible and enlightened persons, 
 favour dissolubility of the marriage tie at the pleasure 
 of the contracting parties." 
 
 But, contends my opponent, these "love" unions would 
 "endure in undimmed and lifelong purity in a much 
 larger number of cases than to-day." 
 
 While an extended reply to this assertion is impossible 
 for want of space and unnecessary because my main 
 purpose has been merely to bring out the real attitude 
 of Socialists on the question of monogamy, a few sum- 
 maries of controverting arguments may not be out of 
 place. 
 
 a. The theory before us assumes that under Socialism 
 the actual opportunity of making their own living would 
 be open to all women as an easy alternative to marriage. 
 This implies a vast increase in the proportion of women 
 in industrial occupations. Such a situation is neither 
 morally nor socially desirable. Probably nine-tenths 
 of the women who are now engaged in manufacture, and 
 a large proportion of those in trade and transportation, 
 are performing tasks which are physically and morally 
 detrimental to themselves, and therefore to the race. 
 It is not possible that Socialism or any other scheme 
 would change essentially the nature or effects of these 
 industrial operations. 
 
 b. The assumption that it is somehow degrading for 
 a woman to depend upon a man for a livelihood, or to 
 allow material considerations to influence her choice of a 
 husband is cheap and shallow. It is adopted mainly 
 by those who are enmeshed in a superficial a priori social 
 philosophy, and by that blatant and shameless little 
 clique of creatures who think they are "advanced femin-
 
 174 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ists," and who would like to make women over into a 
 bad imitation of men. In the light of nature and 
 common sense, it is no more unbecoming for a woman to 
 depend upon a man for her livelihood than for a man 
 to depend upon a woman for his meals, the care of the 
 household, or the bearing and nursing of children. 
 
 c. Even under Socialism, many women would still 
 find that they could better their condition by marrying 
 a higher-paid man. And large numbers of them would 
 have sense enough left to see that marriage is natural, 
 while most industrial employments are to them un- 
 natural and harmful, and that marriage even on a lower 
 economic level is on the whole preferable to "economic 
 independence." To assume that these two classes of 
 women would not marry until they were certain that 
 love was the only determining motive, is to betray a 
 lofty indifference to some of the most palpable facts of 
 human nature and human life. 
 
 d. Has my opponent any data to show that divorce 
 is less common among love marriages than among those 
 that have taken into account other considerations? 
 Is romantic love the only, or the most powerful, factor 
 in the permanence of conjugal unions ? 
 
 e. Moreover, when men and women realize that their 
 unions are terminable at will, they will be much more 
 likely than now to mistake passion and infatuation for 
 love, both before and after marriage, and much more 
 liable to neglect such considerations as mind, character, 
 and consequences. 
 
 My opponent assures me that Socialism would not 
 withdraw the education of children from the control 
 and supervision of the parents, nor prevent the latter
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 175 
 
 from giving their children the benefit of "supplemental 
 private or school instruction in any subject they may 
 choose." 
 
 Thus the only instruction to be permitted outside the 
 public schools will be merely " supplemental." Although 
 this "supplemental" training may be given in a private 
 school as well as at home, the child will be compelled 
 to attend the public school regularly, and to follow all 
 the courses taught therein. No parent will be allowed 
 to educate his child wholly or mainly outside the public 
 school. What is this if it be not monopoly of educa- 
 tion? 
 
 I never denied that Mr. Spargo and the International 
 Socialist movement condemned deeds of violence. I 
 merely maintained that their condemnation was based 
 not upon moral grounds, but upon mere expediency. 
 I asserted that no authoritative Socialist denounces such 
 practices as morally wrong. And my opponent admits 
 the correctness of these contentions when he "can only 
 answer : Blessed is the movement whose practical no- 
 tions of expediency coincide so well with the abstract 
 precepts of the highest morality." 
 
 If this be not an implicit assertion that violence is 
 morally lawful whenever it is expedient for Socialism, 
 and a virtual confession that my interpretation of Social- 
 ist thought on the subject is accurate, I am forced to the 
 conclusion that my opponent is using language in a 
 purely esoteric sense, of which he refuses to give up the 
 key. 
 
 How exactly the Socialist notions of expediency "coin- 
 cide" with abstract moral precepts, is beautifully illus-
 
 1 76 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 trated In the recent history of the I. W. W. faction of 
 American Socialism. "The Industrial Workers of the 
 World" accept the principle of expediency, but not the 
 practical application of it offered by the majority of the 
 party. Believing that "deeds of violence" are expedient 
 in the war with Capitalism, they proceed to demolish, 
 if possible, the "abstract precepts of the highest moral- 
 ity." Worse than all, they demonstrate that expediency 
 is not expedient, since their interpretation of it has split 
 the American Socialist party in twain. A similar situa- 
 tion obtains in the European movement. 
 
 What else could any thinking person expect ? Preach 
 the theory that a practice derives all its morality from 
 expediency, and you open the way for the most reckless 
 use, or abuse, of it by all those persons who will not ac- 
 cept you as its infallible interpreter. 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER 
 
 BY MR. HILLQUIT 
 
 Dr. Ryan's rebuttal is largely an effort to fortify his 
 arguments in support of his two main ethical precepts, 
 the final and immutable character of the moral law 
 and the indissolubility of marriage. 
 
 In my main paper I asserted that the moral notions 
 and practices of individuals, classes, and nations are 
 subject to variations and changes, and that the nature 
 of such variations and the direction of such changes 
 are largely determined by material needs and advantages. 
 In support of this contention I instanced the callousness 
 of capitalist morality as applied to industrial pursuits
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 177 
 
 and the perverse moral notions which sanction interna- 
 tional wars. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's reply to this contention may be fairly 
 summed up in three points : 
 
 1. The killing of human beings, in war or in peace, 
 is not always morally wrong. The nation " that is in the 
 right" is justified on "solid moral grounds" in defending 
 such right by "force of arms," and the community has 
 a similar moral right to the "legal execution" of the 
 "criminal" or "capital offender." 
 
 2. "Perhaps in the majority of cases the offending 
 nation thinks that it has a proper grievance," and simi- 
 larly, the offending capitalist often fails to realize the 
 social iniquities of the prevailing industrial system. 
 
 3. "Sometimes the wrongful nation realizes the im- 
 morality of its course," but fails to admit it, just as a 
 large class of the employers realize the moral depravity 
 of their practices, but either "lull to sleep or deliberately 
 violate their better moral perceptions." 
 
 Let us examine these arguments. 
 
 Dr. Ryan justifies the killing of "aggressors," "capital 
 offenders," and "criminals," wholesalely in war or in 
 retail "by legal process." But what is an "aggression" 
 or "offence," and what is "innocence" or "defence," 
 and how and by whom are they to be differentiated ? 
 
 In the eyes of the average Englishman, the American 
 colonists were decidedly hardened offenders when they 
 seditiously refused to pay lawful taxes regularly imposed 
 on them by parliament, while the colonists vowed that 
 England was the aggressor and offender in attempting 
 such taxation. To the mediaeval Catholic governments 
 the "heretic" was a capital offender, and even the in- 
 
 N
 
 178 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 fallible Catholic Church with its immutable notions of 
 the moral law condoned that conception. Autocratic 
 governments consider every active republican a "capital 
 offender," and in return every republic considers it a 
 crime to strive for the establishment of a monarchy. 
 To the anarchist every capitalist is an offender ; to the 
 typical capitalist every "agitator" and labour leader is 
 a criminal. 
 
 All these different and opposite elements would cheer- 
 fully subscribe to Dr. Ryan's doctrine. What a picture 
 of "eternal, invariable, and immutable ethics" ! 
 
 But even less convincing than my opponent's moral 
 justification of some wars and of all "legal executions" 
 is his touching picture of the nation going to war in a 
 sad and sombre mood arising from the consciousness of 
 its own guilt, and of the capitalist realizing the unright- 
 eousness of his course. In actual experience such con- 
 scious and shame-faced offenders are rare. As a rule 
 the belligerent nations are equally emphatic in their 
 moral indignation against each other and equally loud 
 in the patriotic protestations of their own offended inno- 
 cence, while the churches of both countries send conflict- 
 ing and bewildering prayers to the Almighty for the 
 victory of their respective just causes. 
 
 As to the typical capitalists, they are usually in full 
 accord with the position of that candid and pious Ameri- 
 can representative of their class who recently consoled 
 his countrymen with the assurance that the Lord has 
 ceded the treasures of the earth to certain "Christian 
 gentlemen," who knew how to operate and capitalize 
 them. 
 
 Dr. Ryan comes very much nearer the truth when he
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 179 
 
 asserts that the offending nations and classes often fail 
 to realize their wrongdoings. But perhaps this state- 
 ment seems so convincing to me only because I have 
 been contending for it all through this debate. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's final argument in support of his theory of 
 immutability of the moral law, is that without such a 
 standard moral progress would be impossible or, at any 
 rate, unmeasurable. "How can we know," he queries, 
 "whether the changes in moral notions and actions to 
 which we give the name of progress are properly so 
 called, unless we have some permanently valid code of 
 ethics?" 
 
 My opponent here seems to confound two entirely 
 different ideas Final Ethics and the Ethical Ideal. 
 When he speaks of Final Ethics he has in mind a uniform 
 unchanged and unchangeable code of morals, which was 
 in existence at the first appearance of man and will re- 
 main in full force until the end of the world. An Ethical 
 Ideal on the other hand means nothing more than the 
 highest conception of morality to which the human mind 
 can attain at a given stage of social and intellectual de- 
 velopment. There is nothing permanent about it. On 
 the contrary, it is its elasticity that constitutes its 
 greatest worth. Such an ideal always represents a vast 
 advance over the cruder ideals of the less civilized past, 
 and it falls short of the higher ideals which a better future 
 will undoubtedly develop. 
 
 Another logical somersault my opponent performs in 
 drawing his deductions from my views on the compara- 
 tive importance of the various human capacities. Be- 
 cause I refuse to admit "the intrinsic superiority of the
 
 l8o SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 rational over the sense faculties," he concludes that I 
 consider it "quite as laudable and reasonable" to in- 
 dulge "in those purely individual acts of dissipation and 
 sensuality which atrophy the intellect and brutalize 
 the will" as in "the lofty activity of the intellect." 
 
 In other words, he asserts that the person who holds 
 the physical and intellectual functions of man in equal 
 esteem must approve of the grossest abuses of the 
 former just as much as of the most proper and normal 
 uses of the latter. 
 
 In my main paper on this subject I stated that most 
 Socialists favour the dissolubility of the marriage tie at 
 the pleasure of the contracting parties. My opponent 
 construes this statement as an "admission" on my part 
 "that the monogamous family, understood as a permanent 
 union, would and should disappear under Socialism." 
 By a skilful blending of the terms "permanent union," 
 "indissoluble marriage," and "monogamy" he contrives 
 to convey the impression that Socialism is opposed to the 
 institution of monogamous marriage. There is abso- 
 lutely no foundation for such an assertion. 
 
 A monogamous family is one formed by the union of 
 one woman with one man. If in such union one of the 
 mates dies and the survivor marries another spouse, the 
 union continues to be monogamous, and if the partners 
 divorce and each remarries, the resulting unions are still 
 strictly monogamous. Conversely, if we should assume 
 that the Mormon Church or some Islam government 
 should sanction simultaneous unions between one man 
 and several women and make such unions absolutely 
 indissoluble, the latter would be polygamous and not
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 181 
 
 monogamous. . Socialists stand for strict monogamy 
 coupled with the right of divorce, a right which is recog- 
 nized in all civilized countries. But while the privilege 
 of divorce is to-day accorded only for certain gross con- 
 jugal or personal misconduct, Socialists would extend that 
 privilege to all persons whose marital life has been ren- 
 dered loveless, joyless, and miserable for any reason 
 whatsoever. 
 
 "Has my opponent any data to show that divorce is 
 less common among love marriages than among those 
 that have taken into account other considerations?" 
 queries Dr. Ryan. 
 
 Of course I have not. The scanty marital statistics 
 which the census furnishe.s us are unfortunately not 
 based on love marriages alone, but on all present-day 
 marriages, and these have largely been contracted for 
 "other considerations." But just for that reason the 
 available figures are rather interesting and by no means 
 irrelevant to Dr. Ryan's question. Here they are : 
 The total number of divorces granted in the United 
 States between 1887 and 1906 was 900,584 ; in other 
 words, within a period of twenty years, or about half of 
 the duration of a normal conjugal life, over 1,800,000 
 persons were divorced from each other by formal judicial 
 decree. In 1906 there were 72,062 divorces against 
 853,290 marriages one divorce for every twelve 
 marriages. 
 
 These figures convey some notion of the extent of mari- 
 tal unhappiness under prevailing conditions, especially 
 if we bear in mind that divorce actions in our courts are 
 distasteful and repulsive proceedings, which the more 
 sensitive individuals try to avoid at any cost. The great-
 
 182 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 est conjugal tragedies are not enacted in open court- 
 room, but are suffered in tearful silence in the seclusion 
 of the shattered home. 
 
 Nor is divorce the only curb upon present-day mar- 
 riages. The "other considerations" than love to which 
 my opponent alludes involve among other things the 
 economic ability of the man to support a family. And 
 this ability is on the constant decrease in our blissful 
 capitalist system, with the rising cost of living, insuffi- 
 cient wages, and general economic insecurity. Accord- 
 ing to the census figures of 1910 the total male popu- 
 lation of the country, twenty years old and over, was 
 about 28,000,000. Out of these 8,102,062 were single, 
 1,470,280 widowed, and 155,815 divorced. Out of 
 the 25,500,000 women over twenty years old 4,947,406 
 were single, 3,165,967 were widowed, and 181,418 
 divorced. 
 
 Thus out of a total of 53,500,000 adult Americans 
 18,000,000, or more than a third, were unmated. "This," 
 observes Commissioner Rittenhouse, who was charged 
 with the task of investigating the alarming facts, "is 
 an unfortunate and startling state of affairs. Moreover, 
 from the ranks of the unmarried comes humanity's 
 heaviest contribution to immorality and crime." Yes, 
 especially when aided by the economic misery of millions 
 of women. If my opponent wants more "data" on this 
 interesting subject, I respectfully refer him to Mr. Knee- 
 land's reports of vice conditions in New York and 
 Chicago, 1 and the harrowing revelations contained in 
 them. A marriage made in the counting-room and 
 
 1 Report of Municipal Vice Commission, Chicago, 1911. "Com- 
 mercialized Prostitution," by George J. Kneeland, New York, 1913.
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 183 
 
 terminating in the divorce courts; a "monogamous" 
 marriage supplemented by wholesale enforced celibacy 
 and tempered by open prostitution and clandestine 
 adultery such is the typical marriage under Capitalism 
 which my opponent seeks to save from the onslaughts of 
 the wicked Socialists. 
 
 My opponent's main argument against what he de- 
 risively terms "love-unions" is that, since such unions 
 are largely predicated on economic independence, their 
 realization calls for a "vast increase in the proportion of 
 women in industrial occupations." Such a situation, 
 however, he considers highly undesirable because "prob- 
 ably nine-tenths of the women who are now engaged in 
 manufacture, and a large proportion of those in trade 
 and transportation, are performing tasks which are phys- 
 ically and morally detrimental to themselves, and there- 
 fore to the race." 
 
 Dr. Ryan seems to overlook the fact that the prevail- 
 ing conditions of work are "physically and morally 
 detrimental," not to women alone, but to men as well, 
 and that these conditions are not inherent in industry, 
 but are made so by the exigencies of the capitalist 
 system based on intense and merciless exploitation of 
 labour. 
 
 Socialism strives to render work more wholesome, 
 easy, and attractive, and to secure to each working- 
 man a return sufficient to enable him to take care of his 
 family in decency and comfort. Under such conditions 
 women's work will naturally cease to be "physically 
 and morally detrimental," and besides, they will not be 
 forced to engage in industrial employment unless their
 
 1 84 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 family duties will permit them and unless they freely 
 choose to do so. Will women under such conditions 
 continue to take active part in the industrial life of the 
 nation? At the risk of being classed by my opponent 
 with that "blatant and shameless" clique of "fem- 
 inists," I venture the prediction that very many of them 
 will. 
 
 Dr. Ryan seems to assume in his argument: i. that 
 all women are married ; 2. that all married women bear 
 children; 3. that all married women bear children and 
 nurse them all the time. 
 
 All these assumptions, to borrow a happy phrase from 
 my opponent, violate "some of the most palpable facts 
 of human nature and human life." 
 
 In his rebuttal Dr. Ryan again reverts to the charge 
 that Socialist morality is based on expediency rather 
 than on abstract love of justice. He does not deny that 
 the accepted methods of the Socialist movement are 
 quite consonant with good morals, but he assures us 
 that if the Socialists had believed that their ends could 
 be more easily gained by methods of lawlessness and vio- 
 lence, they would not hesitate to resort to such methods. 
 
 Without admitting this entirely unprovable hypoth- 
 esis, I will observe that in actual fact there can be no 
 opposition or antagonism between social expediency 
 and true social morality. In support of this contention 
 I may quote an authority who enjoys the respect of my 
 opponent as much as my own I refer to Dr. John 
 Augustine Ryan. In speaking of certain planks in the 
 Socialist programme, in the third chapter of this book, 
 Dr. Ryan remarks: "Their ethical character can be
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 185 
 
 determined only through an examination of their bearing 
 upon human welfare. This is the ultimate test of the 
 morality of any social system. In the matter of social 
 institutions, moral values and genuine expediency are 
 in the long run identical." 
 To this view I heartily subscribe.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 I. SOCIALISM is IRRELIGIOUS 
 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 To the charge that their movement is irreligious, 
 Socialists frequently reply that no support for this con- 
 tention can be found in the party platforms. In a gen- 
 eral way the reply is true ; it is also for the most part 
 irrelevant. 
 
 In 1891 the "Erfurt Programme," probably the most 
 authoritative of all the party declarations, demanded 
 that religion "be declared a private concern." In the 
 national convention of 1908 the Socialist Party of the 
 United States proclaimed itself to be "primarily an 
 economic and political movement . . . not concerned 
 with matters of religious belief." 
 
 With regard to the first of these declarations we must 
 bear carefully in mind that it is merely a "demand for 
 the present," a statement of the attitude which the 
 Socialists desire to see maintained by existing govern- 
 ments. 
 
 It is not placed among the fundamental principles of 
 the platform, and consequently does not commit the 
 party to the belief or conviction that such a policy of 
 toleration should or would prevail in the Socialist State. 
 
 Hence its importance is not paramount. 
 
 186
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 187 
 
 Moreover, both declarations need to be interpreted. 
 The platforms are not a complete expression of the teach- 
 ing and tendencies of the movement. All that they can 
 attempt is to set forth briefly the most essential prin- 
 ciples and the practical proposals. 
 
 In the words of Liebknecht, a platform "cannot be 
 a commentary. The agitators, the journalists, and the 
 learned of the party must give the commentary. " 1 
 
 One of the most enlightening and exhilarating illus- 
 trations of this rule will be found in the "Official Pro- 
 ceedings" (pp. 191-205) of the Chicago Convention 
 of 1908. More than one of the "agitators, the journal- 
 ists, and the learned of the party" furnished a very help- 
 ful commentary on the religious-neutrality plank. 
 
 To avow the true scientific Socialist position on the 
 subject of religion would, they pointed out, be decidedly 
 bad tactics in a presidential campaign. 
 
 The evidence that the Socialist movement (as distin- 
 guished from the contemplated Socialist State) is un- 
 friendly, if not actively hostile, to religion, and that the 
 Socialist philosophy is incompatible with religious 
 convictions is overwhelming. 
 
 Let us summarize this testimony. 
 
 Karl Marx: "The religious world is but the reflex 
 of the real world. And for a society based upon the pro- 
 duction of commodities, . . . Christianity, with its 
 cultus of the abstract man, more especially in its bour- 
 geois developments, Protestantism, Deism, etc., is the 
 most fitting form of religion." 2 
 
 1 "Socialism : What It Is, and What It Seeks to Accomplish," p. 35 ; 
 Kerr & Co. 
 
 2 "Capital," I, 32; Humboldt Edition.
 
 1 88 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Frederick Engels, the cofounder of modern Socialism : 
 "Now religion is but the fantastic reflection in men's 
 minds of the external forces which dominate their every- 
 day existence, a reflection in which earthly forces take 
 the form of the supernatural." 1 
 
 August Bebel, whose authority is second only to that 
 of Marx and Engels: "Religion is the transcendental 
 image of society at any given period. The religion of 
 society changes in the same manner as society changes 
 and as its development increases. The ruling classes 
 seek to preserve it as a means of upholding their su- 
 premacy." 2 
 
 Joseph Dietzgen, also associated with Marx, and per- 
 haps the most philosophical writer of the movement: 
 "Yet Socialism and Christianity differ from each other 
 as the day does from the night. . . . Indeed, all reli- 
 gion is servile, but Christianity is the most servile of 
 the servile." 8 
 
 Paul Lafargue, son-in-law of Marx, and leading thinker 
 of the Socialist movement in France: "The victory of 
 the proletariat will deliver humanity from the night- 
 mare of religion." 4 
 
 Emile Vandervelde, the ablest of the Belgian Socialists : 
 "For the Roman Church religion is not merely a meta- 
 physical doctrine, but a political and social doctrine 
 whose dominant ideas are diametrically opposed to the 
 Socialist ideas." 5 
 
 1 "Landmarks of Scientific Socialism," pp. 256, 257; Chicago, 
 1907. 
 
 2 "Woman," p. 146; San Francisco, 1897. 
 
 8 "Philosophical Essays," p. 122; Chicago, 1906. 
 
 4 International Socialist Review, November, 1903, p. 293. 
 
 6 "Le Mouvement Socialiste," No. 113, p. 201.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 189 
 
 Enrico Ferri, perhaps the most learned and widely 
 read of the Italian Socialists: "Socialism knows and 
 foresees that religious beliefs . . . are destined to perish 
 by atrophy with the extension of even elementary 
 scientific culture." 1 
 
 Robert Blatchford, who has been more widely read 
 than any other English Socialist: "The greatest curse 
 of humanity is ignorance. Religion, being based on 
 fixed authority, is naturally opposed to knowledge." 2 
 
 Belford Bax, also an Englishman, who has written 
 on religion and ethics from the viewpoint of Marxian 
 Socialism: "Lastly, one word on that singular hybrid, 
 the Christian Socialist. . . . The association of Chris- 
 tianism with any form of Socialism is a mystery, rivalling 
 the mysterious combination of ethical and other contra- 
 dictions in the Christian divinity itself." 3 
 
 George D. Herron, at one time a Congregationalist 
 minister : "The church of to-day sounds the lowest note 
 in human life. It is the most degrading of all our insti- 
 tutions, and the most brutalizing in its effects on the 
 common life. For Socialism to use it, to make terms 
 with it, or let it make approaches to the Socialist move- 
 ment, is for Socialism to take Judas to its bosom." 4 
 
 John Spargo, likewise a former Protestant clergyman, 
 the author of more Socialist productions than any other 
 man in the United States: "The ethics of Christianity, 
 like its practices, are characterized by a monstrous 
 disregard of the common life. Christianity and tyranny 
 
 1 "Socialism and Modern Science," p. 63; Chicago, 1909. 
 
 * "God and My Neighbor," p. 195; Chicago, 1904. 
 8 "Ethics of Socialism," p. 52. 
 
 * The Worker, March 30, 1902.
 
 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 have for ages been firmly allied. The ethical teaching 
 of Jesus even was not Socialism; even His pure spirit 
 had no clear concept of that great common-life standard 
 which the race was destined to reach through centuries 
 of struggle and pain." 1 
 
 William English Walling, a very able American So- 
 cialist author: "We may slightly paraphrase Bebel's 
 statement above given, and say that the majority of 
 Socialists are firmly convinced that Socialism and modern 
 science must finally lead to a state of society where there 
 will be no room whatever for religion in any form." 2 
 Moreover, Mr. Walling declares in the same paragraph 
 that the overwhelming majority of Socialists believe 
 that religion will disappear without any violent attack, 
 and are working to "hasten that day." 
 
 Now, the leaders just cited, and others who take the 
 same attitude toward religion, are the makers of Socialist 
 literature. They have written books which are every- 
 where recognized as authoritative, which are read by 
 the more intelligent Socialists, and which through news- 
 papers, magazines, and speeches filter down to the rank 
 and file. 
 
 Consult, for example, the list of works advertised by 
 the chief Socialist publishing house in America, C. H. 
 Kerr & Co., in the pamphlet, "What to Read on Social- 
 ism," 3 and the books recommended in Socialist meet- 
 ings, and by Socialist writers, lecturers, and lecture 
 bureaus. 
 
 The prominence of antireligious statements and theo- 
 
 1 Editorial in The Comrade, May, 1903. 
 
 2 "The Larger Aspects of Socialism," p. 381 ; New York, 1913. 
 1 Chicago, 1911.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 191 
 
 ries in Socialist books naturally varies according to the 
 class of readers for which they are primarily intended. 
 In popular works like those of John Spargo, the shock 
 to the religious believer is reduced to a minimum. In 
 the more scientific and fundamental treatises, such as 
 those of Marx, Engels, Bebel, and Lafargue, the irre- 
 ligious implications of Socialist doctrine are presented in 
 all their repulsiveness. Speaking summarily, we are 
 justified in saying that practically all standard Socialist 
 books contain, explicitly or implicitly, some quantity 
 of irreligious materialism; that the most authoritative 
 and systematic of them (mostly from the German) are 
 saturated with it; and that the average religious be- 
 liever who reads sympathetically many of these books 
 is in imminent danger of either losing his faith or per- 
 verting it into something quite "undogmatic" and 
 meaningless. 
 
 "Unless it retires to one of the poles of the earth, 
 ecclesiastical hierarchy, like all other despotisms, will 
 soon be crowded off the earth." [ 
 
 "For us, we fear the enmity of the Church less than its 
 friendship, and this we should say equally of any other 
 church, or any other organization accepting the capital- 
 ist ideal." 2 
 
 "The very word Socialism embodies an ethical con- 
 cept infinitely higher than anything that organized reli- 
 gion has ever known. Nothing could well be more 
 dangerous than the no doubt well-meant attempts to 
 prove Socialism true by an appeal to religion." 3 
 
 1 The International Socialist Review, August, 1912, p. 118. 
 
 2 The Worker, May i, 1902. 
 * The Comrade, April, 1902.
 
 192 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 "To be sure, scientific Socialism has certain aspects 
 with which the Church must of necessity disagree." l 
 
 "It is characteristic of the Roman Church that it 
 keeps the masses in ignorance and bigotry, and thus in 
 submission to the ruling class." 2 
 
 Practically all Socialist magazines and newspapers 
 publish something of this sort occasionally. The more 
 popular periodicals contain less of it than those which 
 are designed for the educated and for persons confirmed 
 in the Socialist faith. Witness the difference in this re- 
 spect between the Appeal to Reason and the International 
 Socialist Review. Moreover, the newspapers present 
 anti-religious doctrine in a more indirect and diluted 
 form than the books. Nevertheless, the spirit of all of 
 them is quite other than the spirit of religion. 
 
 The oratorical expressions of the Socialist movement 
 seem to be irreligious in about the same degree as the 
 newspapers. During political campaigns the party 
 speakers refrain, as a rule, from utterances which are 
 specifically offensive to religious persons. At other times 
 statements of this character are fairly frequent, both 
 from the "soap box" and from the lecture platform. 
 
 The great majority of Socialists seem to be either 
 unfriendly to religion, or at least to have severed their 
 connection with the church and the synagogue. While 
 this statement is from the nature of the case incapable 
 of mathematical demonstration, it is so well established 
 by universal observation that no Socialist seriously at- 
 tempts to call it in question. So far as Catholics are 
 
 1 The Call, January 5, 1912. 
 
 * The Social Democratic Herald, August 12, 1912.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 193 
 
 concerned, I am certain that only an insignificant frac- 
 tion of those who become identified with the Socialist 
 movement remain loyal sons of the Church. Except 
 in an infinitesimal number of cases, they cannot truth- 
 fully assert that they have been "driven out of the 
 Church by the priest." They have been driven out, or 
 drawn out, by the irreligious teaching and influences 
 pervading the movement. In America, as in Europe, 
 the normal result of Catholic affiliation with Socialism 
 is that noted by the editor of Justice : * "Roman Cath- 
 olics, I gladly recognize, have become very good So- 
 cialists, but only on condition of becoming very bad 
 Catholics." 
 
 It is occasionally asserted by Socialists that the irre- 
 ligious utterances of the movement should not be charged 
 against the Socialist organization, any more than similar 
 expressions from prominent Democrats and Republicans 
 should be set down to the discredit of their respective 
 political parties. 
 
 But the cases are not parallel. In the first place, there 
 is a very great difference of proportion. Only a small 
 minority of the distinguished members of the old parties 
 are avowed atheists or agnostics, while practically all 
 the leaders of Socialism must be so classified. James 
 Leatham, a well-known English Socialist, writes : 
 
 "At the present moment I cannot remember a single 
 instance of a person who is at one and the same time a 
 really earnest and intelligent Socialist and an orthodox 
 Christian. . . . Marx, Lassalle, and Engels among 
 the earlier Socialists; Morris, Bax, Hyndman, Guesde, 
 and Bebel among present-day Socialists are all more 
 
 1 London, September 30, 1909. 
 o
 
 194 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 or less avowed atheists; and what is true of the more 
 notable men of the party is almost equally true of the 
 rank and file the world over." l 
 
 This statement is substantially applicable to the 
 United States. 
 
 In the second place, the Socialist leaders deliberately 
 connect their irreligion with their Socialism, and propa- 
 gate it in books and periodicals which are primarily 
 intended for the advocacy of Socialism. Their agnosti- 
 cism and their Socialism go hand in hand. 
 
 We are sometimes told that Socialism in the United 
 States shows very little of that antagonism to religion 
 which prevails on the Continent. This is a mistake. 
 Both the leaders and the literature of the American 
 movement are in harmony with the International Social- 
 ist position on this subject. Whatever minor differences 
 exist are of method, not of substance or spirit. The 
 opposition of American members of the party to religion 
 is apparently less outspoken, less crude, and less direct 
 than that of their European comrades ; but it is not less 
 positive, insidious, and menacing. A striking and con- 
 clusive proof of this view is found in the latest book of 
 Professor Rauschenbusch. 
 
 Speaking of American conditions, he declares that men 
 who draw their "democracy and moral order from Jesus" 
 have difficulty in cooperating with party Socialism. In 
 Socialist meetings they "find an almost universal attitude 
 of suspicion and dislike against the Church, which often 
 rises to downright hate and bitterness, and expands to 
 general antagonism against religion itself. The material- 
 
 1 "Socialism and Character," pp. 2, 3; London, 1897.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 195 
 
 istic philosophy of history, as the average Socialist ex- 
 pounds it, emphasizes the economic and material factors 
 of life so exclusively that the spiritual elements of hu- 
 manity seem as unimportant as the colouring of a flower 
 or the bloom on the grape. In large parts of the party 
 literature the social and economic teachings of Socialism 
 are woven through with a web of materialistic philosophy, 
 which is part of 'Scientific Socialism.' The party plat- 
 form declares religion to be a private matter, but that 
 declaration of neutrality does not exclude persistent at- 
 tacks on religion by official exponents of the party." l 
 
 Such is the experience and observation of a man who 
 desires economic Socialism, and the reconciliation of the 
 Socialist movement with religion, and whose conception 
 of the Christian Church would enable him to make very 
 liberal concessions of dogma to attain these ends. If 
 his religious sentiments are shocked by the spirit of the 
 Socialist movement in the United States, it is certain that 
 no orthodox Christian, surely no genuine Catholic, could 
 feel at home there. 
 
 The explanation offered by John Spargo of this con- 
 stant association of Socialism with irreligion is not at all 
 adequate. 2 While the founders of Modern Socialism did 
 attempt to erect it upon the teachings of science, which 
 in their time was supposed to be atheistic, this fact does 
 not fully account for the irreligious attitude of the So- 
 cialist leaders of to-day, when genuine science no longer 
 puts itself in opposition to religion. 
 
 Not science, but economic determinism must shoulder 
 the greater part of the responsibility. Thousands and 
 
 1 "Christianizing the Social Order," pp. 397, 398; New York, 1912. 
 
 2 "The Spiritual Significance of Modern Socialism," pp. 95, 96.
 
 1 96 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 thousands of men who have been drawn into the Socialist 
 movement by its economic proposals sooner or later 
 have found that their religious faith was incompatible 
 with a theory which reduces all social forces and changes 
 ultimately to economic and material causes, leaving no 
 place in the universe for the original and independent 
 action of spiritual forces, or for the existence of that dis- 
 tinct entity called a spiritual soul. The Socialist news- 
 paper, the New York Call, 1 stated the situation exactly 
 when it said: "The theory of economic determinism 
 alone, if thoroughly grasped, leaves no room for a belief 
 in the supernatural. " 
 
 The materialistic view of the universe and of life which 
 is implicit in this theory has not remained merely im- 
 plicit. It has been made quite explicit by the leaders 
 and scholars of the Socialist movement. They have 
 applied it specifically to the phenomenon of religion. 
 They have expressly declared that religion is a product 
 of economic conditions, that it changes with the changes 
 in these conditions, and that the present forms of religion 
 will disappear with the disappearance of the existing 
 economic system. Kautsky, Labriola, and Engels have 
 given considerable attention to this phase of economic 
 determinism. 
 
 According to Kautsky, Christianity arose as a move- 
 ment for social reform among the slaves and the prole- 
 tariat, but, owing to changes in economic and political 
 conditions, became a bulwark of the capitalist class. 2 
 Engels tries to show that mediaeval Catholicism was but 
 the religious reflex of feudalism ; that Lutheranism arose 
 
 1 March 2, 1911. 
 
 1 "Der Ursprung des Christentums," pp. 481, sq.; Stuttgart, 1910.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 197 
 
 when feudalism fell ; that Calvinism was the outgrowth 
 of republican ideas in Switzerland, Holland, and Scot- 
 land ; and that freethinking responded to the economico- 
 political conditions in France on the eve of the Revolu- 
 tion. 1 Finally, Christianity will go out of existence with 
 the downfall of Capitalism and private property. "If 
 our juridical, philosophical, and religious ideas are the 
 more or less remote offshots of the economical relations 
 prevailing in a given society, such ideas can not, in the 
 long run, withstand the effects of a complete change in 
 these relations." 2 
 
 How could a movement whose literature is permeated 
 by such explanations of, and such an attitude toward, 
 religion be otherwise than irreligious ? 
 
 If there be any intelligent student of Socialism who 
 honestly thinks that it is merely an economic theory, 
 or who hopes that the Socialist State is likely to be in- 
 stituted and maintained in conformity with the tradi- 
 tional principles of religion and morals, he will be con- 
 strained to accept the following suggestions as entirely 
 reasonable from the viewpoint of the Christian and the 
 Theist : 
 
 Let Socialists eliminate from their postulates, princi- 
 ples, and propaganda every element which is contrary 
 to the traditional teaching on morals and religion. This 
 will mean repudiation of the theory of economic deter- 
 minism in so far as the theory implies materialism in 
 philosophy, relativity in ethics, and in religion agnosti- 
 cism. 
 
 1 Feuerbach, "The Roots of Socialist Philosophy," pp. 121-124. 
 
 2 "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific," Introduction, p. xxxvii.
 
 198 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 It will mean that they will no longer defend confisca- 
 tion and "love unions," nor make the working-class and 
 the Socialist State the supreme standard of morality, 
 nor teach that the principles of morality are essentially 
 variable. 
 
 It will mean the cessation of their antagonism toward 
 religion, and of their attempts to explain the origin and 
 development of religion on social and economic grounds. 
 
 It will mean that capitalists whose property is to be 
 taken by the Socialist State are to receive full compensa- 
 tion, and that no industry which is not a natural monop- 
 oly is to be operated by the State until experience has 
 proved that the latter is more efficient than private en- 
 terprise. 
 
 How can Socialists accomplish this task of elimination, 
 expurgation, and purification? By a method that is 
 elementary in its simplicity. Let the Socialist party in 
 national convention formally repudiate all the printed 
 works which contain teaching contrary to the doctrines 
 and proposals advocated in the last four paragraphs; 
 or let it appoint a committee charged with the duty of 
 relentlessly expurgating from the approved books and 
 pamphlets everything but the economic arguments and 
 proposals of Socialism. Let the convention solemnly 
 condemn beforehand all periodicals, writers, and speakers 
 who refuse to conform to the new policy ; and let it com- 
 mit the party to a programme of "socialization" by a 
 gradual process, through the method of competition 
 in all competitive industries, and with full compensation 
 to all capitalists whose property is taken over by the 
 Socialist State. 
 
 Only through formal action of this kind can the Social-
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 199 
 
 ist movement purge itself of responsibility for anti- 
 religious and immoral teaching, or become a purely 
 economic organization and agency. When this has 
 been done, and the new policy in good faith enforced, 
 religious opposition to Socialism will probably cease. 
 Until it has been done, no such result can be expected 
 by any intelligent man who is honest in his thinking. 
 
 II. SOCIALISM is NON-RELIGIOUS 
 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 Dr. Ryan in substance charges the Socialist movement 
 with irreconcilable hostility to all forms of religion and 
 maintains that a Socialist order of society would be in- 
 compatible with the observance of true religious practices. 
 
 To what extent, if any, can the charge be sustained ? 
 
 At the outset it cannot be too strongly emphasized 
 that the organized Socialist movement as such is not 
 hostile to religion. Nor is it friendly to it. It is entirely 
 neutral in all matters of religious belief. 
 
 "Religion is a private matter," proclaims the Erfurt 
 Programme, adopted by the German Social Democracy 
 in 1891, and the Socialist Party of the United States as 
 late as 1908 made the still more specific declaration : 
 "The Socialist Party represents primarily an economic 
 and political movement. It is not concerned with 
 matters of religious belief." 
 
 That these party declarations mean precisely what 
 they say appears abundantly from the testimony of the 
 most authoritative spokesmen of the Socialist movement. 
 
 Dr. Anton Pannekoek, an influential and accepted
 
 200 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 modern writer on Socialism, states the proposition most 
 tersely and cogently when he observes : 
 
 "We Socialists consider religion as a private concern 
 of each individual, and we demand that the state shall 
 take the same position. This demand proves clearly 
 that the assertion of the clergy that we wish to abolish 
 religion is simply a deception and slander. The plat- 
 form plank, Religion is a private matter, clearly ex- 
 presses that fundamental character of our movement by 
 which it may be distinguished from all earlier revolu- 
 tionary mass movements. We do not inquire into per- 
 sonal views ; we do not demand any profession of faith ; 
 we insist only on cooperation in our practical aims. Our 
 aim is a definite, material transformation of society, a 
 different regulation of labour, the substitution of the Socialist 
 mode of production for the capitalist system. Nothing 
 else. Anybody who wants to cooperate with us for the 
 attainment of this aim is welcome as a comrade-in-arms, 
 regardless of his philosophic, religious, or other personal 
 views. Our aims bear no relation to religion they 
 move in entirely different spheres. " * 
 
 Wilhelm Liebknecht elucidates the party declaration 
 of neutrality in the following instructive language : 
 
 "Socialism as such has absolutely nothing to do with 
 religion. Every man has the right to think and believe 
 what he will, and no man has the right to molest another 
 in his thoughts or beliefs or to place him at a disadvan- 
 tage on their account. . . . Opinions and beliefs must 
 be free. We, as Socialists, must respect them, and those 
 Socialists who respect the sincerity of the beliefs of their 
 fellow-men will also avoid scoffing at them." 
 
 1 " Die Abschaffung des Eigentums, des Staates und der Religion."
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 2OI 
 
 The absolute tolerance of the Socialist movement 
 toward all religious beliefs makes it possible for many 
 of its adherents to combine deep religious convictions 
 and even devout Church practices with whole-hearted 
 participation in the practical struggles of Socialism. 
 "One may well be a good Christian, and still feel the 
 warmest sympathy for the class struggle of the prole- 
 tariat," attests Karl Kautsky, the foremost living ex- 
 ponent of Marxian Socialism. And he adds: "The 
 organization of the militant working-class, the Socialist 
 party, has not the slightest ground to reject such ele- 
 ments, if they are able and willing to fight the class 
 struggle in our way. " l 
 
 But these explicit statements do not satisfy Dr. Ryan. 
 Following the example of most clerical opponents of 
 Socialism, he goes "behind the record," and seeks to 
 palliate the force of the unambiguous Socialist declara- 
 tions by ingenious interpretations and arguments. He 
 contends that the accepted Socialist philosophy, and par- 
 ticularly the Marxian doctrine of economic determinism, 
 are inherently incompatible with religious beliefs, and 
 that a large majority of Socialists are agnostics or atheists. 
 
 These conclusions are based on aprioristic reasoning, 
 unverifiable general observations, alleged but unrecorded 
 speeches, and fragmentary utterances of Socialist writers. 
 They are rendered plausible by a somewhat indiscrimi- 
 nate use of terms. 
 
 Throughout the discussion my opponent employs the 
 expressions Religion, Christianity, and Church inter- 
 changeably and without any attempt to define or differ- 
 entiate them. But such a differentiation is very essen- 
 
 1 "Die Sozialdemokratie und die Katholische Kirche."
 
 202 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 tial for a fair and just statement of the Socialist atti- 
 tude. 
 
 Probably no other word in our language is so vague 
 and elastic as Religion. In the attempted definitions of 
 the term the most authoritative dictionaries and stand- 
 ard theological works present an almost hopeless con- 
 fusion of ideas, through which, however, two main con- 
 ceptions may be roughly distinguished. The first, which 
 we shall designate as the idealistic or philosophic concep- 
 tion, defines religion as any belief in a universal and 
 superhuman force; any acceptance of a great ethical 
 principle, and even any faith in a high social ideal. 
 
 The second or dogmatic school of theology is much 
 more concrete in its conceptions, and defines religion as 
 the belief in and ritualistic worship of a personal God 
 as the conscious and intelligent creator of the universe 
 and the deliberate guide and judge of our individual 
 actions and destinies. 
 
 The term Christianity is somewhat less vague than 
 Religion, but like the latter it also stands for two widely 
 different meanings. As a general belief in the moral 
 doctrines and practices of Jesus, Christianity is a branch 
 of what we have designated as idealistic religion; but 
 as a literal belief in the rigid body of Church doctrines 
 attaching to the term it is but a particular form of "dog- 
 matic" religion, one of its many other similar forms, 
 past and present. 
 
 The term Church is not synonymous with either Re- 
 ligion or Christianity. It is a concrete and material 
 institution with an organization, history, and policy 
 of its own, and must be judged by different standards 
 than either religion or Christianity.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 203 
 
 There is obviously no antagonism or inconsistency 
 between the Socialist philosophy and the various ethical 
 and philosophic systems which we have designated as 
 idealistic religions. In fact, Socialism has itself often 
 been called a religion in that sense. But even the rigid 
 Catholic conception of religion does not always seem to 
 be incompatible with the doctrine of Marxian Socialism, 
 including the much-maligned theory of economic de- 
 terminism. 
 
 One of the best works in English in defence of the 
 economic interpretation of history comes from the pen 
 of a prominent and orthodox Catholic priest. This 
 scholarly book is entitled "History of Economics, or 
 Economics as a Factor in the Making of History," and 
 its author is the Reverend J. A. Dewe, late Professor of 
 the Catholic College of St. Thomas in St. Paul. It is 
 published by Benziger Brothers, "printers to the Holy 
 Apostolic See," and its fly-leaf bears the indispensable 
 "Nihil Obstat" of the Catholic book censor as well as the 
 official Imprimatur of Archbishop, now Cardinal, John 
 M. Farley. 
 
 The summary of the author's economic and historical 
 views, contained in his introduction, reads like a page 
 from Frederick Engels. "It is evident," says the Rever- 
 end Dewe, "that economics must have an almost un- 
 bounded influence on human conduct, both public and 
 private. For the great majority spend the greater part 
 of their time either in producing or distributing wealth, 
 and, from the point of view of extension, the time that an 
 ordinary man has to employ in earning his daily bread 
 is greater than that which he can possibly expend in ex- 
 plicit acts of religion. This all-pervading activity of
 
 204 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 economics is still more apparent in the state or common- 
 wealth. In the whole course of ancient and modern his- 
 tory there is scarcely any single important political event 
 that has not been caused, either directly or indirectly, by 
 some economic influence. Religion and physical causes 
 may also have been present, but the economic factor seems 
 to have been the most constant and the most pervasive." 1 
 
 Evidently Professor J. A. Dewe disagrees with the 
 assertion of his colleague John A. Ryan that the theory 
 of economic determinism contradicts the belief of every 
 Christian, and, what is particularly interesting to note, 
 Professor Dewe's views seem to have the official sanction 
 of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Still I am inclined to believe that the majority of 
 Socialists find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile 
 their general philosophic views with the doctrines and 
 practices of dogmatic religious creeds. In that sense my 
 opponent is perhaps justified in asserting that the So- 
 cialist party contains a larger proportion of "agnostics" 
 than either the Republican or the Democratic party. . 
 
 But Dr. Ryan is entirely in the wrong when he points 
 to the Marxian philosophy, and particularly to the theory 
 of economic determinism, as the specific source of the 
 non-orthodox religious views of the average Socialist. 
 Orthodox and dogmatic religious beliefs and formalistic 
 religious practices are as inconsistent with any other 
 scientific system of social or philosophic thought as 
 they are with Marxism, and the "irreligion" of the So- 
 cialists is neither greater nor less than the "irreligion" 
 of the average enlightened person who has been trained 
 in the methods of contemporaneous thought and who 
 1 The Italics are mine.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 205 
 
 accepts the conclusions of modern science. The only 
 reason why the type of the "agnostic" occurs more fre- 
 quently in the Socialist movement than in the ranks of 
 the old political parties is that the average Socialist is 
 better instructed and more independent in his thinking 
 than the average Republican or Democratic voter. 
 
 Dr. Ryan assures us that to-day "genuine science no 
 longer puts itself in opposition to religion" ; but unfor- 
 tunately he fails to specify the sciences which he con- 
 siders "genuine," or to define the term religion in this 
 bold sentence. If he has in mind the more modern and 
 rather vague idealistic conceptions of religion, then I 
 repeat that Socialism also does not "put itself in opposi- 
 tion " to it ; but if he refers to the more orthodox and 
 cruder forms of religious belief, I know of no pact of rec- 
 onciliation between them and modern sciences. 
 
 "Genuine" modern science shows no inclination to 
 compromise with traditional dogmatic theology, and the 
 conflict between the two world views is sharpest where 
 the latter exerts its strongest sway. Thus Italy, Spain, 
 and France, the strongholds of Catholicism, are also the 
 seats of the most aggressive and militant atheism. The 
 Socialist movement in those countries likewise presents 
 a much larger proportion of agnostics than it does in the 
 United States and in other countries of modernized liberal 
 creeds. In this it merely reflects the general state of 
 the enlightened public mind in precisely the same way 
 as any other advanced section of the population no 
 more and no less. 
 
 The attitude of the average individual Socialist toward 
 Religion and Christianity may thus be said to be identical
 
 206 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 with the attitude of the average non-Socialist of similar 
 state of general enlightenment. What are his relations 
 to the Church as an organization distinct from the gen- 
 eral institutions of Religion or Christianity ? 
 
 As a rule, these relations must be admitted to be 
 rather strained, and I believe Dr. Ryan's observation 
 that the majority of Socialists "seem to have severed 
 their connection with the Church" contains a large 
 element of truth. Not alone the Socialist movement, but 
 organized labour all over the world seems to develop an 
 ever growing sentiment of distrust and suspicion toward 
 the Church. And the responsibility for that attitude 
 rests entirely with the Church, and particularly with its 
 social and economic attitude and activities. 
 
 For the Church has undergone very radical changes 
 within the nineteen centuries since its original founda- 
 tion. Born as a revolt of the lowly and disinherited 
 against the oppression of the rich and powerful of the 
 world, it had for several centuries remained the true and 
 class-conscious organization of the proletariat for their 
 mutual economic protection and social salvation. The 
 primitive Christian community at Jerusalem was, in the 
 testimony of St. Luke, a purely communistic institution, 
 in which all members "who were possessed of lands or 
 houses sold them, and brought the price of the things 
 that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' 
 feet ; and distribution was made to every man according 
 as he had need. " 
 
 Throughout the first centuries of our era the fathers 
 of the Church, following the example of their Master, 
 condemned the wealthy as "robbers of the poor" and 
 championed the right of all human beings to the earth
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 207 
 
 and the fruits thereof. It was owing to this proletarian 
 and revolutionary character of the primitive Christian 
 Church that it grew and expanded into a world power ; 
 and when it had attained that power, it fell. The Chris- 
 tian Church never had a concrete social and economic 
 programme. Its teachings were purely abstract, purely 
 ethical. Its sole social significance lay in its negative 
 expression of revolt ; and when the shrewd ruling classes 
 of the Roman Empire, under Constantine, turned per- 
 secution into favour, and elevated Christianity to the 
 dignity of a State and court religion, they drew the fangs 
 from the dangerous movement. The meaningless form 
 was preserved, but the living substance was destroyed. 
 
 Official Christianity was reduced to a set of formalistic 
 practices and deprived of its great social significance. 
 And the Church as the material representative of domi- 
 nant Christianity became itself a dominant and oppress- 
 ing social and economic organization. In the Middle 
 Ages the social position of the clergy is quite akin to 
 that of the nobility. It is an exploiting class. It owns 
 lands and costly edifices and untold treasures. It em- 
 ploys labourers and armies and taxes the people. It vies 
 with kings and princes for temporal power and often 
 outdoes them in worldly splendour. Of the spirit and 
 traditions of its early teaching and practices remains 
 nothing but the dry skeleton of formal almsgiving. 
 
 In modern times the Church has been shorn of much 
 of its temporal power, but it has remained the steadfast 
 ally and the loyal apologist of the classes in power, and 
 the determined foe of the common people. Every form 
 of political tyranny and social and economic oppression 
 has invariably had its spiritual support and pastoral
 
 208 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 blessing. Every effort of the downtrodden to lift their 
 heads has infallibly met with its stern rebuke. Serfdom 
 and slavery were sanctioned by the Church as God- 
 ordained institutions. The brutal and rapacious feudal 
 lord was acclaimed by it as the "soldier of Christ," and 
 the autocratic tyrant as the "anointed of God." The 
 struggles of the nations for political liberty in the eigh- 
 teenth century and the American antislavery movement 
 in the earlier half of the nineteenth century were com- 
 bated by the Church as wicked, and so, on the whole, are 
 the modern struggles of the workers for economic justice. 
 
 The Church can be relied on to take the employer's 
 side in every important labour struggle. It counsels 
 "Christian" resignation and preaches to the exploited 
 workers the paralyzing and immoral gospel of servile sub- 
 mission. It hates and execrates all revolts against the 
 ruling classes, and that is the true reason for its em- 
 bittered war against Socialism, the most radical and 
 potent expression of the modern working-class revolt. 
 
 It is not true that the strenuous anti-Socialist agita- 
 tion of the Catholic Church was inspired by the alleged 
 "immorality" or "irreligion" of the movement. The 
 Catholic Church remains indifferent and inactive in the 
 face of the most shocking spread of prostitution, white 
 slavery, and all forms of moral degeneracy, as well as 
 to the rankest manifestations of atheism, so long as they 
 do not endanger the material power of the dominant 
 classes. The Catholic Church cares little for morality 
 per se. Its active and aggressive attacks are always 
 directed against liberating movements, and the charges 
 of immorality and irreligion are its invariable weapons 
 of warfare in such cases.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 209 
 
 Of course, this rule, as all rules, does not operate with- 
 out exceptions. All modern movements for human up- 
 lift have had the active and enthusiastic support of some, 
 often many, high-minded ministers of the Church. 
 But they have been the exception ; and, particularly in 
 the case of Catholic priests, the exceptional and anoma- 
 lous position of clerical champions of popular liberty has 
 often been accentuated by severe discipline from the 
 Mother Church. 
 
 And still I should advise my good Catholic comrades 
 in the Socialist and labour movement not to take the 
 attacks of their Church too much to heart. For just as 
 the Church has ever opposed every progressive and 
 revolutionary movement, just so has it uniformly recon- 
 ciled itself with those movements in the hours of their 
 triumph and victory. The Catholic Church seems quite 
 loyal in its support of republicanism, personal liberty, 
 and even religious freedom in all countries where these 
 privileges have been won, although it had bitterly op- 
 posed all these institutions before their establishment, 
 and still opposes them in countries of monarchical form 
 of government and backward social organizations. It 
 is therefore quite within the realm of the possible that 
 when the Socialist movement shall have attained its 
 object, and the Socialist commonwealth shall be an ac- 
 complished fact, the Catholic Church will confer on it 
 its belated blessings, and proclaim it the only God- 
 ordained social order. 
 
 I have thus met the attacks and answered the argu- 
 ments of my opponent as fully and frankly as I could. 
 But there still remains one phase of the subject, upon
 
 210 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 which Dr. Ryan has scarcely touched and which to my 
 mind is vastly more important for a proper evaluation 
 of the Socialist attitude toward religion than all the 
 points heretofore discussed. I mean the religious tolera- 
 tion of the organized Socialist movement and the prob- 
 able effect of the Socialist order on religious liberty. 
 For, after all, the private religious beliefs of individual 
 Socialists are of no greater importance or significance 
 than those of any other persons. The agnostic, the man 
 of philosophic religious beliefs, and the orthodox Catholic 
 face each other with different and conflicting views. 
 Who is right and who is wrong ? 
 
 My beliefs differ from those of Dr. Ryan. I think I 
 am right. Dr. Ryan is convinced that he is right. The 
 absolute or relative truth of our positions can only be 
 established by a free interchange of arguments and by 
 our respective ability to persuade the greatest number 
 of persons. Hence the important question is not, 
 whether and what the individual Socialists believe, but 
 whether the Socialist movement manifests an inclination 
 to interfere with religious organizations and propaganda, 
 and whether the "Socialist State" is likely to suppress or 
 curtail the freedom of religious beliefs, teachings, and 
 practices. 
 
 The organized Socialist movement has at all times 
 actively and consistently defended the absolute freedom 
 of religious beliefs and practices not only within its own 
 ranks as a matter of tactics, but within the community 
 at large as a matter of principle. The first definite test 
 presented itself to the young Social-Democracy of Ger- 
 many, when the government of the newly founded em- 
 pire under the reactionary leadership of Prince Bismarck
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 211 
 
 undertook to suppress the Catholic Church. Three bills 
 were submitted to the Reichstag. One to limit the 
 freedom of expression from the pulpit (1871) ; another, 
 to expel the Jesuit order from the country (1872) ; and 
 the third, to remove the education of priests from the 
 Church (1873). The Socialist deputies in the Reichstag 
 and the Socialist press and speakers outside of it fought 
 consistently and energetically against each and all of the 
 measures. 
 
 The Catholic Church is still one of the "religious 
 communities" officially recognized by the German gov- 
 ernment, but that does not always protect it from moles- 
 tation and persecution on the part of several constituent 
 States of the empire. In order to put an end to such 
 molestations and at the same time to preserve all 
 privileges arising from official state recognition, the Cath- 
 olic Church through its representatives in the Reichs- 
 tag (the "party of the Centre") introduced the so-called 
 "Toleration Bill" in 1900. The bill provided for "free- 
 dom of religious beliefs" in general terms, but demanded 
 very specifically the entire independence of the religious 
 communities recognized by the State. To this the Socialists 
 opposed an amendment calling for the absolute freedom 
 of convictions, beliefs, and religious practices for all 
 persons. In the final vote the Catholics cast their 
 strength against the Socialist proposal, while the Social- 
 ists unanimously voted in favour of the Catholic measure. 
 
 A still more recent test of the Socialist sincerity in the 
 matter of religious tolerance presented itself toward the 
 close of 1912, when the German government renewed 
 its attack on the Jesuit order in the shape of a rigid and 
 hostile interpretation of the anti-Jesuit laws of 1872,
 
 212 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 known as the " May laws." The attitude of the Social- 
 ists on that occasion is best told by some of the Ameri- 
 can Catholic publications. 
 
 The Catholic Telegraph of December 12, 1912, reports : 
 "In the situation which has arisen from the break be- 
 tween the government and the Catholic Centre over 
 the decision of the Bundesrath in a case affecting the 
 anti-Jesuit law, for which Dr. Spahn, the Catholic 
 leader, denounced the Imperial Chancellor in the Reichs- 
 tag, the ministry has resorted to the unprecedented 
 step of inviting the Social Democrats to make common 
 cause against the Catholic Centre, which was formerly 
 part of the government bloc. 
 
 "The Centre, with the aid of the allied (sic) Socialists 
 have 200 votes [the Socialists no, the Centre only about 
 90. M. H.] or a full majority of the Reichstag, and 
 can obstruct the voting of the supply bill and clog all 
 other wheels of legislation. . . . 
 
 "The government's appeal to the Socialists will ap- 
 parently fall on deaf ears." 
 
 "'It would be a mesalliance and is not to be dreamed 
 of,' says Eduard Bernstein, the Socialist writer and one 
 of the leaders in the Reichstag. 'All our traditions ex- 
 clude such a combination.'" 
 
 The Catholic Tribune of the same date informs its 
 readers that "a Socialist speaker assured the Centre of 
 his party's support." 
 
 From all of which it follows not only that the Social- 
 ists are absolutely consistent and sincere in their profes- 
 sion of religious tolerance, but also that the Catholic 
 Church may occasionally find them highly reliable and 
 desirable political "allies."
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 213 
 
 The modern Socialist movement has thus demon- 
 strated its broad-minded religious tolerance by word 
 and deed. Is there any good reason to apprehend that 
 an established Socialist State would be less tolerant or 
 that its existence would be incompatible with the con- 
 tinuance of religious practices? 
 
 Socialism, on the one hand, demands the complete 
 separation of State and Church, and, on the other, it 
 stands for absolute religious liberty. These two funda- 
 mental principles determine the attitude which the 
 Socialist State must take on religion and worship. It is 
 safe to predict that a Socialist administration will confer 
 no special rights, privileges, or exemptions on the 
 Church, nor will it give it official sanction or recognition. 
 On the other hand, it will not interfere in the slightest 
 degree with its existence, teachings, and practices. 
 
 The Church will thus be a free and voluntary associa- 
 tion of persons entertaining similar religious beliefs, and 
 will be supported and maintained by the private con- 
 tributions of such persons. The extent of its strength 
 and influence will depend entirely on the measure in 
 which it satisfies the spiritual requirements of the popu- 
 lation. Will the Church stand that test? Will Chris- 
 tianity survive under those conditions? 
 
 Dr. Ryan asserts that in the conception of the Marxian 
 Socialist "Christianity will go out of existence with the 
 downfall of capitalism and private property." This 
 prediction may be quite plausible from the point of view 
 of those who consider Christianity as a mere "bulwark 
 of the capitalist class." But surely the forecast cannot 
 be accepted by true believers, who hold that Christianity 
 is an independent and absolute force capable of surviving
 
 214 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 all political and economic changes. There is, therefore, 
 no reason why a good Catholic should have any mis- 
 givings about the fate of Christianity under a Socialist 
 regime unless his faith is not as strong as it might be. 
 
 Dr. Ryan concludes his able article with what he terms 
 an "entirely reasonable" proposition to the Socialist 
 movement. The proposition is indeed quite "elemen- 
 tary in its simplicity." All my opponent requests is 
 that the Socialists forswear all views contrary to the 
 "traditional" teachings of morals and religion; that 
 they abandon the doctrines of Marxian philosophy and a 
 substantial part of their practical programme. In return 
 for these slight concessions he holds out the promise, or 
 rather prospect, that "religious opposition to Socialism 
 will probably cease." 
 
 I regret my inability to accept the friendly invitation 
 on behalf of the Socialist movement. Socialism has 
 succeeded exceedingly well with its present philosophy 
 and methods. Since the days when the movement 
 ceased to represent a mere pious and philanthropic sen- 
 timent and became a militant organization of the work- 
 ing-class based on the radical social and economic phi- 
 losophy of Karl Marx, it has grown from a handful of 
 dreamers into a potent international army of many mil- 
 lions, a modern social factor more powerful than the 
 powerful Catholic Church. It has grown in spite of 
 political persecution and "religious opposition," per- 
 haps even to a certain extent on account of them. It 
 is therefore quite unlikely that the Socialist movement 
 will at this time change its philosophy and tactics to 
 suit my amiable opponent.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 215 
 
 But if suggestions are in order, I may in my turn 
 offer one to Dr. Ryan, which is likewise "elemental in its 
 simplicity " : 
 
 Let the Catholic Church dissolve its un-Christian 
 partnership with the rich and powerful of this world ; 
 let it abandon its persistent opposition to all organized 
 efforts of the poor for social and economic betterment ; 
 let it cease to interfere with political and class struggles, 
 to which it is not a party and on which it is not com- 
 petent to speak ; let it cast aside its pomp and splendour, 
 its mundane ambitions and greed for power ; let it return 
 to the spirit and practices of the lowly Nazarene ; in a 
 word, let it limit itself to its legitimate functions within 
 the spiritual sphere of life, and I can assure Dr. Ryan in 
 positive terms that when this has been done, all an- 
 tagonism between the Socialist movement and the Church 
 will cease forever. 
 
 III. REJOINDER 
 
 BY DR. RYAN 
 
 In his reply to my main article, Mr. Hillquit com- 
 plains that I "go behind the record" of the Socialist 
 platforms in order to get the attitude of the movement 
 toward religion. Yet he does that very thing himself. 
 Of the three writers whom he cites in his vain effort to 
 show that "the party declarations mean precisely what 
 they say," one, Kautsky, is a rather unfortunate selec- 
 tion. My opponent has omitted an important qualify- 
 ing sentence which intervened between the two that he 
 quotes from Kautsky ; stranger still, he has neglected to 
 inform us that, in the second edition of the pamphlet
 
 2l6 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 from which the quotation is taken, the great German 
 Socialist corrected his statement thus : 1 
 
 "As many letters addressed to me have shown that 
 this sentence has been misunderstood, I do not think it 
 out of place to remark that I do not view as possible the 
 union of Christianity with Social Democracy as a political 
 party in the sense that it is possible to arrive at a full 
 understanding of Socialism from the standpoint of Chris- 
 tianity. . . . The acceptance of a personal God (and 
 an impersonal God is a meaningless word) and of per- 
 sonal immortality is incompatible with the present stage 
 of scientific knowledge in general, of which scientific 
 Socialism is a part which cannot be severed from the 
 whole." 
 
 The other two authors, Pannekoek and Liebknecht, 
 do assert that religion is not among the concerns of 
 Socialism. But how can we know whether they are 
 not moved by purely "tactical" considerations, quite as 
 Arthur Morrow Lewis and other delegates to the Chicago 
 convention of 1908 finally voted for the religious-neu- 
 trality plank, although they had in the course of the 
 debate denounced it as a lie ? 
 
 At any rate, Mr. Hillquit's "abundant testimony" 
 comes from only two persons, while the contrary expres- 
 sions that I have cited represent more than a dozen 
 authorities. Mr. Hillquit, indeed, calls these expressions 
 "fragmentary utterances," but he probably will not 
 deny that they reflect adequately the mind of their 
 authors. Any reader who may be disposed to question 
 their value should consult the contexts from which they 
 have been taken. 
 1 See "The Larger Aspects of Socialism," by W. E. Walling, p. 389.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 217 
 
 My opponent introduces an elaborate but wholly un- 
 necessary discussion of the different meanings of religion 
 and its cognate terms, Christianity and Church. I 
 never denied that the Socialist philosophy is compatible 
 with what he calls "idealistic religion," which may mean 
 merely "an ethical principle," "a philosophical system," 
 or even "Socialism itself" ! Throughout the discussion 
 I have, quite obviously, employed the term religion 
 in its ordinary and easily understood sense: belief in 
 and submission to a personal God, the Creator and Moral 
 Ruler of the Universe. To religion in this proper ac- 
 ceptation, and not in the sense of some colourless ideal, I 
 have maintained, and still maintain, that the Socialist 
 movement is antagonistic. 
 
 The two paragraphs which my opponent quotes from 
 a book by the Reverend J. A. Dewe, to prove that this 
 excellent and able priest does not find the theory of 
 economic determinism incompatible with his Christian 
 beliefs, are not at all to the point. Father Dewe merely 
 says that economic factors exercise "almost unbounded 
 influence on human conduct," and have been "the most 
 constant and most pervasive causes" of events in the 
 particular field of politics. Neither of these statements 
 is equivalent to the assertion that economic factors ulti- 
 mately determine all social conduct, conditions, institu- 
 tions, and beliefs, or that such non-economic factors 
 as religion, ethics, law, etc., are merely derived and 
 instrumental causes of social events and changes. This 
 is economic determinism as described by my opponent 
 in his paper on Socialist Philosophy. This, and nothing 
 less than this, is economic determinism as understood 
 by orthodox Socialists.
 
 2l8 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Father Dewe does not deny the original and inde- 
 pendent activity and causality of religious and ethical 
 factors, nor the existence of the distinct spiritual entity 
 called the soul. Therefore, he is not correctly classed 
 as a believer in the Socialist theory of economic deter- 
 minism. Indeed, if allowance be made for his some- 
 what imprecise and hyperbolic language, his view of 
 economic causality does not differ substantially from 
 mine, as stated more than once in the last two chapters. 
 Yet my opponent has not honoured me with a place 
 among the adherents of economic determinism. 
 
 After all, it seems that Mr. Hillquit has been merely 
 exercising his dialectic skill and indulging his sense of 
 humour; for he immediately faces about, and admits 
 substantially that my position is correct. Here are his 
 own words: "Still I am inclined to believe that the 
 majority of Socialists find it difficult, if not impossible, 
 to reconcile their general philosophic views with the 
 doctrines and practices of dogmatic religious creeds." 
 In the interest of strict accuracy, I should like to amend 
 this sentence by introducing the word "vast" before the 
 word "majority." 
 
 According to my opponent, the irreligion of the 
 Socialist is not greater than that of the person who 
 "accepts the conclusions of modern science"; conse- 
 quently, it is not due specifically to the Marxian philos- 
 ophy. 
 
 I repeat that genuine science is not in opposition to 
 religion, to orthodox, dogmatic religion. By science I 
 mean the group of natural, empirical disciplines, such as 
 chemistry, biology, physics, physiology, experimental
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 219 
 
 psychology, astronomy, geology. When we inquire 
 whether science, thus understood, is consistent with 
 religion, we may have in mind either the principles and 
 conclusions of science, or the religious attitude of the 
 scientists. 
 
 Inasmuch as science deals only with those facts that 
 come under the observation of the senses, and with the 
 uniformities or laws which are disclosed by such obser- 
 vation, it cannot as such know anything of or assume any 
 attitude toward ultimate causes or suprasensible reali- 
 ties. The latter lie entirely beyond the field of science, 
 and constitute the province of philosophy and theology. 
 From the very nature of the situation it is evident that 
 there can be no conflict between religion and science 
 objectively considered. 
 
 Nevertheless some scientists have gone beyond their 
 proper field, and have attempted to interpret as philoso- 
 phers the ultimate meaning of the phenomena that they 
 have observed and the laws that they have formulated. 
 They have speculated about God and immortality. 
 Have their opinions on these ultra-scientific problems 
 tended to support the assertion or assumption that the 
 scientists are irreligious? 
 
 The great majority of the ablest and most authorita- 
 tive men of science have found no inconsistency between 
 their scientific opinions and the principles of orthodox 
 religion. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Galvani, Volta, 
 Ampere, Cuvier, Pasteur, Herschell, Maxwell, Dana, 
 Lessen, Mendel, Saint-Hilaire, Romanes, Kelvin, Vir- 
 chow, Wallace, Wundt, Lodge, and a host of others, 
 were or are believers in God and hi the theistic inter- 
 pretation of the universe. Among scientists of the first
 
 220 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 rank, that is, the men who have made important dis- 
 coveries and enlarged the bounds of human knowledge, 
 the deniers of God constitute an extremely small minority. 
 Mr. Hillquit will find these statements supported by a 
 great mass of positive and detailed evidence in a book 
 recently published in London, entitled "Religious Belief 
 of Scientists," by Arthur H. Tabrun. 
 
 To be sure, the popularizers of science, the men who 
 have themselves investigated little and discovered noth- 
 ing, have been in a considerable proportion unbelievers. 
 Hence they have contrived to create the impression in 
 the superficial and uncritical part of the reading public 
 that religion and science are mutually opposed. But 
 they are not scientists, nor are their irreligious specula- 
 tions within the field of science. 
 
 Had my opponent merely declared that Socialist irre- 
 ligion was due in great part to the general irreligion and 
 scepticism of the last century and a half, he would have 
 been on safe ground. A very large proportion of So- 
 cialists had adopted the views of the atheistic popu- 
 larizers of science, and the opinions of other sceptical 
 writers, before they became Socialists. Once within the 
 movement, however, they found their previously acquired 
 irreligion quite in harmony with Socialist philosophy. 
 Hence the latter constitutes the main reason why the 
 average Socialist cannot be other than an agnostic or 
 an atheist, so long as he remains in the Socialist move- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit admits that the relations between the 
 average Socialist and the Church are "rather strained," 
 but puts the blame for this entirely upon the latter. In
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 221 
 
 the attempt to substantiate this contention, he pro- 
 nounces a somewhat lengthy and virulent tirade against 
 the Church. 
 
 I shall refrain from a formal reply. First, because the 
 explanation of Socialist antagonism to the Church is 
 sufficiently obvious in Socialist antagonism to religion. 
 There is no need to look for an additional cause. Second, 
 because Mr. Hillquit correctly stated the policy upon 
 which we had agreed when he declared in his first paper 
 that "the Catholic Church is not at issue in this debate." 
 Third, because the space at my disposal is insufficient 
 for an adequate reply to a series of assertions which 
 cover nineteen centuries of history. Fourth, because 
 such a reply would be in one sense useless, and in another 
 sense superfluous. It would be useless as addressed to 
 prejudiced persons, and to all persons who are satisfied 
 with aprioristic history. It would be superfluous in the 
 eyes of all those readers who try to get their historical 
 views exclusively from a study of facts; for these will 
 realize that of the thirty-five sentences in my opponent's 
 attack, twenty-one are the direct reverse of the truth, 
 twelve are a caricature of the truth, and only two are 
 unadulterated truth. 
 
 The instances which Mr. Hillquit cites from the his- 
 tory of the German parliament prove nothing more 
 than that the Socialist party defended freedom of asso- 
 ciation in Germany. This was elementary prudence in a 
 country in which their own associational liberty was con- 
 stantly endangered by the government. It proves noth- 
 ing with regard to the general attitude of the Socialist 
 movement toward adequate and genuine religious free-
 
 222 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 dom and religious toleration. "Separation of Church 
 and State" and "absolute religious liberty" are beautiful 
 shibboleths, but we desire to know just how they are 
 interpreted by the Socialists before we accept them as 
 guarantees of fundamental religious rights. 
 
 We know that they have been interpreted hi the 
 "Erfurt Programme" as excluding the right to main- 
 tain religious private schools. 1 We know that they were 
 interpreted by the Socialist groups in the French parlia- 
 ment as permitting militant assistance to the govern- 
 ment in its work of despoiling the Church, driving out 
 the religious congregations, and attempting to enslave 
 the Church by the odious "law of associations." We 
 know that there is not a country on the Continent in 
 whose parliament the Socialists have shown themselves 
 willing to allow the Church that measure of religious 
 freedom which she enjoys in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit is quite right in assuming that good 
 Catholics have no "misgivings about the fate of Chris- 
 tianity under a Socialist regime." Christianity has 
 survived much greater perils. However, that is no 
 reason for being indifferent to Socialism. All good 
 Americans know that we could subdue Mexico, but 
 sensible Americans do not contemplate with compla- 
 cency the prospect of a war with that country. 
 
 After all, the probable attitude of a Socialist regime 
 toward religion and religious liberty is a question of 
 quite minor importance. No such regime is going to 
 
 1 See Liebknecht's statements to this effect in the very paragraph 
 in which he declares that Socialism is not concerned with religion : "So- 
 cialism : What It Is and What It Seeks to Accomplish," p. 58.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 223 
 
 be set up by any enlightened nation. What is of serious 
 consequence is the fact that the Socialist movement of 
 to-day is an active and far-reaching influence for the 
 spread of irreligion among large sections of the popula- 
 tion in many countries. 
 
 This is the phase of the situation which gives genuine 
 concern to all friends of religion. 
 
 When I suggested that Socialism purge itself of its 
 non-economic elements, I had no idea that the plan would 
 prove acceptable to my opponent. My only object in 
 offering it was to demonstrate the bad faith or the gross 
 ignorance of those members of the party who assert 
 that Socialism is a "purely economic system." Since 
 Mr. Hillquit refuses to countenance the elimination of a 
 single one of the philosophical, ethical, or religious doc- 
 trines and implications of the movement, he cannot 
 reasonably expect a discontinuance of opposition from 
 the Church. The doctrines in question do not lose their 
 pestiferous character merely because they are propagated 
 in connection with Socialism. 
 
 Obviously the Church cannot accept the "counter 
 suggestion" made by my opponent at the close of his 
 paper. In the first place, she cannot recede from posi- 
 tions which she does not occupy, such as "partnership 
 with the rich," and opposition to social betterment. 
 In the second place, the defence of religion and morality 
 against attacks made under the guise of "political and 
 class struggles" is a very important part of her legiti- 
 mate spiritual functions. 
 
 From Mr. Hillquit's own pages, then, it is abundantly 
 clear that Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.
 
 224 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 In the name of truth and honesty, I thank him for his 
 service. 
 
 About the outcome of this irrepressible conflict, the 
 Christian, at least the Catholic Christian, has no mis- 
 givings. If I may be pardoned for adapting the 
 hackneyed forecast of Macaulay, I would say that the 
 Church will still be flourishing when the last unregenerate 
 Marxian shall lift his melancholy countenance from the 
 dry and dusty volumes of "Das Kapital" to survey the 
 wreck of the "dialectic method," "economic determin- 
 ism," the "class struggle," "surplus value," and all 
 the other stage properties of the tragedy-comedy called 
 Socialism. 
 
 IV. SURREJOINDER 
 
 BY MR. HILLQUIT 
 
 On one important point, at least, my opponent and 
 I seem to be in perfect accord. We agree that there is 
 little likelihood of a hearty understanding and active 
 cooperation between the Socialist movement and the 
 Catholic Church so long as both remain what they are. 
 And this is practically all that Karl Kautsky says in the 
 passage which I "neglected" to quote in my main 
 article, and which my opponent has so triumphantly 
 resuscitated in his rejoinder. 
 
 Dr. Ryan's efforts to explain away Father Dewe's 
 views on the laws of historical development seem to me 
 as unnecessary as they are unsuccessful. The distin- 
 guished Catholic divine accepts the theory of economic 
 determinism without reserve or quibble, and says so as 
 clearly and plainly as the English language can make it.
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 225 
 
 Moreover, Dr. Dewe is more consistent in the accept- 
 ance of the theory than Dr. Ryan is in his opposition 
 to it. 
 
 For, after all, why should a good Catholic consider 
 the belief in economic determinism incompatible with 
 the orthodox creed of his church ? In the preceding 
 chapter Dr. Ryan contended with much emphasis 
 that the moral laws are "the rules of conduct which 
 God necessarily lays down for the guidance of beings 
 whom He has made after the human pattern, just 
 as physical laws are the rules by which He directs the 
 non-rational universe." In other words, my opponent's 
 contention is that God does not rule the universe from 
 day to day by direct, arbitrary, and changing methods, 
 but that He has laid down certain permanent and im- 
 mutable rules which govern life and existence and which, 
 when discovered, constitute the "laws" of science. If 
 this theory be true, why does it exclude a divinely 
 ordained and universally valid rule of social and historic 
 development ? 
 
 If the law of gravitation, discovered by Newton, is 
 the rule by which God directs the movements of the 
 planets, and the process of natural selection, discovered 
 by Darwin, is the rule by which He directs biological 
 development, why may not the law of economic deter- 
 minism, discovered by Marx, be the rule by which He 
 directs the course of social progress? If the purely 
 mechanical conceptions of the operation of gravitation 
 and natural selection leave room for the belief in a per- 
 sonal Creator and Ruler of the universe, why not the 
 theory of economic determinism? It seems to me the 
 distinction is quite arbitrary and illogical. 
 Q
 
 226 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 Nor is my opponent happier in the selection of his 
 arguments to support the alleged harmony between 
 modern science and dogmatic theology. 
 
 Dr. Ryan names twenty illustrious men of science, 
 beginning with Copernicus and Galileo and ending with 
 Wallace, Wundt, and Lodge, and claims that they 
 "have found no inconsistency between their scientific 
 opinions and the principles of orthodox religion." My 
 opponent would find it a somewhat difficult task to prove 
 that the religious opinions of any considerable number 
 of the men named by him were "orthodox" within his 
 own definition of that term. But assuming that they 
 were, the fact would prove as little in favour of Dr. 
 Ryan's contention as a list of irreligious scientists would 
 disprove it. The method of drawing general conclu- 
 sions from specific instances often leads to curious 
 results. 
 
 Take the case of Alfred Russel Wallace. He was an 
 eminent scientist and a believer in God. Dr. Ryan 
 therefore considers his case one of those that go to prove 
 the alleged harmony between science and religion. But 
 Wallace was also an outspoken and enthusiastic Socialist. 
 Would my opponent consider this fact as tending to 
 prove that Socialism is both scientific and religious ? 
 
 But the more serious flaw in the argument lies in its 
 utter one-sidedness. To establish the alleged harmony 
 between science and orthodox belief, it is not enough to 
 show the inclinations of men of science toward religion ; 
 it is also necessary to prove a friendly attitude of the 
 Church toward scientific truths and their discoverers 
 and exponents. It takes two to make an agreement. 
 
 And here is where my opponent's difficulty becomes
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 227 
 
 unsurmountable. The history of the Church is one of 
 undying hostility to, and relentless persecution of all 
 scientific progress. 
 
 Nicholas Copernicus, who heads Dr. Ryan's list of 
 religious scientists, made the great discovery that the 
 earth revolves about the sun, in the early years of the 
 sixteenth century. Yet his fear of theological persecu- 
 tion was so strong that for more than thirty years he 
 did not dare to publish his discovery. His work on 
 "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies" was printed 
 in 1543, and a copy of the book was put into the hands 
 of the great scientist as he lay on his deathbed. That 
 the fears of Copernicus were well founded was amply 
 demonstrated by subsequent events. 
 
 The first great popularizer of the Copernican system, 
 the original thinker and philosopher, Giordano Bruno, 
 was held in prison by the Roman inquisition for two 
 years, and was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600. 
 Galileo Galilei, one of the most powerful minds of his 
 time, who corroborated and perfected the discovery of 
 Copernicus by telescopic observations, was harassed by 
 clerical opposition in all his works. Twice he was sum- 
 moned before the tribunal of the Roman inquisition, 
 and in his seventieth year the feeble and broken-down 
 savant, under threats of inquisitorial tortures, was forced 
 upon his knees to publicly "abjure, curse, and detest 
 the heresy of the movement of the earth." Nor did the 
 persecution of Galileo end with his death. The clergy 
 did not permit his body to be buried in his family tomb 
 or a monument to be erected in his memory. In 1616 
 the Church prohibited " all books which affirm the motion 
 of the earth."
 
 228 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The works of Kepler, Descartes, Newton, and Saint- 
 Hilaire were viciously attacked by the Church, and as 
 late as the middle of the eighteenth century the great 
 French naturalist, George Buffon, who was the first to 
 lay a scientific foundation for modern geology, was com- 
 pelled by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne to 
 recant: "I abandon everything in my book respecting 
 the formation of the earth, and generally all which may 
 be contrary to the narrative of Moses." 
 
 When the epoch-making discoveries of Darwin were 
 published they shared the fate of all earlier scientific 
 achievements. Cardinal Manning voiced the senti- 
 ments of the Catholic Church when he characterized 
 Darwinism as a "brutal philosophy, to wit, there is no 
 God, and the ape is our Adam," just as Bishop Wilber- 
 force spoke for the Protestant Church when he rejected 
 the new theory as a "tendency to limit God's glory in 
 creation." Pope Pius IX emphatically condemned the 
 Darwinian theory as a heretic "aberration." 
 
 When the compelling force of scientific truth ulti- 
 mately broke down the thick walls of clerical opposition 
 and the new discoveries established themselves definitely 
 and ineradicably in the minds of men, the Church had 
 to abandon the Canutian task of forcing the rising tide 
 back into the river in each instance. In 1757 the decree 
 "against the motion of the earth" was formally annulled 
 by the papal court, and to-day even Darwinism is 
 freed from the ban of the Church. 
 
 But the Church learns nothing from the past, and 
 continues to meet every new advance in science with 
 stern rebuke. If it is no more the "infidel" Copernican 
 or Darwinian against whom it is arrayed, it is the
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 2 29 
 
 "agnostic" and "materialistic" Marxian who is made 
 the target of its attacks. 
 
 Dr. Ryan concludes his rejoinder with a clever para- 
 phrase of a passage from Macaulay in which he predicts 
 the triumphal survival of the Church and the speedy 
 oblivion of the heresies of the Marxian philosophy. 
 Such pious forecasts were made by my opponent's pred- 
 ecessors with reference to the heliocentric theory in the 
 days of Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo, and with refer- 
 ence to the theory of natural selection in the days of 
 Darwin, Huxley, and Wallace. What assurance does 
 he have that his joyous predictions about the fate of 
 Marxian Socialism will be treated with greater respect 
 by history, the court of last resort of all theories and 
 movements ?
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 BY MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 THE main points of the debate between Dr. Ryan and 
 myself have been fully disposed of in the preceding chap- 
 ters, and it would be quite unprofitable to reopen the 
 discussion at this time. Our present task, as I see it, 
 is merely to gather up some of the loose ends and to 
 draw our conclusions. 
 
 Dr. Ryan has proved himself an opponent of excep- 
 tional erudition and skill, and I take great pleasure in 
 expressing my sincere appreciation of the fair and cour- 
 teous manner in which he has treated his side of the com- 
 plex and contentious subject. 
 
 But in looking over the preceding pages I cannot help 
 feeling that the erudition and broad-minded attitude 
 of my opponent have been the main source of his weak- 
 ness. In a debate against Socialism the conservative 
 standpatter is placed in a position of advantage over the 
 liberal critic. He stubbornly shuts his eyes to the con- 
 ditions and tendencies of life around him; he stoutly 
 maintains that everything is perfect in this, the best of 
 all worlds, and that the call for change and improvement 
 is nothing but the senseless cry of the demagogue. He 
 flies in the face of all known facts ; he is brutal and ab- 
 surd, but he is always logical from his premises. The 
 
 230
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 231 
 
 non-Socialist progressive, on the other hand, is more 
 plausible, but less consistent. He is bound to make 
 concessions; he is bound to stop short of a complete 
 admission, and he struggles vainly for a logical halting- 
 place. 
 It was thus with my opponent. 
 
 THE EVILS 
 
 To my indictment of the prevailing industrial order, 
 Dr. Ryan makes only a partial and half-hearted de- 
 fence. He admits that the present industrial system 
 is "in many of its elements far, very far, from satisfac- 
 tory or tolerable " ; J that modern society has failed 
 "to take advantage of the available forces of improve- 
 ment"; that "the position and livelihood of large sec- 
 tions of the working population are less secure under the 
 existing arrangements" than in the past; that it is 
 "largely true" that the present economic order pits 
 producer against consumer, tenant against landlord, 
 and worker against employer, and that our social order 
 suffers from many other serious defects. 
 
 The only fault he finds with the formulation of my 
 charges against present society is that they are "over- 
 stated." He contends that conditions are not "nearly 
 so terrible" as they appear to me. Now it is of no con- 
 sequence whether the admitted evil outgrowths of Cap- 
 italism are quite as "terrible" as they appear to me or 
 merely "unsatisfactory and intolerable " as they seem to 
 my opponent. Our individual feeling toward social 
 misery counts for little. The all-important fact is that 
 
 1 The italics are mine.
 
 232 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 it exists, and the inevitable conclusion is that it must be 
 eradicated. 
 
 Dr. Ryan admits the fact and accepts the conclusion. 
 
 "That the majority of the wage-earners should, in a 
 country as rich as America, possess no income-bearing 
 property, have no ownership in the means of production, 
 is a gross anomaly," he exclaims. "It is not normal, 
 and it cannot be permanent. No nation can endure 
 as a nation predominantly of hired men." 
 
 My opponent urges that the existing social system be 
 "greatly, even radically, amended." So, of course, do 
 the Socialists. 
 
 The ultimate remedy of Socialism is the abrogation of 
 private ownership in the social tools of work. The 
 Socialists would place the machinery of wealth produc- 
 tion under the ownership and control of the community, 
 to be operated by the entire working population for the 
 good of society. 
 
 What is Dr. Ryan's supreme remedy ? 
 
 THE REMEDY 
 
 He is not very explicit on that point, but several in- 
 teresting hints are scattered throughout his discussion. 
 Thus he admits the possibility of a situation which may 
 force the government "to some extent" to compete 
 with the capitalists in the production of certain commod- 
 ities, particularly in the field occupied by the trusts. 
 He contemplates an industrial system characterized by 
 "the direct ownership of the greater part of the instru- 
 ments of production by the workers themselves by such 
 methods as copartnership schemes and cooperative
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 233 
 
 societies," and he even conceives of a stage in social 
 progress when "interest as we now have it will be for the 
 most part abolished." 
 
 In the phrase "interest as we now have it," my oppo- 
 nent clearly intends to include all forms of workless in- 
 come, whether commonly designated as interest or rent 
 or profit. This is a long step toward the Socialist con- 
 ception. But Dr. Ryan goes even farther when he as- 
 serts: "Until the majority of the wage-earners have 
 become owners, at least in part, of the tools with which 
 they work, the system of private capital will remain 
 essentially unstable." 
 
 The "system of private capital" to which my opponent 
 alludes is, of course, the present economic system, and 
 the expressions "majority" and "at least in part" oc- 
 curring in the significant statement were obviously 
 inserted merely to palliate the force of the admission. 
 These terms of limitation have no justification in logic 
 or morals. If it is wrong to keep "the majority" of the 
 workers without tools, how can it be right to leave a 
 minority of them in that condition ? If ownership of the 
 tool is essential to the work and life of the labourer, why 
 "in part " and not in whole ? 
 
 If this surplusage be eliminated from Dr. Ryan's 
 formula, it will read about as follows : "Until the wage- 
 earners have become the owners of the tools with which 
 they work, our economic system will remain unstable ; " 
 or, stating the reverse of the proposition : "Our eco- 
 nomic system will be stable only when the wage-earners 
 become the owners of the tools with which they work" 
 which is good Socialism.
 
 234 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 THE METHODS 
 
 Apparently realizing that his objections to the ulti- 
 mate aims of Socialism are not very cogent, my opponent 
 concentrates his attack upon the methods of the Socialist 
 movement. "The unrighteous and unearned incomes, 
 and the insufficient distribution of productive property 
 can all be eliminated through measures of social reform," 
 he asserts in one place, and again, more emphatically : 
 "We shall reach it [Dr. Ryan's social ideal] not by the 
 futile way of Socialism, but along the solid road of social 
 reform." Throughout the debate he assumes that 
 Socialism is antagonistic to social reform, and again and 
 again he assures us that " the present system is capable 
 of improvement." 
 
 It never occurred to the Socialists to deny that the 
 present system is capable of improvement and reform. 
 On the contrary, they contend that it is badly in need of 
 both. A "reform" is commonly denned as a change for 
 the better ; a "social reform " is an ameliorative change 
 in social conditions; and a "radical social reform" is a 
 thoroughgoing general change and improvement of 
 social conditions. In this sense of the term Socialism 
 itself may be defined as a movement for radical social 
 reform. 
 
 Nor are the Socialists averse to social reform in the 
 narrower meaning of the phrase, i.e. as signifying meas- 
 ures of immediate and partial improvement. They sup- 
 port every measure calculated to better the present con- 
 dition of the workers, or to promote social progress. But 
 they discriminate carefully between true progressive 
 measures and the numerous Utopian and reactionary
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 235 
 
 nostrums which falsely parade under the name of reform. 
 Thus they refuse to wax enthusiastic over the futile and 
 reactionary efforts of our government to "demolish" the 
 trusts and to restore the bygone days of general compe- 
 tition. 
 
 In this connection I cannot allow to pass without 
 challenge Dr. Ryan's assertion that "the German Social- 
 ists in the early years of their parliamentary activity 
 opposed some very necessary social reforms." In the 
 very early period of the German Socialist movement one 
 or two Socialist representatives in parliament refused to 
 take an active part in the constructive work of that body. 
 That policy was soon changed, and for decades the 
 Socialist deputies in the Reichstag have been among 
 its most active and practical workers. At no time did 
 they oppose any measure of true social reform. 
 
 Nor are my opponent's moral scruples against the aim 
 and methods of Socialism as strong as some of his ex- 
 pressions would seem to indicate. He does not consider 
 the present capitalist system a God-ordained or final 
 order of society. On the contrary, he admits frankly 
 and wisely that "if the day should ever come when pri- 
 vate control of capital became detrimental to human 
 welfare, the capitalists would no longer have a right to 
 function as such." 
 
 It is my contention that the day has fully come. Dr. 
 Ryan seems to think that it has not yet quite come. 
 The difference is one of estimate and sentiment, not of 
 principle. 
 
 And even on the methods of dispossessing the capital- 
 ist class "when the day should come," Dr. Ryan's 
 notions are at bottom not so strongly opposed to the
 
 236 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 accepted Socialist views as he seems to think. Says he : 
 " I do not mean to deny that confiscation is ever morally 
 legitimate, for example, in some supreme national crisis 
 when no other course is physically possible." "Physi- 
 cally possible," is, of course, only a figurative expres- 
 sion when applied to non-physical social conditions. 
 What Dr. Ryan obviously means is that he would sanc- 
 tion confiscation only if such a grave measure were im- 
 peratively required for the welfare and self-preservation 
 of the nation. Ultimately, then, he also would deter- 
 mine the question on the test of social expediency rather 
 than abstract individual "morality." 
 
 But if Dr. Ryan's arguments against Socialism as a 
 movement for economic reconstruction are characterized 
 by concessions, his objections to Socialism on philosophic 
 and religious grounds are often based on misapprehended 
 conceptions of the Socialist programme and beliefs. 
 
 SOCIALISM is NOT MATERIALISTIC 
 
 Thus Dr. Ryan takes it for granted that Socialism is 
 a materialistic philosophy. He refers to Marx and 
 Engels, the founders of modern theoretical Socialism, 
 as "out-and-out materialists," for whom "all that exists 
 is matter." 
 
 The error has been committed by many eminent critics 
 of Socialism before Dr. Ryan, and is due in no small 
 part to the title originally chosen by Marx and Engels 
 for the designation of their economic theory of historic 
 development the "materialistic conception of history." 
 But that theory is not even remotely related to the 
 doctrine of philosophic materialism or to any other phil-
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 237 
 
 osophic system. The "materialist conception" or "eco- 
 nomic interpretation" of history is a theory of social 
 evolution, and nothing else. It does not attempt to deal 
 with the nature or function of the human mind or with 
 the ultimate questions of existence. Socialism as such 
 is neither materialistic nor dualistic. It is not committed 
 to any school of philosophy and still less does it seek to 
 advance a philosophic system of its own. 
 
 Nor is the philosophy of Socialism tainted with the 
 element of fatalism. Dr. Ryan is quite wrong when he 
 asserts that to the Socialist "the social evolutionary 
 process seems to be a huge and unrelenting mechanical 
 movement which cannot be checked by any mere action 
 of human beings." Modern Socialists do not anticipate 
 a mechanical collapse of the present economic system and 
 the spontaneous blossoming of a Socialist commonwealth 
 upon its ruins. When they predict the "inevitable" 
 coming of Socialism, they have in view a reasonable 
 need, not a blind categoric imperative. They see in the 
 Socialist plan the most logical solution of our vexing 
 social problems. They contend that the workers would 
 benefit immensely by the introduction of a socialized 
 system of industry, and that such a system could be 
 realized if the bulk of the workers consciously desired 
 it, and were organized for its attainment. 
 
 The workers as yet do not fulfil these requirements. 
 The Socialists realize this undeniable fact, and they bend 
 every effort to enlighten, stimulate, and organize them, 
 and to draw them into the Socialist movement. If they 
 succeed in this task, their cause will be won ; if they do 
 not, their efforts must fail. The Socialists expect to win 
 because the economic and social developments of modern
 
 238 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 times favour their propaganda and because they have 
 already accomplished a substantial part of their task, 
 but principally because they are thoroughly convinced 
 of the justice and wisdom of their cause, and are prepared 
 to work long, hard, and patiently for it. It is a case of 
 determined resolution rather than blind fatalism. 
 
 And as a logical corollary from this statement it follows 
 that the Socialist expectation of success is predicated 
 not on a theory of progressive pauperization of the 
 workers, but on the ever growing improvement of their 
 conditions. 
 
 Dr. Ryan seems to be displeased with my statement 
 of this theory. He intimates that in some way I have 
 come by it illegitimately, and that if I had a proper 
 sense of duty, I should have adhered to the theory of in- 
 creasing misery. In support of his contention he quotes 
 a somewhat debatable passage from Marx, written about 
 fifty years ago. 
 
 I respectfully submit that my opponent here goes be- 
 yond his province. It is no more incumbent on him to 
 correct my Socialism than it would be for me to set him 
 straight on his theology. He must accept the issue as 
 it is tendered to him and not change it to suit his con- 
 venience. Incidentally it may be noted that Marx 
 never held that the condition of the workers was one of 
 absolute and increasing misery, and never acted on the 
 assumption that a general pauperization of the workers 
 must precede their ultimate emancipation. In his prac- 
 tical work he always laid strong emphasis on the impor- 
 tance of progressive improvement of the material con- 
 ditions of the working-class. 
 
 Nor did Karl Kautsky, as far as I know, ever hold or
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 239 
 
 express different views on the subject. In the statement 
 quoted by my opponent in the fourth chapter, Kautsky 
 asserts that the wage- workers are growing faster in num- 
 ber than the other economic classes, but not that they 
 are generally growing poorer. In this he merely reiter- 
 ates the fundamental Marxian view corroborated by 
 each periodical census in every civilized country. There 
 is no conflict between that statement and my views on 
 the subject. 
 
 SOCIALISM is NOT A UTOPIA 
 
 Another serious error which underlies my opponent's 
 discussion is his obvious misconstruction of the phrase 
 "Socialist State" as used by Socialists. "No Socialist 
 regime is going to be 'set up' by any civilized nation," 
 he assures us in one place, and throughout the debate 
 he refers to the so-called "Socialist State" or "Socialist 
 regime" as an entirely new and arbitrary social order, 
 created of nothing but fancy and imposed on mankind 
 in exchange for an old and discarded structure of society 
 something in the nature of a utopia transplanted from 
 another planet or of the Kingdom of Heaven suddenly 
 come to earth. 
 
 The Socialists have no such romantic conceptions. To 
 them the "Socialist State" is nothing but a more ad- 
 vanced phase of modern civilization, or, to borrow a 
 felicitous expression from my opponent, "the existing 
 system radically amended." Amended by the elimina- 
 tion of industrial warfare and economic exploitation and 
 by a relative equalization in the enjoyment of wealth 
 and opportunities, but still a system of human beings as
 
 240 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 we know them to-day, with all their frailty and weakness, 
 passions and ambitions except with less incentive 
 and fewer opportunities for evil doing. 
 
 The "Socialist State," thus understood, cannot and will 
 not be "set up," ready-made and full-fledged, one fine 
 day in the more or less distant future. It has been 
 persistently filtering into the present order during recent 
 decades by countless avenues, and it continues the process 
 of permeation in an ever accelerating pace. If the liberal 
 economists and conservative statesmen of a century 
 ago could observe our present political institutions and 
 the wide social and economic functions of our govern- 
 ment, they would probably pronounce the modern re- 
 gime semi-Socialistic, and, comparing present conditions 
 with the past, we might be justified in maintaining that 
 we are already living at least in the outskirts of the 
 "Socialist State." 
 
 The main practical task of the Socialist movement is 
 to accelerate this process of socialization, to give it in- 
 telligent direction, and to shape it on democratic lines. 
 
 SOCIALISM is NOT FINAL 
 
 And just as the term Socialist State does not convey 
 to the Socialist the notion of a sudden break, so likewise 
 does it not imply the element of finality. 
 
 In one place in the debate Dr. Ryan, I don't know on 
 what ground, accuses me of attempting to "set a limit 
 to industrial evolution, namely, the Socialist State." 
 Oddly enough, he takes me to task in another place for 
 lacking a fixed, immutable, eternal, and final standard 
 of morality.
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 241 
 
 As a matter of fact, the Socialists do not consider any 
 part of their programme as final and valid for all times. 
 
 When we stand in the midst of an unobstructed plane 
 we see the objects in front of us only up to the line of the 
 horizon. The circle around which the sky and the land 
 seem to meet encloses everything within our view. It 
 is the limit of our visible universe. But we walk ahead 
 and the horizon moves back. New vistas are opened to 
 our eyes. Our world grows larger and ever larger, and 
 never can we actually reach the seeming limit of our prog- 
 ress. And so it is with our industrial, social, ethical, and 
 other ideals. They represent the limit of our present 
 vision. So long as they exist they are our standards of 
 perfection. By our approach to them we measure our 
 progress, and when they are enlarged our demands on 
 human progress increase correspondingly. To-day we 
 cannot see beyond Socialism, but when the Socialist 
 programme shall have been substantially materialized, 
 mankind will no doubt conceive newer and larger ideals 
 and strive for their attainment. 
 
 THE CHURCH AGAIN 
 
 In the introductory chapter I expressed the hope that 
 our debate would be held down strictly to a discussion of 
 the merits or demerits of Socialism and would not be al- 
 lowed to turn into an attack and defence of the Catholic 
 Church. "The Socialists do not fight the Catholic 
 Church," I observed, "unless forced to do so in self- 
 defence." 
 
 The occasion for such self-defence arose when my op- 
 ponent introduced the charge of alleged Socialist hostility
 
 242 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 to the Church. I denied any hostility of the Socialist 
 movement toward the Church as a religious institution, 
 but admitted that the majority of Socialists have little 
 confidence in the Church as a social and political organi- 
 zation. To account for that attitude, I endeavoured to 
 show the aristocratic and reactionary character of the 
 Church as at present constituted. My opponent rules 
 out my charges somewhat peremptorily on the ground 
 that they are not within the issues. "I shall refrain 
 from a formal reply," says he, "... because Mr. Hill- 
 quit correctly stated the policy upon which we had agreed 
 when he declared in his first paper that the Catholic 
 Church is not an issue in this debate." 
 
 True, I made that statement. But I left the choice 
 of weapons in our wordy duel entirely to my opponent, 
 and I expressly warned him that no matter into what 
 channels his argument led, I should have "to meet him 
 on his own ground." Dr. Ryan was fully within his 
 rights in introducing the subject of the relations between 
 the Church and Socialism, but having done so he cannot 
 with propriety close the discussion on the ground that 
 the Church is not in issue. He has made it an issue. 
 The Church is not an issue only in the sense that it is 
 inherently irrelevant to the subject of our debate, but 
 not on the ground that it is above discussion or criticism. 
 
 My opponent seems to take the ground that the 
 Church is of superhuman origin and that its actions and 
 policies are entirely uninfluenced by existing social con- 
 ditions and struggles. He treats the attempts of Karl 
 Kautsky and Achille Loria to account for the origin and 
 growth of the Christian Church by economic factors as 
 preposterous, and gravely asserts that all such theories
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 243 
 
 are belied by "the authentic documents which describe 
 the rise of Christianity." 
 
 As a matter of well-known fact, there are no authentic 
 contemporaneous documents bearing on the rise of 
 Christianity. But whatever might have been its origin 
 and early history, it is undeniable that the Church to-day 
 is maintained, fashioned, and directed by ordinary human 
 agencies, i.e. by mortals capable of errors and subject 
 to material influences and human weaknesses and im- 
 perfections. 
 
 The Church has voluntarily assumed the character 
 of a social institution. As such it is charged with certain 
 public functions, and in the discharge of these functions 
 it owes to the people an account of its stewardship. 
 Dr. Ryan, therefore, does not dispose of the argument 
 when he endeavours to spell out from my statements an 
 admission of antagonism between Socialism and the 
 Church, and thanks me for "this service" in the name 
 of "truth and honesty." 
 
 If an active opposition between the Church and the 
 Socialist movement be assumed, there still remains the 
 vital question of right and wrong between the contending 
 parties. Before the bar of the nations the Church is as 
 much on trial as the Socialist movement, and ultimately 
 both will be judged by their effect upon the welfare and 
 progress of mankind. 
 
 In throwing the glove to the Socialist movement the 
 Catholic Church has challenged an adversary of no mean 
 calibre. Socialism is an international power, as is the 
 Catholic Church itself. It represents not merely vast 
 masses of people, tens of millions, but also a spiritual and 
 cultural factor or revolutionizing influence. The Social-
 
 244 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 ist movement is remaking the mentality and psychology 
 of the working population and is giving to the world 
 new ethical standards and social ideals. And it is a 
 growing power. 
 
 The " numerous desertions from the organized Socialist 
 movement" of which Dr. Ryan speaks, exist only in the 
 imagination of the optimistic opponents of Socialism. 
 In actual fact the history of the movement presents one 
 steady and unbroken march of progress. Occasional 
 setbacks naturally occur at all times and in all places, 
 but they are always more than compensated by sub- 
 sequent gains or by victories in other places. From the 
 beginnings of modern Socialism to this day, not a year 
 has passed without showing a solid and substantial 
 growth of the movement as a whole. 
 
 If from this record of steady Socialist gains we turn 
 to the standing modern complaint of most ministers 
 of the gospel about the deserted pews, and observe their 
 frantic and unavailing efforts to recapture the strayed 
 flocks, we may here find new and wholesome food for 
 reflection not only on the attitude of Socialism toward the 
 Church, but also on that of the Church to Socialism and 
 to all vital social problems and movements which agitate 
 the minds of the men and women of this generation.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 BY JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. 
 
 BEFORE summing up the main issues of the debate, 
 and stating the conclusions that seem to me to have 
 been established, I desire to call attention to a few 
 gratifying features of the discussion which are ap- 
 parently beyond the reach of controversy. 
 
 In the first place, Mr. Hillquit and I have succeeded 
 in demonstrating that it is possible for men to differ as 
 widely as the poles and yet carry on a protracted argu- 
 ment with fairness and without bitterness, and conclude 
 it with both self-respect and mutual respect unimpaired. 
 
 Second, we have on all substantial points agreed con- 
 cerning the meaning and the doctrines of Socialism. 
 Only those readers who have some knowledge of the 
 average controversy on this subject can realize the 
 tremendous importance and advantage of this agree- 
 ment. It has enabled us to confine the discussion to 
 positions and principles, instead of fighting over defini- 
 tions, and to make things correspondingly satisfactory 
 to the reader. 
 
 In the third place, we have formally and deliberately 
 covered all the important phases of Socialism. We have 
 considered it not merely as a scheme of politico-economic 
 reconstruction, but as a living movement, and as a 
 
 245
 
 246 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 system of fundamental principles. The movement has 
 been exhibited as affecting many other departments of 
 life and thought besides the economic sphere. The 
 principles have been set forth as embracing a philosophy 
 of history, of society, of life, of the universe. Owing to 
 this fundamental and comprehensive discussion, the 
 intelligent reader has obtained some idea of the larger 
 aspects of Socialism, and some explanation of the hold 
 which it takes on many of its followers. It professes to 
 give them a complete theory of life and of reality. 
 
 In view of this thoroughgoing treatment of the sub- 
 ject, may we not hope to hear less frequently in the 
 future than in the past the shallow and ignorant asser- 
 tion that Socialism is merely an economic programme ? 
 
 THE SOCIALIST "INDICTMENT" OF THE PRESENT 
 SYSTEM 
 
 In his rebuttal to my charge that his description of 
 existing evils was grossly exaggerated, my opponent 
 merely asserted that the reforms which I proposed were 
 insufficient. For, he contended, they would leave the 
 capitalist in possession of profits and interest, which 
 could be abolished only through Socialism. In my 
 answer to the rebuttal, I pointed out that to look to 
 Socialism as the necessary, feasible, and final goal of 
 industrial progress, was to rely not on facts, but on 
 faith. 
 
 Let me take this opportunity to say that I deplore 
 the actual and removable evils of our social system 
 quite as strongly as does Mr. Hillquit. I believe that 
 two generations hence men will look back upon the
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 247 
 
 greed, materialism, oppression of labour, and hideous con- 
 trasts between wealth and poverty which characterize 
 our time, as essential barbarism. Nor am I enamoured 
 with what has come to be known as the Capitalist Type. 
 The attitude toward their fellows, the conception of their 
 functions in society, and the general outlook on life 
 prevailing among many of our rich men and women, 
 constitute one of the most unlovely types of human 
 psychology that have ever appeared in the select classes 
 of any civilization. 
 
 Certain captains of industry seem to think that be- 
 cause the Catholic Church opposes Socialism she has 
 pronounced a benediction unqualified upon modern 
 Capitalism. They would like to have her function as 
 the moral policeman of plutocracy. They forget that 
 the late Pope Leo XIII went so far as to declare that 
 "a small number of very rich men have been able to 
 lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke 
 little better than slavery itself." l To represent the 
 Church as the unquestioning upholder of Capitalism is 
 to offer an insult to her genius, teaching, and traditions. 
 One after another, the early Fathers of the Church 
 denounced irresponsible use of wealth, and proclaimed 
 the natural right of all men to live from the fruits of 
 the earth, in terms which have caused them to be 
 accused of communism. Indeed, as the Abbot Gasquet 
 has observed, the traditional basis of property as taught 
 by the Church is not individualism, but Christian col- 
 lectivism. 2 
 
 For well-nigh a thousand years the Church withstood 
 
 1 Encyclical, "On the Condition of Labour." 
 
 8 "Christian Democracy in Pre-Reformation Times," p. 8.
 
 248 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 all the forces and wiles of the Capitalism of those days 
 by her prohibition of interest on loans. During the 
 period of her greatest influence, the Middle Ages, the 
 industrial arrangements that she inspired and fostered 
 were not Capitalism and not the wage system, but an 
 order in which the great majority of the workers virtually 
 owned the land and actually owned the tools upon 
 which and with which they laboured. 1 
 
 And if her sway had not been interrupted by the social 
 and religious disturbances of the sixteenth century, there 
 is hardly a shadow of a reason for doubting that this 
 wide diffusion of productive property would have been 
 indefinitely extended and developed. The present sys- 
 tem, in which the few own the bulk of the means of 
 production while the many possess little beyond their 
 labour power, would have been, humanly speaking, 
 impossible. 
 
 To a Catholic who knows something of economic 
 history, and something of the economic aspects of 
 Catholic teaching, the attempt to chain the Church to 
 the car of a plutocratic Capitalism is impudent and 
 sickening. 
 
 "We all feel and those few of us who have analyzed 
 the matter not only feel, but know that the capitalist 
 society . . . has reached its term. It is almost self- 
 evident that it cannot continue in the form which now 
 three generations have known, and it is equally self- 
 evident that some solution must be found for the in- 
 creasing instability with which it has poisoned our lives." 2 
 
 The solution, I confidently believe, will be found along 
 
 1 See Hilaire Belloc's "The Servile State." 
 
 2 Belloc, op. tit., p. 77.
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 249 
 
 the lines that I have traced in the second chapter. Sub- 
 normal conditions of life and labour must be abolished ; 
 excessive gains on privileged capital must be made im- 
 possible; and ways must be found through which the 
 majority of the workers will gradually become owners, 
 at least in part, of the instruments of production. 
 
 THE SOCIALIST INDUSTRIAL STATE 
 
 It is clarifying to get from Mr. Hillquit the admission 
 that, if ever the device seems expedient, the Socialists 
 will not be troubled by moral scruples against the con- 
 fiscation of capital. In all probability, however, this 
 avowal will not help the cause that he represents. 
 
 Without restating the arguments for capitalist property 
 rights, I wish to protest strongly against my opponent's 
 misconception of my account of prescription. I said 
 nothing on this subject to warrant his flippant picture 
 of the three robbers who would acquire valid titles of 
 ownership by the crude method of mutually exchanging 
 their individual articles of plunder ! I never said that 
 ill-gotten capital could become legitimate through pre- 
 scription or through possession by " innocent third par ties." 
 I did not use the latter phrase at all. When I spoke of 
 *' innocent individuals," I referred to those, and those 
 only, who had already complied with the conditions of 
 prescription. This means, as a rule, those who had in 
 good faith been in possession of capital for such a long 
 time that the wronged original owners had disappeared 
 forever. 
 
 Is this title so very unreasonable? 
 
 Mr. Hillquit's denial that Socialism would take in
 
 250 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 taxes all the economic rent of moderately sized and 
 small farms may or may not put him in the class of those 
 members of the party in America who, as Walling inti- 
 mates, are ready to compromise everything on this 
 question for the sake of agricultural recruits. In any 
 case, it puts him in opposition to all the other Socialist 
 authorities, and to the general and fundamental Socialist 
 proposal to abolish rent, profits, interest, and "work- 
 less " incomes generally. 
 
 To the fundamental and insoluble objection that 
 Socialism must fail, owing to its inability to provide 
 adequate substitutes for the two most powerful springs of 
 effort and efficiency, namely, the hope of reward and the 
 fear of loss, my opponent's final answer is Colonel 
 Goethals. He hopes that Socialism would develop in 
 "our industrial army conceptions of duty and honour" 
 superior to those which actuate the officers of our mili- 
 tary army. 
 
 In this superficial analogy he has ignored or over- 
 looked at least four salient points. 
 
 First, a very large proportion of the army officers 
 who have had charge of civil enterprises have not shown 
 the same disinterestedness and efficiency as the man who 
 built the Panama Canal. More than one of them have 
 served terms in United States prisons for dishonesty and 
 graft. 
 
 Second, a Socialist regime would have very few 
 Panama Canals to provide the motives of conspicuous 
 honour and fame. Most of its directive tasks would be 
 quite commonplace and inconspicuous. 
 
 In the third place, the "conceptions of duty and 
 honour " possessed by military chieftains are the result of
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 25 1 
 
 thousands of years of training and traditions. Does my 
 opponent think that a Socialist regime could afford to 
 wait that long for the development of similar qualities 
 in the boards of managers, superintendents, and other 
 members of the bureaucracy that would command its 
 "industrial army"? 
 
 Finally, he seems to forget that Colonel Goethals 
 organized and managed his canal-building operation on 
 a military, not a democratic, basis. All intelligent 
 opponents of Socialism agree with Schaeffle, in his "Im- 
 possibility of Social Democracy," that a Socialist regime 
 would work if it were carried on under the principles of 
 militarism. Does Mr. Hillquit's use of the phrase "in- 
 dustrial army" mean that he has in mind that kind of 
 Socialism ? 
 
 His statement that Colonel Goethals's salary is "less 
 than that of many a successful commercial drummer," is 
 a trifle misleading. While engaged in the task of build- 
 ing the Canal, Colonel Goethals received $15,000 a 
 year, which is considerably in excess of his regular salary 
 in the army, and which probably served to reenforce the 
 higher motives by which he was actuated. 
 
 The higher motives do not seem to have been very 
 effective in the case of the rank and file of the workers. 
 After many unsuccessful attempts to obtain a working 
 force on ordinary terms, and on liberal terms, the Canal 
 Commission found itself compelled to pay a scale of 
 wages and salaries twenty-five to one hundred per cent 
 higher than that prevailing in similar employments in 
 the United States, and to add other special inducements, 
 "until an established system was developed which con- 
 tained perquisites and gratuities which in number and
 
 252 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 value far exceeded anything of the kind bestowed upon 
 a working force elsewhere on the face of the globe." l 
 
 On the whole, my opponent's appeal to the example 
 of Colonel Goethals and the Panama Canal is somewhat 
 lacking in aptness and convincingness. 
 
 The ultimate fact of the controversy over the feasibility 
 of industrial Socialism is that its adherents expect a 
 mere socio-industrial mechanism to create in the human 
 heart sentiments of honour, altruism, and public recog- 
 nition infinitely greater than anything that is presented 
 to us by experience. And the sole basis of their expec- 
 tation is simple and unreasoning faith. 
 
 Under the head of "Individual Liberty," my oppo- 
 nent informed us that Socialism would not fix wages 
 and prices through an "independent and autocratic au- 
 thority." I never said that it would. "Public authori- 
 ties" and "legislative enactment" were the phrases that 
 I used, and Mr. Hillquit apparently agrees with me in 
 this ; for he employs the latter phrase himself to describe 
 the method of wage fixing and price fixing. 
 
 Earlier in his paper he seemed on the point of saying 
 that the workers in each industry might, through their 
 representatives, regulate wages and prices in each in- 
 dustry ! Apparently his faith in the perfection of the 
 workers faltered when he contemplated the possibility 
 of the various industrial groups engaging in a grand 
 competitive effort to see which could award itself the 
 highest wages and charge its neighbours the highest 
 prices. 
 
 His assertion that the general legislature would regu- 
 
 1 "The Panama Gateway," by Joseph Bucklin Bishop, Secretary of 
 the Isthmian Canal Commission, p. 263.
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 253 
 
 late wages and prices "with due regard to the interests 
 of the consumer, and worker," is, of course, mere faith 
 and prophecy. It does not at all meet my criticism 
 that the citizen would be deprived of that range of choice 
 which he now has both as producer and as consumer; 
 that the wages which he would receive, the prices which 
 he would pay, and his entire economic life would be 
 fixed, regulated, and determined by a single economic 
 authority, the national legislature in national industries, 
 and the municipal legislature in those industries managed 
 by the municipality. 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIALISM 
 
 The convinced Socialist remains rather indifferent to 
 all the objections urged against the feasibility of his eco- 
 nomic programme. For his belief in it is not dependent 
 upon considerations drawn from concrete facts or ex- 
 perience. He relies upon a theory of social evolution 
 which assures him that the system is inevitable, and 
 therefore that it must prove successful. And he calls 
 this process of inference "scientific." Let us briefly re- 
 call the argument : 
 
 As Marx saw the matter, the forces of economic evo- 
 lution were surely bringing about a narrow concentra- 
 tion of wealth and capital, the elimination of the middle 
 classes, and the ever deeper impoverishment of the 
 wage-earners. As things have actually happened, 
 wealth has become more widely diffused, capital has 
 become concentrated only in manufactures, the middle 
 classes have increased faster than the population, and 
 the wage-earners are much better off than they were 
 when Marx uttered his doleful prediction.
 
 254 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 His forecast of a deadly class struggle which was to 
 issue in Socialism was based quite as much upon a philo- 
 sophical theory as upon a mistaken interpretation of 
 economic facts and tendencies. From Hegel he had 
 derived the theory that the driving force of all develop- 
 ment is antagonism, and that all progress takes place 
 through the conflict of contradictory elements and their 
 reconciliation in a higher synthesis. Applying this as- 
 sumption to the economic field, he concluded that the 
 contradictory facts of social production and private 
 ownership of the means of production, must find their 
 solution and reconciliation in social production and col- 
 lective ownership. 
 
 Even those Socialists who are aware that Marx's 
 prophecy has not been fulfilled, continue to use his un- 
 scientific method. The gap in their argument left by 
 the absence of concrete fact they strive to fill up by a 
 prophetical theory. The limited antagonism of interests 
 which Mr. Hillquit finds between capitalists and la- 
 bourers he forthwith converts into a class conflict that is 
 inevitably eliminating the capitalist. He ignores the ele- 
 mentary fact that antagonism of interests is created in 
 every group when two or more men desire a good that 
 is limited in quantity. Even under Socialism, the con- 
 sumers of a commodity would desire to obtain it as 
 cheaply as possible, while the producers would strive to 
 sell it at the price which would bring them the greatest 
 measure of remuneration. 
 
 What Mr. Hillquit utterly fails to do, what he is re- 
 quired to do before he can claim to be scientific, is to 
 prove that the difference of interests between capital 
 and labour are of such a nature that they cannot be
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 255 
 
 satisfactorily composed by any other method than So- 
 cialism. 
 
 As I have intimated above, the Socialist's blind faith 
 in the assumed processes of a materialist evolution 
 makes him relatively indifferent to exact analysis, accu- 
 rate inference, and the lessons of experience. He care- 
 lessly exaggerates industrial evils, generalizes sweepingly 
 from meagre inductions, and easily brushes aside the 
 most formidable difficulties. And his faith is strongly 
 reenforced by his emotional temperament. In the 
 psychical processes of the average Socialist, the place of 
 reason seems to be largely usurped by feeling. Hence 
 it is very doubtful whether any person whose mental 
 constitution permits him to accept fully the Socialist 
 philosophy is ever converted from the error of his ways 
 by considerations drawn from mere facts. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND MORALITY 
 
 The theory that the moral law is essentially variable, 
 that it is nothing more than the different moral codes 
 adopted by various classes and ages, is obviously de- 
 structive of strictly moral convictions, and incompatible 
 with a consciousness of true moral obligation. A code of 
 law that has no deeper basis, no higher sanction, no more 
 permanent character than the changing notions of men 
 can have no binding force in conscience. If the moral 
 law be not an ordinance of God, or at least the cate- 
 gorical imperative of authoritative reason, how can it 
 generate in any man conceptions of duty? Hence the 
 general principle of Socialist ethics makes for moral 
 anarchism. It points to the conclusion that no moral 
 law exists beyond one's own will and caprice.
 
 256 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 The doctrine that purely individual actions are not 
 governed by the moral law, necessarily implies, as I 
 have shown, that the individual has neither moral worth 
 in himself nor moral duties toward himself; that his 
 rational faculties are not intrinsically superior to his 
 sense faculties ; that a man has no more duties toward 
 himself than has a pig; and that a life of the most 
 degrading personal debauchery is quite as reasonable 
 and laudable as a life of the noblest intellectual and 
 moral activity. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit's only answer to these statements was 
 that one might hold the physical and the intellectual 
 functions in equal esteem without valuing the abuses of 
 the former as highly as the proper and normal uses of the 
 latter. 
 
 This is mere question begging. By what test does he 
 distinguish "normal uses" from "abuses"? Not by a 
 moral test, for he denies that purely individual actions 
 have moral quality. Nor by the test of general reason- 
 ableness; for if the physical and rational faculties are 
 equally valuable, equally important, and equally au- 
 thoritative, the individual may reasonably decide for 
 himself to what extent he shall exercise either of them. 
 Since the rational no more than the physical faculties 
 have intrinsic worth, a man can be no more reasonably 
 criticised for neglecting their development than for refus- 
 ing to develop the capacities of a dog or a horse. De- 
 bauching exercise of the physical powers can be reason- 
 ably called an abuse only on the theory that they are 
 intrinsically inferior and morally subordinate to the 
 rational faculties, and are instruments for the welfare of 
 a morally sacred personality.
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 257 
 
 Hence it is my opponent himself who executes the 
 "logical somersault" on this point ; just as he did when 
 he inferred that because men have made grave mis- 
 takes in the application of the unchanging moral law, no 
 such law exists ; and when he spoke of an ever progress- 
 ing ethical ideal, and yet rejected the only possible 
 measure of progress a permanent moral law. He for- 
 got that men make quite as great mistakes in applying 
 the laws of medicine, education, jurisprudence, and 
 other practical sciences; and that the mere lapse of 
 time is not a sufficiently authoritative standard to 
 warrant the conclusion that the ethical ideal of to-day 
 is higher than that of the Vandals. 
 
 MARRIAGE UNDER SOCIALISM 
 
 My opponent contends that sex partnerships ter- 
 minable at the will of either party (for they are to last 
 only as long as their sole basis, mutual love, endures) 
 may properly be called monogamous. I think he is 
 wrong, but we shall not quarrel over definitions. The 
 institution that he defends is the all-important thing. 
 
 My contention that his "love unions" would last a 
 much shorter time than the average marriage of to-day 
 drew from him a more or less irrelevant statement con- 
 cerning the alarming number of divorces in the United 
 States. Inasmuch as the great majority of our divorces 
 occur among the upper and middle classes, in which the 
 woman was not obliged to marry for a livelihood, but 
 possessed opportunities of "economic independence" at 
 least equal to the average that would prevail under 
 Socialism, they evidently refute rather than support the
 
 258 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 view of my opponent that marriages based upon love 
 alone would "endure in undimmed and lifelong purity 
 in a much larger number of cases than to-day." 
 
 That such a large proportion of adults are unmarried 
 is a condition which I deplore and condemn quite as 
 strongly as Mr. Hillquit. However, neither this fact 
 nor the prevalence of illicit sexual intercourse has any 
 relevancy to the question of the durability of "love 
 unions," or creates any probability that conjugal condi- 
 tions would be better under Socialism. In so far as 
 these evils are due to economic causes, they can be re- 
 moved by measures of social reform ; in so far as they 
 are traceable to the lack of moral and religious training 
 and convictions and this is their principal cause 
 they cannot be removed by any mere change in indus- 
 trial arrangements. To assert the contrary is merely to 
 utter prophecy. 
 
 Purely prophetical also is the naive assurance of my 
 opponent that all those features of industrial occupations 
 which are physically or morally harmful to women, will 
 somehow vanish under Socialism. For the most part 
 these detrimental conditions are inherent in the very 
 nature of industrial operations. They are not removable 
 by legislation. 
 
 In his interpretation of the assumptions underlying 
 my argument concerning the economic relations of 
 woman, my opponent is not quite accurate. I do not 
 assume that "all women are married," but that the great 
 majority ought to be married. I do not assume that 
 "all married women bear children," but that, with ex- 
 tremely rare exceptions, they all ought to bear children. 
 I do not assume that "all married women bear children,
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 259 
 
 and nurse them all the time," but that practically all 
 married women normally require so much time for 
 bearing, nursing, and rearing their offspring that they 
 cannot earn a livelihood outside the home. In propor- 
 tion as any society fails to conform to these fundamental 
 assumptions, it is morally injurious to woman herself, 
 to the family, and to the race. Persons who honestly 
 deny this statement are taking a superficial and short- 
 sighted view of human nature and human experience. 
 
 Mr. Hillquit refuses to say whether Socialists would 
 have recourse to deeds of violence if they found these 
 expedient. This is one of the cases in which "silence 
 gives consent." If the Socialists regarded such conduct 
 as morally wrong, they would be glad to proclaim the 
 fact; since they do not think it morally wrong, they 
 would certainly employ it if it should appear to them 
 advisable. La Monte undoubtedly states the attitude 
 of all other Socialists when he intimates that they 
 "recognize and praise as moral all conduct that tends 
 to hasten the social revolution." 
 
 MORALITY vs. SOCIAL EXPEDIENCY 
 
 My opponent seemed to think that he was scoring 
 heavily when he cited my statement: "In the matter 
 of social institutions, moral values and genuine expedi- 
 ency are in the long run identical." Apparently he re- 
 garded this as equivalent to the statement that what- 
 ever is socially expedient at any given time is morally 
 good. 
 
 He was mistaken. My statement was restricted to 
 social institutions and social systems. I should have
 
 260 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 written "economic" instead of "social," for I had in 
 mind only social institutions which are economic. My 
 statement did not comprise the whole range of expedi- 
 ency. It did not include all socially expedient actions. 
 While I advocate certain social reforms as both expedient 
 and right, I unconditionally reject certain means of at- 
 taining them which John Spargo conditionally approves : 
 "setting the torch to a few buildings, or summary exe- 
 cution of a few members of the possessing class." 
 
 I condemn these actions because I believe that the 
 individual has certain indestructible rights. Mr. Hillquit 
 and Mr. Spargo, and Socialists generally, do not admit 
 that the individual has any rights against the social 
 organism, the State. 
 
 To put the difference between us in other and more 
 general terms : In case of conflict or apparent conflict 
 between the two, I make morality the test of social ex- 
 pediency, while my opponent would make social ex- 
 pediency the test of morality. The difference is funda- 
 mental and far reaching. 
 
 Owing to the pernicious character of the general prin- 
 ciple and the three particular doctrines of Socialist 
 ethics, its ideal as announced by my opponent, namely, 
 the happiness and welfare of the community and of all 
 the component individuals, rests on very precarious 
 grounds. When the moral law becomes merely a social 
 convention, and is emptied of the concept of moral 
 obligation ; when the most debasing individual conduct 
 is placed beyond the reach of moral denotation or con- 
 demnation ; when marital relations are adjusted on the 
 basis of selfish and temporary passion ; and when the 
 State becomes the supreme arbiter of right and wrong,
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 261 
 
 justice and injustice, the ethical ideal just mentioned 
 is not likely to be very generally or very deeply culti- 
 vated. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 In his reply to the charge that the Socialist movement 
 is antagonistic to religion, Mr. Hillquit admitted that 
 the relations between the average Socialist and the 
 Church are "rather strained," and that the "majority 
 of Socialists find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile 
 their general philosophic views with the doctrines and 
 practices of dogmatic religious creeds." He also re- 
 fused to accept the suggestion that Socialism purge 
 itself of its antireligious elements by eliminating its 
 teaching on philosophy, ethics, and religion. In sub- 
 stance, then, he conceded that Socialism as a living 
 movement and system of thought is fundamentally 
 and necessarily incompatible with any definite religious 
 creed, whether Catholicism, Protestantism, or Judaism. 
 
 The first part of my opponent's surrejoinder on this 
 subject is unnecessary; the second, irrelevant. In my 
 rejoinder I had pointed out that Father Dewe's language 
 could not be construed as an acceptance of economic 
 determinism for the simple reason that it did not make 
 economic factors the ultimate determinant of all social 
 changes. Instead of meeting this point squarely, Mr. 
 Hillquit ventured into the field of Catholic theology, 
 and demanded to know why the theory of economic 
 determinism might not properly be looked upon by a 
 Catholic as "the rule by which God directs the course 
 of social progress." 
 
 The obviously simple answer is that the Catholic
 
 262 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 holds that God made the universe dualistic, not monistic. 
 The world is not entirely material. It includes human 
 souls, and these are original and independent sources of 
 energy. They influence social changes and social con- 
 ditions not as instrumental and secondary causes reflect- 
 ing the energy of material forces, but as primary 
 and original causes. Neither the Catholic nor any 
 other believer in the human soul can accept economic 
 determinism, which, as expounded by all orthodox 
 Socialists from Engels to Hillquit, attributes all social 
 causality to economic and material factors "in the 
 last instance." 1 
 
 My opponent contended that the harmony between 
 religion and science could not be proved from specific 
 instances of believing scientists. I never said that it 
 could. I showed, in the first place, that between science 
 as such and religion as such there can be no antagonism, 
 since they deal with entirely different spheres of reality ; 
 and, in the second place, that the vast majority of the 
 great scientists were religious believers. Apparently, Mr. 
 Hillquit did not care to controvert the first statement. 
 Instead of attempting to refute the second, he shifted 
 his ground, and declared that no harmony is possible 
 so long as the Church opposes science ! 
 
 His original contention was that science and the 
 scientists were opposed to religion. He asserted that 
 the irreligion of the average Socialist is neither greater 
 nor less than the irreligion of "the average enlightened 
 person who has been trained in the methods of contem- 
 poraneous thought and who accepts the conclusions of 
 modern science." He wanted to get the Socialists into 
 
 1 Engels.
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 263 
 
 good company. In his surrejoinder he abandoned the 
 attempt, leaving his brethren naked, so far as the cloak 
 of science is concerned. 
 
 Although his assertion about the attitude of the Church 
 toward science is irrelevant to this debate, I cannot let 
 it pass without a brief refutation. 
 
 In the first place, neither he nor any one else can prove 
 that the Catholic Church has ever officially or semi- 
 officially condemned a principle or conclusion of science 
 which had already passed from the sphere of hypothesis 
 to that of established fact. 
 
 In the second place, his representation of the historical 
 events that he cites is grossly misleading. Copernicus 
 deferred the publication of his discoveries from fear, 
 not of "theological persecution," but of the "mathema- 
 ticians," that is, the philosophers of his time. That this 
 is the true explanation, we know from the letter in which 
 he dedicated the work to Pope Paul III. Neither this 
 Pope nor any of the nine who followed him in the 
 course of the next seventy-two years interfered in the 
 slightest with the discussion and spread of the Co- 
 pernican theories. 
 
 Galileo met with opposition from the authorities at 
 Rome only when he was no longer content to put forth 
 the heliocentric theory as a scientific hypothesis, but 
 insisted on dogmatically proclaiming it as an established 
 fact and interpreting the Scriptures accordingly. In 
 other words, he got into trouble because he was too 
 hasty, and because he went outside his province as a 
 scientist. Thomas Henry Huxley, who can scarcely 
 be accused of pro-religious bias, wrote to St. George 
 Mivart, November 12, 1885 :
 
 264 SOCIALISM: PROMISE OR MENACE 
 
 "I gave some attention to the case of Galileo when 
 I was in Italy, and I came to the conclusion that the Pope 
 and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of 
 it." 
 
 It is not accurate to say that Pope Pius IX condemned 
 the Darwinian theory as a "heretic aberration." In 
 the first place, he never pronounced upon it officially; 
 in the second place, his informal criticism of it (in a letter 
 to a French physician) referred mainly to its denial of 
 the Creator. 
 
 Original Darwinism excluded God from the universe, 
 held that the human soul was evolved from matter, and 
 regarded the entire cosmos as the product of chance, 
 through natural selection and the survival of the fittest. 
 Apparently, Mr. Hillquit assumes that this discredited 
 system of philosophical speculation is identical with the 
 scientific theory of evolution. He does not seem to 
 know that, with the exception of a few materialists like 
 Haeckel, scientists of to-day reject the philosophical 
 elements of original Darwinism. 
 
 The other historical assertions of my opponent are 
 about as accurate as the three just criticised. Indeed, 
 Socialist history is no more reliable than Socialist eco- 
 nomics or Socialist science. It is antiquated, inaccurate, 
 and confused. It is based not upon facts and first-hand 
 authorities, but upon prejudice and popularizers. Mr. 
 Hillquit has taken the historical perversions that he 
 presents to us from Andrew D. White's "Warfare of 
 Science with Theology." Despite its pretentious char- 
 acter and its array of references and foot-notes, this 
 work is extremely misleading. It is fundamentally 
 unscientific, because its spirit, as perceived on almost
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 265 
 
 every page, is not the spirit of truth seeking, but of anti- 
 religious bias. 
 
 One or two instances will give some notion of its un- 
 reliability. Dr. White intimates (and in this he is fol- 
 lowed by Mr. Hillquit) that Giordano Bruno was burned 
 at the stake because he propagated the theories of Coper- 
 nicus; but the records of his trial show that he was 
 executed on account of his peculiar theological opinions. 
 He had previously been excommunicated by the Cal- 
 vinists and the Lutherans. The account given by Dr. 
 White of the Church's attitude toward interest taking, 
 and of its consequences, will seem little better than a 
 caricature to any one who is acquainted with the authori- 
 tative works of economic historians, such as Professors 
 Ashley and Cunningham. 
 
 There is, however, one unexceptionable statement 
 in Mr. Hillquit's surrejoinder. He says that "there is 
 little likelihood of a hearty understanding and active 
 cooperation between the Socialist movement and the 
 Catholic Church so long as both remain what they are." 
 How could any man who knows and thinks expect any- 
 thing else? On the one hand, the Socialists will not 
 reject those philosophical, ethical, and religious doctrines 
 which make their system vastly more than an economic 
 theory and programme. On the other hand, the Catholic 
 Church realizes quite clearly the presence, the extent, 
 and the pernicious character of these non-economic ele- 
 ments in the Socialist system and the Socialist movement. 
 As the guardian of faith and morals, she must unceasingly 
 oppose an organization that propagates such false and 
 destructive doctrines.
 
 INDEX 
 
 The references to Mr. Hillquit's chapters are designated by H ; the references 
 to Dr. Ryan's chapters are designated by R. 
 
 Adams, Brooks, R 42 
 
 Adler, Victor, H 6 
 
 American Socialists, and religion, R 194, 
 
 iQS 
 
 American Tobacco Company, R 28 
 Anarchy, industrial, R 27, 32 
 Antagonism of Interests, R 33-35, 106- 
 
 109, I3S, 254 
 Authorities, Socialist, R n 
 
 Bax, Belford, R 148, 189 
 
 Bebel, August, H 6, 8 ; R 143, 148, 149, 
 
 188. 
 Bernstein, Eduard, H 131, 133, 212; 
 
 R 113, 114, 140-142. 
 Blatchford, R., R 189 
 Brandeis, L. D., R 60, 116 
 Bruno, Giordano, H 227; R 265 
 Buffon, George, H 228 
 Bureaucracy, see Liberty, R 
 
 Canal Zone, H 83 
 
 Capital, concentration of, R 112-117, 
 136, 253 ; contribution of to product, 
 109-111; management of under 
 Socialism, 49, 58-62 ; ownership of, 
 39, 41, 42, 107, 115, 136; sources of, 
 53, 54, 139, 140 
 
 Capitalism, arrogance of, R 246, 247 ; 
 breaking down, 41, 42; corrupting 
 influence of, 35-38; morality of, 
 167, 168; development of, H 101 ; 
 rise of, H 70 
 
 Capitalists, number of, R 137 
 
 Capitalist ethics, H 155 
 
 Capitalist system of wealth production, 
 
 HI3 
 
 Capitalist wealth denned, H 93 
 Catholic Church, H 3, 178, 204, 208, 
 209, 241 
 
 Catholic Socialism, H 3 
 "Catholic Telegraph," H 212 
 "Catholic Tribune," H 212 
 Chicago Convention, R 186, 187 
 Christian Socialism, H 3 
 Christianity, and economic conditions, 
 
 R 105, 106, 134, 196, 197 ; and 
 
 Socialism, 216; see Religion, Church 
 Christianity denned, H 202 
 Church, abandonment of by Socialists, 
 
 R 192, 193 ; and capitalism, 36, 37, 
 
 247, 248 ; and science, 263-265 ; 
 
 and Socialist irreligion, 220, 221; 
 
 development of the, H 206 
 Classes and class-struggles, H 19, 96, 
 
 122, 123, 125 
 "Class-struggle," H 92, 129, 131; 
 
 R 106-109, 121, 135, 138, 141, 254; 
 
 see Antagonism of Interests 
 Collective ownership denned, H 72 
 Commons, J. R., R 138 
 Communist Manifesto, R 57, 106, 112 
 Competition, necessity of, R 59, 60, 65 
 Concentration, of capital and wealth, 
 
 R 112-117, 136, 253; see Trusts, 
 
 Monopoly 
 Conduct, moral criterion of, R 145, 
 
 146, 152-154, 169, 170, 171, 260, 
 
 261 
 
 Confiscation, H73; R 52-55, 153, 249 
 Cooperation, R 42, 46, 50, 64, 65 
 Cooperative societies, H 82 
 Copernicus, Nicholas, H 226, 227; 
 
 R 219, 263 
 
 Corruption, political, R 35, 36 
 Crime, see Vice, R 
 Culture, of the masses, R 33 
 
 Darwinism, R 264 
 Despotism, see Liberty, R 
 
 267
 
 268 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Determinism, economic, R 103-106, 
 i2i, 134, 144, 148, 149, 166-169, 
 195-197, 217, 218, 261, 262 
 
 Dewe, Rev. J. A., H 203, 204, 224, 
 225; R 217, 218, 261 
 
 Dietzgen, J., R 143, 188 
 
 Distribution of Wealth, H 17 
 
 Divorce, and love marriages, R 174, 
 257, 258 ; see Marriage 
 
 Divorces in modern society, H 181 
 
 Economic determinism, see Economic 
 
 Interpretation of History, H 
 Economic interpretation of history 
 
 explained, H 90, 99, 122, 129, 131, 
 
 225 ; R, see Determinism 
 Education, and economic conditions, 
 
 R 144; monopoly of, 69, 151, 174, 175 
 Education under Socialism, H 86, 163 
 Ely, R. T., R 29 
 Engels, Frederick, H 6, 7, 8; R n, 103, 
 
 104, 112, 143, 149, 188, 196, 197 
 English Wholesale Cooperative Society, 
 
 H82 
 
 Erfurt Programme, H 199; R 151, 186 
 
 Ethical evolution, H 158 
 
 Ethical Ideal, H 179 
 
 Ethics, see Conduct, Morality, Moral 
 
 law, R 
 Evolution, ethical, R 144, 146, 147, 
 
 170, 171, 257; social, 47, 103, 121, 
 
 2S3-2SS 
 Exaggeration, Socialist, R 27-39, i5, 
 
 106, 134, 246 
 Expediency, as criterion of conduct, 
 
 R 152-154, 175, 176, 259, 260; r&le 
 
 of hi Socialist ethics, H 164, 184, 236 
 
 Faith, see Determinism, Fatalism, 
 Materialism, Science, Utopianism, R 
 
 Family under Capitalism, H 161 ; 
 under Socialism, H 163, 184; see 
 Education, Marriage, Monogamy, R 
 
 Farley, Cardinal John M., H 203 
 
 Farms, ownership of, R 113, 114, 118, 
 136; see Concentration, Land 
 
 Fatalism and Socialism, H 237 ; R 121, 
 135, 141, 253-255; see Determin- 
 ism, Materialism 
 
 Ferri, E., R 189 
 
 Figures of Speech, R 28, 29; see 
 Exaggeration 
 
 Final Ethics, H 179 
 Fourier, Charles, H 98 
 
 Galileo, G., R 263, 264 
 
 Goethals, Col. George, H 83, 84 ; R 61, 
 
 250-252 
 Guesde, Jules, H 6 
 
 Half Truths, R 29-33 ; see Exaggeration 
 Happiness, as criterion of conduct, 
 
 R 152, 169, 171, 260, 261 
 Hardie, J. Keir, H 6 
 Hegel, G. F. W., R 120, 121, 254 
 Herron, G. D., R 143, 189 
 Hillquit, M., RSI, 143, 152 
 History, aprioristic, R22i; Socialist, 
 
 265, 266 ; see Determinism 
 Hourwich, I. A., R 137, 138 
 Hunter, R., R 29 
 Huxley, T. H., R 264 
 Hyndman, H. M., H 6 
 
 Ideal, Socialist, Ri2; see Conduct, 
 Happiness 
 
 Immediate Demands, in Socialist plat- 
 forms, R 44, 45 
 
 Immorality, see Morality, Vice, R 
 
 Incentive under Socialism, H 80 ; R 50- 
 65, 250-252 
 
 Incomes, excessive, R 39, 40, 46 ; see 
 Class Struggle, Concentration 
 
 Increasing Misery, theory of, R 112, 
 "3. 135, 141, 253 ; see Concentration 
 
 Individual Actions, ethics of, R 147, 
 148, 171, 172, 256 
 
 Individual h'berty under Socialism, 
 H 85, 87 
 
 Individual tool, H 70 
 
 Industries, management of under 
 Socialism, H 80 
 
 "Inevitability" of Socialism, H 237 
 
 Instruments of Production, see 
 Capital, R 
 
 Insurance, R 29, 31, 40 
 
 Interest, abolition of, R 46 ; justifica- 
 tion of, 54 ; see Capital 
 
 International Socialism, H 4 ; R 10, 1 2 
 
 International Socialist Bureau, H 4 
 
 Irreligion, of Socialism, R 218-220; of 
 science, 263 
 
 Jaures, Jean, H 6
 
 INDEX 
 
 269 
 
 Kautsky, Karl, H 6, 122, 131, 133, 201, 
 225, 238, 242; R 50, 51, 68, 105, 134, 
 142, 143, 150, 196, 215, 216 
 
 "Labour" as employed in Socialist 
 
 economics defined, H 94; R, see 
 
 Product, Wage Earners 
 Labour Unions, R 40, in, 135 
 Laf argue, Paul, H 6; R 188 
 La Monte, R., R 143, 152, 259 
 Land ownership, Socialist view of, H 
 
 78 
 Land, tenure of under Socialism, R 48, 
 
 49, 56, 57, 249, 250; see Farms 
 Lassalle, Ferdinand, H 6, 7 
 Leaders, Socialist, and religion, R 187- 
 
 190 
 Leadership, industrial under Socialism, 
 
 R 58-62, 250, 251 
 Leatham, J., R 193 
 Leo XIII, Pope, R 55 
 Liberty, loss of under Socialism, R 32, 
 
 47, 58, 66-69, 251, 253; of religious 
 
 practices, R 221, 222 
 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, H 6, 200; R 69, 
 
 187, 216, 222 
 Literature, Socialist, and religion, 
 
 R 190-192 
 
 Loria, Achille, H 122, 242 
 Love-Unions, R 149-151, 172-174, 257, 
 
 258 
 
 Maison du Peuple, H 82 
 
 Manufactures, concentration in, R 1 14, 
 115, "8, 253 
 
 Marriage, and morality, R 257, 258 ; 
 and Socialism, R 148, 151, 172-174, 
 257, 258 
 
 Marshall, A., R 38 
 
 Marx, Karl, H 6, 7, 89, 90, 93, 94, 98, 
 130, 131, 238; R 103, 109, 112, 113, 
 139, 144. 149, 187 
 
 Marxism, fundamentals of, H 88 
 
 Materialism, R 103-105, 121, 143-145, 
 169, 196, 197, 255, 262; see Deter- 
 minism 
 
 Materialist Conception of history, H, 
 see Economic Interpretation of His- 
 tory 
 
 Meade, E. S., R 60, 116 
 
 Middle Ages, R 30, 248 
 
 "Middle Classes," defined, H 99; 
 
 R 112, 113, 137, 253; see Concentra- 
 tion 
 
 Minimum Wage, R 31, 40, 45 
 
 "Monogamy," R 148-150, 172, 173, 
 257 ; defined, H 181 
 
 Monopoly, R 40, 41,' 116, 117; see 
 Concentration, Trusts 
 
 Morality, and economic conditions, 
 R 105, 134, 143, 166-168 ; and Social- 
 ism, R 143-154, 166-176, 255-257; 
 see Conduct, Vice 
 
 Moral Law, R 143, 147, 160-171, 255- 
 257 ; see Conduct 
 
 Movement, Socialist, R 12, 119, 138, 
 139, 197-199. 221-224, 246, 261, 
 263, 265 
 
 Murder, and war, R 166, 167 
 
 Mutability of moral perceptions, H 158, 
 176 
 
 Nature, human, R 38, 42 ; see Incen- 
 tives; rational, as criterion of con- 
 duct, R 145, 146, 169, 171, 172 
 
 Obligation, moral, R 145, 147, 148, 172, 
 
 255, 256 
 Owen, Robert, H 98 
 
 Panama Canal, H 83, 84 
 Pannekoek, Dr. Anton, H 199 
 Pauperization, progressive, H 238 
 Philosophy, Socialist, R 10, 12, 13, 
 
 103-122, 134-142, 173, 244, 255 
 Pius IX, Pope, R 264 
 Platforms, Socialist, R 186, 187 
 Plekhanoff, Georges, H 6 
 Political corruption, H 20 
 Politics, and economic conditions, 
 
 R 105 ; see Corruption 
 Population of United States classified 
 
 by occupations, H 125 
 Poverty, causes of, H 25 ; in United 
 
 States, R 29 
 Prescription, R 55, 249; title by, H 
 
 77 
 
 Press, corruption of, R 36, 37 ; shack- 
 ling of, R 68, 69 
 
 Privilege, and capital, R 31 
 
 Product, of labour, R 109-111; see 
 Capital 
 
 Progres, H 82 
 
 Public grants, ethical aspect of, H 76
 
 270 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Purification of Socialism, R 197-199, 
 223, 261 
 
 Rank and File, of workers under 
 Socialism, R 62-64, 251, 252 
 
 Rauschenbusch, W., R 194, 195 
 
 Reform, social, R 13, 31, 39-42, 44~47, 
 248, 249 
 
 Religion, defined, H 202 ; and economic 
 conditions, R 105, 144 ; and science, 
 H 205, 226; R 217-220; under 
 Socialism, H 213; R 187-198, 218, 
 261, 263 
 
 Revisionism, R 140 
 
 " Revisionistic" Socialism, H 131 
 
 Rights, natural, R 56, 259, 260 
 
 Savings Banks, R 113 
 
 Schools, and capitalism, R 37 
 
 Science, and religion, R 195, 218-220; 
 and Socialism, R 119-121, 253-255 
 
 Shaw, G. Bernard, H 7; R n 
 
 Simkhovitch, V. D., R 120, 134, 138 
 
 Social reform, the limit of, H 43 
 
 Social tool, H 70 
 
 Socialism, defined, H 8, 9, 70; and 
 agnosticism, H 204 ; and the church, 
 H 206 ; and the family, H 161 ; and 
 morality, H 154; and religion, 
 H 199; and religious tolerance, 
 H 210; and social reform, H 43, 234; 
 of the Chair, H 3 
 
 Socialist, authorities, H 5 ; ethics 
 defined, H 154; ideal, H 9; indict- 
 ment, H 14; programme, H 9, 26, 
 72, 99, 157, 232 ; State, H 9, 69, 82, 
 239 ; R 48-69 
 
 Spargo, John, R 49, 151, 153, 175, 189, 
 195, 260 
 
 Standard of Living, R 109, 1 10, 140 
 
 Standard Oil Company, R 28, 52 
 
 State Socialism, H 3 
 
 Streightoff, F. H., R 107, 115, 136; 
 
 H 124, 125 
 "Surplus value," defined, H 95, 122, 
 
 129; R 109, in, 120, 140 
 System, present economic, R 13, 29-35 
 
 Tactics, Socialist, R 186, 187, 216 
 
 Taussig, F. W., R 64, 116 
 
 Taxation, R 41 
 
 Trusts, R 28, 35, 115-117; social 
 effects of, H 1 6, 17; see Concen- 
 tration 
 
 United States Steel Corporation, R 52 
 Utopianism, R47, 121, 135 
 
 Vandervelde, Emile, H 6 ; R 188 
 
 Variable ethics, H 158, 160 
 
 Veblen, T., R 32 
 
 Vice, and economic conditions, R 105, 
 
 134, 144 ; see Morality 
 Violence and Socialism, R 153, 175, 176, 
 
 250 
 Vooruit, H 82 
 
 Wage Earners, R 29-31, 39, 118, 119; 
 
 number of, 137, 138 
 Wages, R 39, 40, 109-112, 140 
 Wallace, Alfred Russel, H 226 
 Walling, W. E., R 49, 52, 57, 190 
 War, and murder, R 166, 167 
 Wealth, distribution of in United 
 
 States, H 124; sources of, H 75 
 White, A. D., R 265 
 Women, and industry, R 173, 174, 258 
 Working Class, increase of, H 101 
 
 Zentral Verein, H 82
 
 T 
 
 HE following pages contain advertisements of 
 books by the same authors or on kindred subjects.
 
 W^here and 
 
 Public Ownership has Failed 
 
 By YVES GUYOT 
 
 Author of " Socialistic Fallacies " 
 
 Editor-in-Chief of the Journal des Rconomistes, President of the Societe 
 D 'Economic Politique of Paris, Member of the American Academy of 
 Political and Social Science, Hon. Member of the Royal Statistical Society 
 and the Cobden Club of Great Britain, Former Vice-president of the 
 Municipal Council of Paris, Deputy to the French Parliament and Minister 
 of Public Works, etc., etc. 
 
 Translated from the French by 
 
 H. F. BAKER 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 net; postpaid, $1.63 
 
 What have state ownership and operations accomplished in the way of 
 tax and other reforms in those cases where they have been tried ? Yves 
 Guyot, statesman, traveler, editor, economist, here answers the questions 
 in perhaps the most exhaustive treatise thus far published upon the subject. 
 
 The author believes that neither states nor municipalities should attempt 
 tasks especially adapted to individual effort ; in the case of those utilities 
 in which the public interest is general, as railways, water, gas, electricity, 
 tramways, etc., there must be a physically and morally responsible body, 
 accountable to the public on the one hand and the service on the other, 
 and protected by contracts against vacillations of public opinion and the 
 extortionate demands of interested groups, whether employees, consumers, 
 or politicians ; for individuals the watchword should be action ; for local 
 and state governments, control. 
 
 A glance at a few of the topics leading to these conclusions is a suffi- 
 cient index of the comprehensive character of the work : Municipal 
 Activity of the United Kingdom, The United States, Germany, Russia, 
 France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden; 
 State Operation of Railroads ; State and Municipal Bookkeeping and 
 Finances ; Private versus Public Initiative ; The Housing of the Working 
 Class ; State and Municipal Extravagance ; Political and Social Conse- 
 quences of a Socialist Program. 
 
 "A book that is going to prove useful in these days of more or less 
 general and thoughtless talk about public ownership." Journal of 
 Commerce. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New Tork
 
 Socialism in Theory and Practice 
 
 By MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 
 Cloth, i2tno, $1.50 net; by mail, $1.63 
 Standard Library Edition, $.50 net 
 
 Mr. Morris Hillquit has received general praise for the moderation and can- 
 dor which characterize his "Socialism in Theory and Practice." The rapid 
 development of socialism in America in the last few years has brought about 
 an imperative need for an authoritative and comprehensive statement of just 
 what the movement means, both as a theory and as a practical political prob- 
 lem. Mr. Hillquit is exceptionally well equipped to satisfy both demands. His 
 writings have already made him known as a serious and thoughtful student ; 
 in his political activities he has proved himself one of the strongest leaders of 
 his party. In his book Mr. Hillquit assumes an attitude so entirely frank, so 
 evidently fair to his opponents, that criticism is disarmed in advance. Social- 
 ists throughout the country have generally accepted it as a textbook of their 
 propaganda, while Mr. Hillquit's clear and lucid presentation of his arguments 
 has appealed with special force to the non-socialist reader. 
 
 " The ' man in the street ' will find this little volume an up-to-date exposition 
 of the Socialism that is alive in the world to-day." Review of Reviews. 
 
 " For the American, Mr. Hillquit's book is the best presentation of the social- 
 ist point of view that has yet appeared." The Economic Review. 
 
 " It can be recommended as a full and sensible statement of the case for 
 socialism ; ... its comprehension and lucidity give it a claim upon every 
 thinking person whose mind on this subject is not itself comprehending and 
 lucid." The Evening Post, Chicago. 
 
 " It merits the praise of being the best presentation of the socialist position 
 that has been published since it reached a stage that calls for more than aca- 
 demic discussion . . . and it has the rare merit of being interesting. It is com- 
 pact and contains information that if sought elsewhere would compel a hunt 
 through a dozen or more volumes." The Brooklyn Eagle. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
 
 By WILLIAM ENGLISH WALLING 
 
 Progressivism and After 
 
 Cloth, ismo, $1.50 net 
 
 This is a book which every thoughtful socialist, social reformer, and those 
 to whom social reform makes any appeal, ought to read. Mr. Walling views 
 social and economic questions as a thinker and student, never merely as a 
 theorist or partisan. In the political events of the last few years Mr. Walling 
 sees much that is significant not only for the present but for the future. What 
 the progress of affairs in the next generation is to be he outlines in this work 
 in a fashion that is as convincing as it is unusual from the socialistic stand- 
 point. Of particular interest are his analyses of President Wilson, Colonel 
 Roosevelt, and other prominent leaders, while his description of that which has 
 been and that which is to come is trenchant and keen. Whether one agrees 
 with his predictions or not, the force and clearness with which the issues are 
 indicated distinguish the volume for all kinds of readers. 
 
 The Larger Aspects of Socialism 
 
 Cloth, $1.50 net; postpaid, $1.63 
 
 "Your two books, together and separately, constitute the supreme English 
 contribution to Socialism." Professor George D. Herron. 
 
 " The author has earned a right to a front-rank place among the American 
 Socialist ' intellectuals.' ... A clear-sighted observer, and a reporter honest 
 with himself and the public." The Nation, 
 
 Socialism As It Is 
 
 A Survey of the World-wide Revolutionary Movement 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $2.00 net; postpaid, $2.12 
 * Standard Library Edition, $1.50 net 
 
 A NEW DEPARTURE IN SOCIALIST BOOKS 
 
 " Can be most highly recommended as a sane and clear exposition and is not 
 a rehash of the various volumes that have been already published on the sub- 
 ject, but is a contribution from a distinct and new point of view." The New 
 York Times. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
 
 A Living ff^age, 
 
 Its Ethical and Economic Aspects 
 
 By JOHN A. RYAN, S.T.L. 
 
 Professor of Ethics and Economics in St. Paul's Seminary. 
 
 Cloth, i2tno, $1.00 net; Standard Library Edition, $.50 
 
 u Father Ryan's work on the Living Wage is perhaps the best exposi- 
 tion of the labor phase of the social problem. It has taken its place on 
 the shelves of public and private libraries beside other standard works, 
 while the name of the author is associated with the leading American 
 sociologists. 
 
 " The volume is prefaced by an introduction by Professor Richard T. Ely, 
 the noted American economist. As the title indicates, the subject is not 
 merely treated from an economic point of view, but also in its economic 
 aspects a course of procedure that is somewhat of a departure from pre- 
 vailing discussions of economic subjects. There is a tendency to treat 
 political economy as a subject related to mathematics. Statistics and 
 axioms are the predominating features. However, the science of political 
 economy cannot disregard the origin and destiny of man. 
 
 " 'The Living Wage ' is based on the principles of Christian philosophy. 
 Its logic proceeds from the Christian conception of the dignity of man. 
 Father Ryan's book is thus a most timely and necessary contribution to 
 sociological literature. That 'The Living Wage' has met the popularity 
 that it has, is evidence of the growing conviction that the social problem 
 cannot be solved except on Christian principles." Common Cause. 
 
 " It is refreshing to pick up a book by Dr. Ryan, who is always so sane 
 and so convincing." North Western Chronicle. 
 
 "The book is considered the best presentation of Catholic economic 
 thought at the disposal of the general reader." Albany Times-Union. 
 
 " That this economic study by Father Ryan is a solid work is evidenced 
 by the fact that it was first published in 1906, and was reprinted in 1908, 
 1910, and 1912. . . . Instead of appeals to sentiment or glittering gener- 
 alities, Professor Ryan offers seasoned arguments and precise doctrine." 
 Portland Evening Telegram. 
 
 "The most judicious and balanced discussion at the disposal of the 
 general reader." World To-day. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New Tork
 
 The Theory of Social Revolutions 
 
 By BROOKS ADAMS 
 
 Author of " The Law of Civilization and Decay," " The New Empire," etc. 
 
 Cloth, izmo, $1.25 net 
 " A remarkable work." The Argonaut. 
 
 " A cleverly written book by a clever man. The argument is that the 
 existing social system will soon be changed and that the courts have be- 
 come political and not judicial." Pittsburgh Post. 
 
 "No one interested in either history or politics can afford to neglect 
 Mr. Adams' views." Newark Evening News. 
 
 "... no more fascinating study of a topic so grave is often printed." 
 New York World. 
 
 "... there has not appeared in recent years so calm and determined 
 an attack upon judicial legislation." La Follettis Magazine. 
 
 " A very stimulating study." Review of Reviews. 
 
 Labor and Administration 
 
 By JOHN R. COMMONS 
 
 Professor of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin 
 
 Cloth, I2tno, $1.60 net 
 
 The history of labor laws and strikes has this in common to both laws 
 become dead letters ; the victories of strikes are nibbled away. Some 
 philosophers fall back on the individual's moral character. Little, they 
 think, can be done by law or unions. There are others who inquire how 
 to draft and enforce the laws, how to keep the winnings of strikes in 
 short, how to connect ideals with efficiency. 
 
 These are the awakening questions of the past decade, and the subject 
 of this book. Here is a field for the student and economist not the 
 " friend of labor " who paints an abstract workingman, but the utilitarian 
 idealist, who sees them all as they are ; not the curious collector of facts 
 and statistics, but the one who measures the facts and builds them into a 
 foundation and structure. His constructive problem is not so much the 
 law and its abstract rights, as administration and its concrete results. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New Tork
 
 American Syndicalism --The I. ff^. 
 
 By JOHN GRAHAM BROOKS 
 Author of "As Others See Us," "The Social Unrest," etc. 
 
 Cloth, $1.25 net; postpaid, $1.36 
 
 " Mr. Brooks's book is a careful, sympathetic, and critical study of Amer- 
 ican syndicalism as represented in the order named the Industrial Workers 
 of World. 
 
 "The theory, or 'philosophy,' of this syndicalism is given, a review made of 
 the practical experiences of the movement as it has expressed itself here in 
 the last few years, and a view sought of its possible destinies in the United 
 States. Mr. Brooks says : 
 
 " ' In it and through it is something as sacred as the best of the great dream- 
 ers have ever brought us. In the total of this movement, the deeper, inner 
 fact seems to be its nearness to and sympathy with that most heavy laden and 
 long enduring mass of common toilers. Alike to our peril and to our loss 
 shall we ignore this fact'" New York Tribune. 
 
 The Social Unrest 
 
 Studies in Labor and Social Movements 
 
 By JOHN GRAHAM BROOKS 
 
 Cloth, I2tno, 394 pages, $1.50 net 
 
 "The author, Mr. John Graham Brooks, takes up and discusses, through 
 nearly four hundred pages, the economic significance of the social questions 
 of the hour, the master passions at work among us, men versus machinery, 
 and the solution of our present ills in a better concurrence than at present ex- 
 ists an organization whereby every advantage of cheaper service and cheaper 
 product shall go direct to the whole body of the people. . . . Nothing upon 
 his subject so comprehensive and at the same time popular in treatment as 
 this book has been issued in our country. It is a volume with live knowledge 
 
 not only for workman but for capitalist, and the student of the body politic 
 
 for every one who lives and who does not ? upon the product of 
 labor." The Outlook. 
 
 Mr. Bliss Perry, the editor of The Atlantic Monthly, says of it : "A fascinat- 
 ing book to me the clearest, sanest, most helpful discussion of economic and 
 human problems I have read for years." 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 708 664 8